U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

23–485 PDF 2017

VACANT FEDERAL PROPERTIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 

Serial No. 114–116 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Massachusetts 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

MICHAEL DING, Counsel 

WILLIE MARX, Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC ASSETS

JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 23, 2016 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. David Mader, Controller, Office of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Mr. David Wise, Director of Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Mr. Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public buildings Service, General 

Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

The Hon. Gregory Parham, Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

APPENDIX 

Written Statement from Ranking Member Duckworth, Entered by Chairman 

Mica ....................................................................................................................... 62 

Proposed Legislation by Representative Jeff Denham, Entered by Representative Glenn Grothman ........................................................................................... 64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

VACANT FEDERAL PROPERTIES 

Friday, September 23, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC

ASSETS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mica, Massie, Grothman, and 

DeSaulnier. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. Thank you for being with us. 

I call the hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

hearing to order this morning. I’m Congressman John Mica. I’m 

pleased to welcome you. 

And, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess 

at any time. 

We’ll of course let you know that the House did adjourn last 

night, so we have a limited number of members. But I chose, rather than to delay the hearing, to go forward, and I think we can 

have a very constructive exchange with the witnesses that are here 

and the members that will be able to attend. Some will come and 

go because there are other hearings scheduled today, even with the 

House in recess. 

I want to also state that the order of business will be opening 

statements from members, I will start with mine, we’ll recognize 

someone from the ranking side, and other members. We’ll also 

leave the record open for 5 legislative days for any member who’d 

like to submit a written statement. And we’ll also have the opportunity to submit to witnesses questions, which will be made part 

of the record. 

The additional order of business will be then hearing from all of 

our four witnesses, and after we’ve heard from our witnesses we 

will go to questioning. So that’s the order in which we’ll proceed 

today. 

And, again, I welcome everyone. 

The title of today’s hearing deals with ‘‘Vacant Federal Properties,’’ and that’s been the subject of a lot of my interest since 

coming to Congress. I’m a former smaller-time real estate developer 

in business. And when I came to Washington, I saw the opportunity to work with the Federal Government and its various agencies, because the Federal Government and the American public are 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

actually the largest property owners of anyone in the world. And 

part of our basic tenets as Americans is private property ownership, and, as a government, we have to be good custodians of the 

property and assets that we hold in trust. 

The purpose of today’s hearing, of course, is that we still have, 

even with some past efforts, a huge inventory of property, Federal 

property. Some of it we don’t even know the complete inventory. 

And we have thousands of buildings, not under GSA—and we’ll 

hear from them and also USDA today—but we have many, many 

agencies—DOD, post office. We have countless numbers of vacant 

Federal properties or underutilized properties and buildings. 

It’s estimated that the inventory of some 270,000 buildings had total operating costs exceeding $18.7 billion. And agencies reported 

an inventory of over 7,000 underutilized buildings and properties. 

I think that’s, though, just the tip of the iceberg; it’s even further 

than that. 

About 6 years ago now, I helped produce a report looking at this 

issue, and the title of the report is the Federal Government must 

stop sitting on its assets, or ‘‘Sitting on Our Assets: The Federal 

Government’s Misuse of Taxpayer-Owned Assets.’’ And, in the report, which I helped to publish as the ranking member of the 

Transportation Committee—and they have authority over some of 

the public assets and buildings—we actually highlighted a number 

of properties that were vacant. We’ll talk a little bit about some of 

those. 

In that capacity, I also held a number of hearings, along with 

Mr. Denham. And he helped me, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings—Economic Development, Public 

Buildings, and Emergency Management was the title. And we held 

hearings in different locations to highlight, again, some of the 

issues that we faced with specific properties. 

On the 25th of April, 2013, I held a hearing as the chairman of 

the Government Operations Subcommittee of this full committee, 

and we held that down the street in an empty warehouse located 

at 49 L Street, Southeast, in Washington, D.C. There’s a picture of 

that on the screen. 

At that hearing, the GSA official who testified is Mr. Gelber, who 

is here again today, and he told the committee, from his testimony, 

‘‘Given the high real estate value and rate of growth of the surrounding Capitol Riverfront neighborhood, the 49 L Street property 

presents us with many potential opportunities to find a better use.’’ 

That’s his quote at that hearing. 

Unfortunately, I’m disappointed to say that GSA did not declare 

the property excess until 2015, and, unfortunately, the warehouse, 

we found, is still vacant to this day. So, while we’ve made some 

progress, that’s not one of our stellular examples. 

The Cotton Exchange, which is down the street, a huge swath of 

property that goes from the Mall all the way out to 395, that very 

valuable property, just the Cotton Exchange, we held a hearing 

there in the vacant building, which has been vacant for years, and 

some of the adjacent property. That property we finally got, I think 

last year, some decision to move forward, and I’m pleased to hear 

that, but we have one of the most valuable assets in property in 

our Nation’s capital still vacant. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

You may hear some of this from GSA, but we have had some successes and better luck in getting the Federal Government to act on 

some other buildings. 

Let me say, when I started this, I looked a lot at Washington, 

D.C., our Nation’s capital, but I also looked—several years ago, we 

took a subcommittee down to NASA, to Cape Canaveral, which is 

in my own backyard. I’m in central Florida. We held a hearing 

there. And there are hundreds of buildings, about half of them vacant—177,000 acres, five times the size of Manhattan, much of it 

underutilized. The space program, which has been diminished as 

far as Federal participation, a lot of those assets sitting idle, buildings sitting empty. 

I will report, that 177,000 acres, and next to it 16,000 acres, 

which is owned by the Air Force, just adjacent to it, we are struggling but we are making some progress with either finding uses for 

the build, tearing some of them down that are expensive to maintain, or looking at additional ways we can utilize those valuable assets for the taxpayers. So that’s a little bit of good news on that 

side. 

In June, I held a hearing—of 2012, I held a hearing in the Heating Plant in Georgetown, which had been vacant since 2000, costing taxpayers millions of dollars to maintain, empty over more 

than a decade in 2013. In fact, when we arrived to conduct the 

hearing in the empty building, there was a ‘‘for sale’’ sign that had 

been put up on the top floor of the building. We asked the witnesses from GSA at the time when they started their marketing 

plan, and they had told us ‘‘yesterday,’’ which was the day before 

the hearing, they put the sign up. 

So that did go online; that sold to developers for $19 million. And 

I’m told that property has plans now from the private sector to create a substantial development which will employ people and utilize 

the property and also pay taxes. 

In March 2013, we held a field hearing in—well, actually, I held 

one in the empty Dyer Courthouse, which actually had been vacant 

since 2007 when they opened the adjacent new Federal courthouse. 

After that hearing—and it was costing us $1.2 million a year to 

maintain vacant—I was contacted by the president of Miami-Dade 

Community College, which is across the street. It’s like from Rayburn to Longworth buildings, that distance. He had said he had 

contacted GSA and attempted to find some information on how 

they could obtain that and use it for classrooms and a judicial center. 

Nothing happened, so I went down and we held another hearing 

at the community college to highlight the empty building. That 

goes back, again, a number of years. And I’m pleased to say that 

just within the last few months, actually in May, we completed a 

negotiation. We’ve transferred over the property to Miami-Dade. It 

will be the center of judicial studies and architecture. 

It’s a historic, beautiful building in the center of downtown 

Miami. There’s a picture of it there. It has a coquina, which is very 

rare stone, facade. But a magnificent building that we let go into 

some disrepair will now have a use. But it sat vacant for many, 

many, many years, costing millions and millions. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Another success story that we’ve had and also highlighted—the 

last two were highlighted here in this ‘‘Sitting on Our Assets’’—is 

the Old Post Office. And we conducted a hearing. It was 32 degrees 

outside. And in the vacant 15,000-square-foot annex behind the 

post office, we conducted a hearing in 38-degree weather. Made a 

few of the bureaucrats and our staff shiver. But, also, we were losing up to $6 million a year. 

The Old Post Office main structure was built in the late 1800s, 

and it had 400,000 square feet—a magnificent structure just two 

blocks from the White House. And of the 400,000 square feet, half 

of it was empty. And we were losing between $6 million and $8 

million a year on that project. Last week, they had the soft opening, and they will open, I think, next month. I’m going next week 

to view it. It is now the Trump Hotel. 

There was a—actually, we went down a year later and held a 

second hearing in the annex again, which will now be the largest 

ballroom, I’m told—I’m sorry, banquet room east of the Mississippi 

River. The project will employ hundreds and hundreds of people, 

millions in tax revenue and, actually, revenue to the Federal Government, rather than losses. An incredible example. 

GSA came and testified earlier that the project was ahead of 

schedule and under budget. So we can take properties like that and 

turn them around for the taxpayer and make a big difference. 

Finally today, we’ve invited the Department of Agriculture to our 

hearing. They’ll tell us they’re good about disposing some of their 

excess property, but, unfortunately, some of the data they provided 

us shows that their annual operating costs for building uses has increased 95 percent from fiscal year 2014 to 2015. And they were 

unable to provide us with an explanation. We’d like to hear that 

today. 

USDA also holds on to poorly utilized properties in prime real estate locations. We have—we can put up the map. One of the biggest properties that USDA has is the Agricultural Research Center 

in Maryland, just not too many miles from here, and they have 

6,500 acres. I think that—we pointed out that’s the size of the city 

of Key West. 

One of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the Capital Beltway area, of which—and just a few minutes ago staff handed me— 

if we can find the figures. There are only 113 utilized buildings on 

the property, a total of 379 vacant properties. So that’s not a very 

good record. 

Some of those are small structures. I’ve been out there. There are 

some chicken coops and pigpens and other things that were used 

years ago. There are also office buildings that are vacant, with the 

windows broken out and vines growing over them. It’s not a pretty 

sight. It’s not the way we should handle a valuable public asset. 

So we’ll look at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. We 

have 200 of these research centers, some that date back, I believe, 

to the 1820s, across the country—that’s just one example—who had 

a different role than they have today. And while the Department 

of Agriculture serves a good purpose, we need to revisit the vacant 

properties and valuable assets that they hold, maybe don’t maintain well. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

With that, I’d recognize any other members for opening statements. 

Mr. Grothman? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yeah, I’d just like to thank the subcommittee 

chair for holding this hearing. And I hope, at the end, we do something about expediting the disposal of this excess property. I mean, 

obviously, it’s not just a matter of the Federal Government is broke 

and we could make some money if we sold some of this property, 

but even maintaining the property is wildly expensive. 

I know back in Wisconsin we have a local governmental authority that’s been owning all sorts of excess property, and very frustrating because it’s just a waste of taxpayers’ money. And I hope, 

by the time we’re done, maybe not this session but early next session, we can flip this stuff around and clear it out. 

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield? 

I’ll also say that, working with both Chairman Chaffetz, who had 

a bill previously, Mr. Denham from California, who chaired the 

Public Buildings Subcommittee, and others, there is legislation 

pending that would not only require an inventory but an accounting and then action, an evaluation of the property and then action—independent evaluation, then action to make certain that we 

use to the maximum the value of those assets. 

So Mr. Denham isn’t here, but I’d like to—maybe you could request a copy of his legislation, and Mr. Chaffetz, be put in the 

record at this point. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I’ll request them. 

Mr. MICA. So ordered. 

Mr. MICA. At least we’ll have that in the record. Thank you, Mr. 

Vice Chairman. 

Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. Yes. My interest in this is because we just recently 

received some really devastating news, that the IRS plans to move 

2,000 jobs out of the biggest city in our district. And, you know, 

we’ve got 3 years to react to that. Hopefully, the IRS would find 

some other use for the facility, because they don’t intend to reduce 

the number of employees overall. 

But I have this dread that I’m going to be here in 3 years if— 

for instance, if the IRS doesn’t find another use for the facility, my 

concern is that we would add insult to injury, because this sprawling, single-story structure that’s right in the middle of our downtown, in some of the most valuable real estate, might get tied up 

indefinitely. And that really would add insult to injury. 

So I’m trying to work forward to that point when the IRS—hopefully they stay, hopefully they find another use for this facility. But 

if they don’t, what we need to make sure of is it doesn’t end up 

like some of this real estate that Chairman Mica has identified in 

Florida and here in Washington, D.C. 

So I want to thank the chairman for looking into this. I think 

it’s a great topic. And I want to thank the witnesses for being here 

today to help us figure out how, when government does change— 

sometimes it doesn’t change fast enough, but when it does change 

and it finds out how to operate more efficiently, that we make sure 

that we don’t tie up these properties and keep them from the private sector, keep them from some other higher use. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

But, anyway, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today 

and thank the chairman and the vice chairman. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and we’ll work with you. That 

could be devastating, and you want to turn that property around 

to its best use if you are hit with such a turndown by the agency. 

I thank the members. And, as I said, we’ll leave the record open 

for 5 legislative days for members who’d like to submit a written 

statement. And I’ll ask unanimous consent, if the minority does not 

appear today, to have their statement put at this point in the 

record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MICA. We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses and thank 

them for participating. 

I’m pleased to welcome the Honorable David Mader, and he is 

Controller of the Office of Management and Budget; the Honorable 

Gregory Parham. Mr. Parham is the Assistant Secretary for Administration at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Michael Gelber, 

he’s the Deputy Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at 

the General Services Administration; and Mr. David Wise, Director 

of Physical Infrastructure at the Government Accountability Office. 

I’d like to welcome all of our witnesses. Some of you have been 

here before; some of you may be new. This is an investigations and 

oversight subcommittee of Congress. If you’ll stand, we’ll swear you 

in. 

Raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give before this committee and subcommittee of Congress is the 

whole truth and nothing but the truth? 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Again, thank you. 

Now, the ones who have been here before know we try to limit 

your opening statement to 5 minutes, if you have additional data, 

information, or a statement that you’d like to be made part of the 

record, just a request through the chair or one of the members. 

We’d be glad to accommodate you. 

With that, we’ll recognize our witness from the OMB. 

Thank you for being with us. You are recognized, sir. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID MADER 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Chairman Mica and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity today to testify and update this subcommittee on the changes that we are implementing to improve the 

government’s real property management and disposal program. 

Since my hearing in 2014 with the chairman, we’ve made significant progress in reducing the Federal footprint and institutionalizing a real property management program across the government. 

Today, I will update you on the status of two important administration initiatives that have improved the efficiency of the government’s real property portfolio. 

OMB began its efforts with the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy initiative in fiscal year ’12, and it was in effect between fiscal year 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

’13 and ’15. The objective of that policy at the time was to freeze 

agencies’ office and warehouse portfolios to ensure that the government’s portfolio did not increase. 

I’m pleased to report that the administration, thus far, has exceeded its goal of freezing the footprint. In fact, we have reduced 

the government-wide-portfolio by 24.7 million square feet from fiscal year ’13 to ’15, which represents a 3.3-percent reduction from 

the baseline that we established in fiscal year ’12. We estimate that the government will avoid $300 million in rent 

and operation and maintenance costs as a result of this initiative. 

Just to sort of give members an idea of what 24.7 million square 

feet looks like, think about 3.8 Pentagons. That’s what we’ve saved 

between fiscal year ’13 and fiscal year ’15. 

Second, while the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy was still underway, we recognized the need to institutionalize a lasting strategic 

real property management program for the Federal Government. In 

March of 2015, OMB released the ‘‘National Strategy for Efficient 

Use of Real Property’’ and its companion ‘‘Reduce the Footprint’’ 

policy that covers all CFO Act agencies. So, basically, this is all civilian agencies and the Department of Defense. The national strategy institutionalized a government-wide goal to right-size our Federal real property portfolio by defining the strategic framework 

which agencies will use to manage their portfolio from here forward. 

To implement this strategy, OMB issued the ‘‘Reduce the Footprint’’ policy to provide agencies specific performance goals and 

measures. The policy, which was effective in fiscal year ’16, requires agencies to implement a 5-year rolling planning process that 

sets annual square foot reduction targets. It prioritizes disposal of 

unneeded and inefficiently used properties by requiring agencies to 

set annual square foot disposal targets for all buildings types. 

The reduction targets function as an agency performance measure, and, when combined with some additional benchmarking that 

we’ve been doing over the last couple years, we now have 3 years 

of data going forward to start holding agencies accountable for 

their reduction plans. These performance measures for fiscal year 

’16 have resulted in a goal of reducing another 8 million square 

feet of space in the current fiscal year. 

The policy also creates a portfolio analysis process by which 

agencies, with the support of GSA, will analyze underutilized and 

unutilized properties. The 5-year goal for the fiscal year ’16 

through ’20 plan is to reduce another 61 million square feet of office and warehouse space. 

With regard to property disposal, the government-wide program 

has achieved solid results over the last 2 fiscal years, and my colleagues from GSA will address that in more detail. 

We appreciate the support from Congress for the legislative solutions that permit agency retention for the sale proceeds for reinvestment in additional disposals, provide expanded authority for 

GSA to support agencies’ work to prepare properties for the declaration of excess, and to offer relief for some aspects of the current 

disposal process. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, this speaks to a lot of the comments 

that you made in your opening comment. We can do so much adVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\23485.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

ministratively. And I think the bills from Chairman Chaffetz, from 

Chairman Denham—and I have been personally working with the 

House and Senate in trying to get both chambers to agree on some 

kind of legislation to move forward. 

In addition to the legislative solutions, we must invest to make 

the necessary reconfigurations, relocations, and disposals that will 

result in future cost avoidance. While we’ve made good progress, 

significant efficiency opportunities remain to be realized. 

One significant challenge has been the historically low levels of 

funding appropriated to the Federal Building Fund since fiscal year 

’11. Between fiscal year ’11 and fiscal year ’15, the Congress underfunded the Federal Building Fund by more than $5 billion. This 

has prohibited GSA from making necessary repairs to Federal 

buildings and delayed the construction of critical new Federal facilities. 

The President’s ’17 budget would restore GSA’s authority to fully 

utilize incoming rent funds to construct new facilities, such as a 

consolidated Department of Homeland Security headquarters, as 

well as maintain the existing GSA Federal buildings that need 

major renovations and basic repairs. We ask the Congress to continue to support GSA’s capital program and the critical projects 

that are identified in the fiscal year ’17 President’s budget, including a $100 million request for GSA’s consolidation fund. 

We look forward to working with the Congress on legislation and 

funding in fiscal year ’17 and beyond that will enable us to make 

even greater progress and accelerate our mutual interest of the reducing the underutilized and unutilized property. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mader follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 23485.001

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

www. whitehouse.gov/omb 

Testimony of David Mader 

Controller, Office of Management and Budget 

before the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

September 23,2016 

Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for the invitation to testify and update lhe Subcommittee on the changes we are 

implementing to improve lhe government's real property management capability and our work to dispose 

of excess and unutilized properties. I appreciate the opportunity to return to this Committee and 

discuss how we arc right-sizing the Federal real property portfolio. Since my 2014 hearing on real 

property, we have made significant reductions to our Federal footprint and have institutionalized 

rigorous real property management. Today, I will first update you on the status of two important 

Administration initiatives that have improved the efficiency of the government's portfolio before 

updating you on lhe progress the Administration has made to dispose of unneeded properties and 

its ongoing work to improve the timely disposal of such assets. 

The Administration's focus to right-size the government-wide portfolio targets properties 

that are unneeded for a given agency's mission; our goal is to complete the administrative disposal 

process to verify the property is surplus to the needs of the government as a whole so it can be 

moved to the "surplus" category and disposed. 1 

To execute lhis overarching management initiative to align our Federal real property to 

what the government needs to serve the taxpayers, OMB began its efforts in Fiscal Year (FY) 

2012 with 1he "Freeze the Footprint" (FTF) policy initiative, which was in effect from FY 2012 

through FY 2015. The objective of the FTF policy was to freeze growth in agencies' office and 

warehouse portfolios, so that the government's portfolio did not increase. I am pleased to report 

that the Administration far exceeded its goal, as we reduced the agencies' portfolios by 24.7 

million square feet (SF) in these asset categories from FY 2012- FY 2015, a 3.3% reduction from 

FY 2012's 730 million SF office and warehouse baseline. We estimate that the governn1ent will 

avoid $300 million of rent and operations and maintenance costs annually, from FY 2016 onward, 

due to lhis 24.7 million SF reduction. This is a significant accomplishment because the 

government has, for the first time, reduced high cost space through a multiyear initiative and 

generated significant cost avoidance for lhe governn1ent. 

While the FTF policy was still underway, we recognized the need to institutionalize a 

lasting strategic approach for government-wide real property management. In March 2015, 

1 It is important to note that "underutilized" properties are not generally considered priority candidates for disposal, as 

these properties generally are needed to meet agency mission requirements even though they are used on an 

intermittent basis. For example, a Park Service ranger station may be closed for the winter, or an agency training 

facility may not be used every week of the year, but these assets are needed to implement the agency mission. 

1 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 23485.002

OMB released the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property (National Strategy) 

and its companion "Reduce the Footprint" (RTF) policy. The National Strategy institutionalizes 

the government-wide goal to right-size our Federal property portfolio by defining the strategic 

framework agencies will use to manage their portfolios for efficiency gains. The framework 

freezes growth in the inventory, measures performance, identifies opportunities to improve 

efficiency and data quality to support data driven decision-making, and ultimately reduces the 

size of the inventory by prioritizing actions to consolidate, co-locate, and dispose of properties. 

These three steps provide the context within which all civilian agencies and the Department of 

Defense will manage their real property. Currently, the framework is improving the utilization of 

government owned buildings, lowering the number of excess and underutilized properties, and 

enhancing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the portfolio. The National Strategy will 

institutionalize our objectives to reduce the government-wide portfolio and manage properties as 

efficiently as possible. 

To implement the National Strategy, OMB issued the RTF policy to provide a robust set of 

agency specific performance measures. The RTF policy requires Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 

Act agencies to implement a five year, rolling planning process that sets annual SF reduction 

targets to reduce their real property portfolios. It prioritizes the disposal of unneeded and 

inefficiently used properties by requiring agencies to set annual square foot reduction targets. The 

RTF reduction targets function as agency performance measures; when combined with the FY 

2014 benchmarking metrics2 developed under the President's Management Agenda, the 

government has a three year set of accountable performance measures to drive portfolio-wide 

efficiency improvements and property disposals. These performance measures helped agencies 

target a net portfolio reduction goal of over 8 million SF in FY 2016. The RTF promotes 

efficiency in the acquisition of owned and leased office space by requiring agencies to issue an 

agency-specific office space design standard and to use this standard to design all new office space 

for efficiency improvement. This requirement is now in place, and it will enhance portfolio 

efficiency as properties are disposed and replaced. 

The RTF policy also creates a portfolio analysis process by which agencies, with the 

support of the General Services Administration (GSA), will analyze underutilized and unutilized 

properties. The annual portfolio analysis agencies use to set their annual reduction targets will 

help agencies determine which underutilized or unutilized properties can be declared excess and 

moved toward sale, public benefit conveyance, or demolition and identify mechanisms to reduce 

and right-size their portfolios. In this way, the RTF policy will help reduce the number of 

underutilized and unutilized properties across the F cderal government 

With regard to property disposal, tlris government-wide program has achieved solid 

results the last two tiscal years. In FY 2014, disposal of all domestic owned building types, 

including the FTF reductions, totaled 7,300 buildings and 47 million SF. These disposals 

reduced annual operation and maintenance costs by approximately $17 million. In FY 2015, the 

disposal of all domestic owned building types, including the FTF reductions, totaled 4,900 

buildings and 24.8 million SF, with a $47 million reduction to annual operation and maintenance 

costs. These reductions were partially offset by the govemment's need to replace obsolete 

buildings and acquire new assets to support agency mission requirements. In the last two years -

FY 2014 and FY 2015- we have achieved a reduction total of over 12,000 buildings, 71.8 

2 See this link for a summary: https:llwww.perfonnancc.govlnodc/3397/vicw·'view'"PUblic 

2 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 23485.003

million SF of space, and a $64 million reduction in annual operation and maintenance cost. This 

demonstrates that the government has a robust disposal capability that it aggressively exercises 

across all building types. 

At our last hearing we discussed a subset of high profile properties on the excess and 

surplus property lists, and we are aggressively pursuing their disposal. 

To accelerate the pace and scope of disposals, we have developed new management tools 

within the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) to help agencies identify, target, and priolitize 

efficiency opportunities. We have now fully implemented data dliven decision-making tools that 

provide detailed data on these properties' annual cost, location, and size, among other data 

elements, i!l a structured format that leverages multiple real property databases and fully supports 

the ability of agency management teams to identify these properties and to plimitize them for 

action. These tools enable agencies to use their data to calculate performance metrics, assess 

progress, and manage their disposal programs, all of which are powerful incentives for them to 

improve FRPP data quality as they dispose of more property. As our ongoing work to right-size 

the government-wide portfolio progresses, we will add properties to the disposal list as 

consolidation and collocation projects are identified and implemented. 

We have appreciated the support from the Congress as we ushered in a new era of strategic 

Federal real property management. We believe that with a continued partnership with the 

Congress, we can increase the pace and number of properties disposed by modifying existing 

statutes to accelerate the disposal process through sale, demolition, and public benefit conveyance. 

Specifically, the Administration supports legislative solutions that pe1mit agency retention of some 

sale proceeds for reinvestment in additional disposals, provide expanded autholity for GSA to 

support agencies' work to prepare properties for a declaration of"excess," and offer relief from 

some aspects of the current disposal process. These changes could provide an important boost to 

agencies' disposal programs and achieve improved results for the taxpayer. We appreciate the 

opportunity to work with this Congress on such legislative modifications that support increased 

property disposal moving fmward. We hope our work will help to provide the needed legislative 

relief and authorities that will save taxpayer dollars. 

In addition to legislative solutions that can drive even more efficient real property 

management, we must invest to make the necessary reconfigurations, relocations, and disposals 

that will result in cost avoidance in future years. While we have made good progress, significant 

efficiency opportunities remain to be realized. One significant challenge has been the historically 

low levels of funding appropliated to the Federal Buildings Fund since FY 2011. In FY 2011 

through FY 2015, Congress underfunded the Federal Buildings Fund by more than $5 billion. 

This has prohibited GSA from making necessary repairs to Federal buildings and delayed the 

construction of critical, new Federal facilities. We appreciate Congress' action to fully fund the 

Federal Buildmgs Fund in FY 2016, restoring the capital program. The President's FY 2017 

Budget again restores GSA's authority to fully use incoming rent collections to construct new 

facilities, such as the new FBI Headquarters and the consolidated Department of Homeland 

Seculity Headquarters at St Elizabeths, as well as maintain existing GSA Federal buildings that 

need major renovations and basic repairs. W c anticipate that tl1e Congress will continue to support 

the GSA capital program and clitical projects in FY 2017, including the $!00 million request for 

GSA's consolidation fund. GSA is leading the Federal effort to both invest in Federal facilities 

3 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 23485.004

and consolidate space to reduce costs and optimize efficiency, saving tens of millions in annual 

lease costs. As I've mentioned previously, and it is important to note, recent funding levels for 

GSA and other Federal landholding agencies have led to both facility deterioration as well as 

missed opportunities to consolidate and reduce operating costs. Fully funding the President's FY 

2017 request for the GSA consolidation program, for example, will accelerate the government's 

realization of cost reduction. 

Moving forward, we will continue to use available resources as effectively as possible to 

enhance agencies· capability to implement the National Strategy and RTF policy. This requires 

making prudent business decisions and making tradeoffs among priorities to improve efficiency. 

As stated above, this includes the implementation of new management tools within the FRPP to 

help agencies target and prioritize efficiency opportunities and improvement ofFRPP data quality. 

GSA is also continuously working with agencies to improve the quality of agencies' FRPP data by 

developing new mandatory data validation and verification procedures to validate the accuracy of 

key FRPP data elements. Agencies will implement the data validation and verification procedures 

in December 2016, and then report on how they addressed each data anomaly identified by GSA's 

data analysis tool. The collaborative work that GSA and OMB have executed further 

demonstrates our strong working relationship and strategic partnership to improve portfolio 

efficiency. 

In developing our overall approach for improving the government-wide program we have 

enjoyed open and fruitful discussion with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). We 

appreciate GAO's continued dialogue and focus on real property and its willingness to collaborate 

as we strive to meet our mutual goal of removing the high risk designation from the Federal real 

property program. The most recent GAO High Risk report acknowledged the increased activity 

and leadership by OMB in this area. Our goals continue to be to improve the efficiency of the 

government-wide program to benefit the taxpayer and to exit GAO's high risk list. This 

Administration has constructed a solid foundation to attain both of these goals. 

We look forward to working with the Congress on legislation that will enable us to make 

even greater progress improving the efficiency of the government-wide portfolio and accelerating 

the pace of property disposals over the next few years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

4 
13 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And I think I’m going to go to Mr. Gelber—wait, wait, wait. I’ve 

got the two oversight. We’ll go to the oversight, Mr. Wise, and then 

we’ll go back to GSA, and then we’ll get you last, Mr. Parham. 

Okay. Mr. Wise, you’re recognized, from GAO. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WISE 

Mr. WISE. Chairman Mica and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the management of excess and underutilized Federal real property. In 2003, 

we added Federal real priority to our biennial High-Risk List, in 

part due to longstanding management challenges, including disposal of excess and underutilized property. 

I’ve got three key points to make today. Over the past several 

years, the administration has taken a number of steps to improve 

management of the government’s real property portfolio. Second, 

agencies face longstanding challenges in disposing of excess and 

underutilized real property. And, third, implementing key GAO recommendations and proposed reform legislation could help address 

these challenges. 

Since 2012, the government has made efforts to improve real 

property management. The government has developed and worked 

to improve the Federal Real Property Profile, the government-wide 

database. 

In 2015, OMB issued its Real Property National Strategy, which 

aligns with many of the desirable characteristics of the effective national strategy the GAO has identified, including describing the 

purpose, defining the problem, and outlining goals and objectives. 

The 2015 strategy is an important step forward, as it requires 

agencies to set annual space reduction targets and adopt space use 

standards. 

Prior to issuing the national strategy, OMB issued ‘‘Freeze the 

Footprint’’ and ‘‘Reduce the Footprint’’ directives. These directives 

have assisted agencies to better utilize existing space and identify 

and dispose of unneeded space. 

Despite the progress, significant challenges remain. For example, 

a lack of reliable FRPP data makes accurately measuring the 

amount of excess property challenging. While OMB and GSA have 

taken steps to improve the FRPP, such as issuing guidance and implementing data validation procedures, GSA has not fully analyzed 

agencies’ collection or reporting practices or the limitations of the 

data. 

Certain key FRPP data elements, such as utilization, continue to 

be inconsistently reported by agencies. As a result, FRPP data may 

not fully reflect the extent of real property challenges faced by 

agencies nor the progress they may have made in addressing such 

challenges. In prior work, we found inaccuracies in warehouse utilization data as well as results from the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ initiative. 

Legal requirements can also present challenges to disposal. As 

the government’s agent, GSA follows a prescribed process for the 

disposal of Federal properties reported as excess by agencies. This 

process includes requirements that the property be screened for poVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\23485.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

tential use by other Federal agencies, homeless providers, and 

State and local governments for other public uses. 

Costly environmental requirements may outweigh the financial 

benefits of property disposal, especially for agencies such as the Department of Energy. In some cases, competing stakeholder interests can impact the process. Stakeholders may include State, local, 

and tribal governments, business interests in the local communities, historic preservation groups, and the general public. Finally, 

limited accessibility can influence the process. For example, a 

building on a closed VA campus is unlikely to draw much interest. 

The Cotton Annex in Washington, D.C., is a good example of disposal challenges. This 118,000-square-foot building, located just 

south of the National Mall, has been vacant since 2007. As we reported in 2016, GSA’s recent attempt to exchange the property for 

construction services failed when GSA was unable to obtain sufficient value from the exchange, making the fate of this unneeded 

building unclear. 

GAO recommendations. In an August 2016 letter, GAO conveyed 

several open key recommendations to the GSA Administrator relating to excess and underutilized property. These included: one, an 

April 2016 recommendation aimed at improving the quality and 

transparency of FRPP data; two, a November 2014 recommendation that GSA articulate a strategy for its role in promoting effective and efficient warehouse management practices across the Federal Government; and, three, a September 2014 recommendation 

that GSA and DHS work jointly with regard to the DHS headquarters project on the Saint Elizabeth’s campus in order to develop a comprehensive needs assessment and update cost and 

schedule estimates. We will be assessing the agency’s latest plan 

when it’s completed. 

Finally, proposed real property reform bills could help address 

the challenges of Federal excess and underutilized property. For 

example, the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 could 

help address stakeholder influences by establishing a public buildings reform board to identify opportunities for the Federal Government to significantly reduce its inventory of civilian real property 

and reduce its costs. 

Additionally, the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 

2016 could also promote consolidations and disposals by requiring 

that GSA, one, justify to Congress any new or replacement building 

space in the prospectus process, including reasons why there cannot be consolidation or co-location into other government-owned 

and -leased space; and, two, dispose of specific properties in the 

Washington, D.C., area, including the Cotton Annex. 

Although both bills have passed the House of Representatives, 

neither has been enacted. 

Chairman Mica and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement, and I’ll be pleased to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wise follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 23485.005

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:00 a.m. ET 

Friday, September 23, 2016 

GA0-16-869T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Public Assets, 

Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY 

Efforts Made, but 

Challenges Remain in 

Reducing Unneeded 

Facilities 

Statement of Dave Wise, 

Director, Physical Infrastructure 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 23485.006

•• WhY GAO Did thllii st~dy 

·•··• )!1~0\!S,sfl,Q~~~e~'F~~;a{i'{ea; PropstjV' to l'>.l>iQ's bi~nnl.al High-Risk 

list, in part •. ·due to l<:mg-stah{jing .·. · 

~hall<•ngesfe~la!l"nciesfa¢!>1~ • 

m'!nagiJ1l! lede(al!y owne~ real .. ~rOP<!Ityi jncludi!ll/ dispOsal OflzXCeSS aMund~trtmze!JllrnPetl)'; <;QntinuihQ · 

. !!un~intain thes" unf!e!!d.(jrl laOt1itie.~ . , P)llslha governmeh~l!t nsk.foi wasting·· 

reao4rces dUe. Io on@.in@. m.aintenance 

'?b,sts a$w~Jta~, ~~trevenue:fr~,', , 

flli!\ng 1~ ssll exc;;s" property. De.s~ite 

• lmpt"""'nling potjciJll; ana sySlefl\S.t~a! 

· .. $ay helpfed<>.ral~gencies f11\IM!J& . 

•· f11at.propelty, the fe<~e;ar go~rntjl$nt·. • , COrlfiQUE:~ ,t~-m~ln~!n'e~t;:e~_ ?ryd,, ·OnderutiiiZed I>(OPelty, In fls,.fyear 

~0151 federal.wancies reported, over 

'71

090 l!xcess' Or UndertJt:Ufted,rea1 ' 

~!OP&f\Y as~~ls •. · .••.• · .. • ..... < ; .Thi~ \esli{llony.add;<lssas (11 ~flort$ t>Y . · . thef¢<1<lrat.go>rerniT)en!t<> address '~)(~-i~~d ur(fet't!t!Uz~~pr9perti~s 

si~<;e 2012, (2) tong:standlng, , chaJien~$s tO fh!lpaging and ~~~~oslng 

. Ol {"d~talreall)ro!f<!!riY and (3)' ' . : pot~nUal solutions to actdres$these toi19's!'lndin99~aliengas• ' 

.. tills .statement sum.malJzes the '"sull$ of. a ~utr!tler.or pre.wous GAQ.reports 

, .bn real Property utilization and , •·• . · management tti!>t.w11re issued f(Qil\ • . .'20.11 througt} 2(!16~01\b also incluifed ; · ~orne updates tiased:ort foiliiw:up~ . . cor!ducted ontheotatus ti!GAO's·. 

. r"!"fmmend;,ti?ns in2ilj5 and 20,l8•• 

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY 

Efforts Made, but Challenges Remain in 

Reducing Unneeded Facilities 

What GAO Found 

Since 2012, the administration has taken steps to reform real property 

management and address the long-standing challenge of reducing excess and 

underutiHzed property. For example, in 2015, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) issued government-wide guidance-the National Strategy for the 

Efficient Use of Real Property-which GAO found in 2016 could help agencies 

strategically manage real property. 

However, GAO's work has found that significant challenges persist in managing 

real property in general and excess and underutilized property in particular. They 

include: 

• a lack of reliable data with which to measure the extent of the problem. 

• a complex disposal process, 

• costly environmental requirements. 

• competing stakeholder interests, and 

• limited accessibHity of some federal properties. 

Properties in the Washington. D.C., area such as the Cotton Annex building, 

vacant General Services Administration (GSA) warehouses, and buildings on the 

St. Elizabeths campus (pictured below) illustrate the challenges for disposal and 

re-utHization of vacant federal buildings. For example, GAO found in 2014 that 

real property data indicated some GSA warehouses were utilized when they had 

been vacant for as long as 1 0 years. 

!n addition to the steps already taken by the administration, further action by 

federal agencies to implement GAO's previous recommendations could help to 

address some of these challenges. For example, GAO has made 

recommendations to GSA and other federal agencies that, if implemented, would 

increase the federal government's capacity to manage its portfolio and document 

the progress of reform efforts. GAO highlighted its highest priority open 

recommendations to GSA in an August 2016letter to GSA Among those are 

three recommendations related to excess and underutilized property, including a 

recommendation to assess the rellability of data collected and entered into 

GSA's Federal Real Property Profile database by individual federal agencies. 

Additionally. real property reform bills that could address the long-standing 

problem of federal excess and underutilized property have been introduced in 

Congress. Specifically, two bills have been passed by the House of 

Representatives in 2016, but neither has been enacted yet 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 23485.007

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the management of 

excess and underutilized federal real property. In 2003, we added 

"Federal Real Property" to our biennial high-risk list, in part, due to longstanding challenges federal agencies face in managing federally owned 

real property, including disposal of excess and underutilized property.' 

Despite implementing policies and systems that may help federal 

agencies manage real property, the federal government continues to 

maintain too much excess and underutilized property. According to the 

General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Real Property Profile 

(FRPP) database, in fiscal year 2015, 23 federal agencies reported over 

7,000 excess or underutilized real property assets. These properties 

represent wasted resources as they are costly to maintain and, in some 

cases, could be exchanged for other needed properties or sold to 

generate revenue for the federal government. 

Despite recent progress in implementing policies and systems to help 

GSA and federal agencies more effectively manage real property, the 

federal government continues to face substantial challenges to reducing 

underutilized space and disposing of excess property. For this hearing, 

you asked us to discuss the current state of excess, surplus, and 

underutilized properties in the federal government. My testimony will 

address (1) efforts by the federal government to address excess and 

underutilized properties since 2012, (2) long-standing challenges to 

managing and disposing of federal real property and (3) potential 

solutions to address these long-standing challenges. My testimony 

summarizes the results of a number of our previous reports on real 

property utilization and management issued from 2011 through 2016. 

These reports, cited throughout this statement, include more detailed 

information on the scope and methodology for our reviews. This 

testimony also includes some updates based on follow-up, conducted in 

2015 and 2016, on recommendations contained in some of these prior 

reports. To conduct the updates, we reviewed documents and interviewed 

officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and GSA. The 

work on which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

High-Risk Series: an Update. GA0-15-290 (Washington, D.C .. Feb. 11, 2015) 

Page 1 GA0-16-869T 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 23485.008

The Administration 

Has Taken Steps to 

Reform Real Property 

Management 

require that we plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

Since 2012, the government has made efforts to improve real property 

management As we reported in 2016, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) issued government-wide guidance-the National Strategy 

for the Efficient Use of Real Property- in 2015, which aligns with many of 

the desirable characteristics of effective national strategies that GAO has 

identified, including describing the purpose, defining the problem, and 

outlining goals and objectives. We concluded that the strategy is a major 

step forward that could help agencies strategically manage real property 

by establishing a government-wide framework for addressing real 

property challenges. 2 Prior to issuing the National Strategy, OMB issued 

a 2012 Freeze the Footprint policy and subsequently issued its 2015 

Reduce the Footprint policy, which directs agencies to, respectively, 

restrict growth and take action to reduce square footage in their real 

estate inventory. As part of the implementation of these policies, agencies 

were required to submit a plan to OMB detailing how the agency intended 

to maintain or reduce the square footage of its real property inventory. 3 

We found that the agencies we reviewed in 2016 had outlined 

approaches to manage any growth in their portfolio, better utilize existing 

space, and identify and dispose of space no longer needed to support the 

agency's mission. 

2

GAO, Federal Real Property- Improving Data Transparency and Expanding the National 

Strategy Could Help Address Long~standing Challenges, GA0~16-275 (Washington, D.C. 

Mar. 31, 2016). 

3The Freeze the Footprint implementation memorandum required agencies to develop 

and submit a Revised Real Property Cost Savings and Innovation Plan, as well as Annual 

Agency Evaluations, describing the agency's overall approach in managing its real 

property usage and spending. Reduce the Footprint changed this requirement to require a 

Rea! Property Efficiency Plan to describe the agency's overall strategic and tactical 

approach in managing its real property, provide a rationale and justification for its optimum 

portfolio and drive the identification and execution of real property disposal. efficiency 

improvements, general usage, and cost saving measures 

Page 2 GA0-16-869T 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 23485.009

Agencies Face Longstanding Challenges 

in Disposing of 

Excess and 

Underutilized Real 

Property 

Despite this progress, significant challenges to managing real property in 

general and excess property in particular, remain. 

Lack of Reliable Data: A lack of reliable data makes it difficult to 

accurately measure the amount of excess property. As we reported in 

2015, this undermines efforts to effectively reform real property 

management and to judge progress in addressing the associated 

challenges 4 The data used to manage the government's real 

property, the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP), are unreliable due 

to challenges with the accuracy and consistency of data reported by 

federal agencies. For instance, in 2014, we reported that GSA's 

interpretation of utilization definitions (interpreting the terms unutilized 

and underutilized to apply only to properties in the disposal process) 

leads GSA to identify nearly all of its warehouses as utilized despite, 

in some cases we identified, being vacant for as long as 10 years. 5 

Additionally, in 2015, we found that the federal government's reported 

results from the Freeze the Footprint policy for fiscal year 2012 were 

overstated. 6 Many reported reductions from the four agencies we 

reviewed were the result of actions other than actual space reduction, 

such as the re-categorization of space to another use or data errors. 

While we found in March 2016 that OMB and GSA have taken 

positive steps such as issuing guidance and implementing data 

validation procedures to improve the quality of FRPP data, we also 

found that GSA had not analyzed agencies' collection or reporting 

practices or the limitations of the data. 7 Certain key FRPP data 

elements, such as utilization status, continue to be inconsistently 

reported by agencies. As a result, we concluded that FRPP data may 

not fully reflect the extent of real property challenges faced by 

agencies or the progress they have made in addressing challenges in 

these areas. Furthermore, we found that the current lack of 

transparency regarding how agencies collect and report FRPP data 

increases the risk of using the data to guide decision-making, thereby 

limiting the data's usefulness. We made several recommendations, 

5

GAO, Federal Rea! Property: Strategic Focus Needed to Help Manage Vast and Diverse 

Warehouse Portfolio, GA0-15-41 (Washington, D.C Nov. 12, 2014). 

6GA0-15-290. 

7

GA0-16-275. 

Page3 GA0-1S-869T 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 23485.010

which I will discuss later in my testimony, for improving the reliability 

of these data. 

Complex Disposal Process: Legal requirements can make the 

property disposal process lengthy and complicated. As the federal 

government's property disposal agent, GSA follows a prescribed 

process for the disposal of federal properties reported as excess by 

federal agencies. This process includes requirements that the 

property be screened first for potential use by other federal agencies, 

then by homeless providers and state and local governments for other 

public uses. However, we found in 2011 that this process can be 

challenging for federal agencies. 8 For example, the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act requires the federal government to go 

through a screening process for excess, surplus, underutilized, and 

unutilized properties for suitability for homelessness services.' We 

found that as of March 2014, at least 40,000 properties were 

screened under the Act but only 81 of them were being used by 

homelessness assistance providers. 10 Requirements associated with 

the National Historic Preservation Act can also present a challenge. 

For example, VA officials we spoke to for a 2012 report told us that 

they were unable to demolish a 15,200-square-foot building at Menlo 

Park, California, that has been used as both a residence and a 

research building during its 83-year history. 11 The building had been 

scheduled for demolition since 2001, but VA could not demolish it 

because of an historical designation. 

Costly environmental requirements: Agency disposal costs can 

outweigh the financial benefits of property disposal. Environmental 

requirements provide that necessary environmental remediation be 

8

For more information on the process of dtsposing of federal real property and associated 

challenges, see GAO, Federal Real Property: The Government Faces Chaifenges to 

Disposing ofUnneeded Buildings, GA0-11-370T (Washington, D.C .. Feb. 10. 2011). 

9The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Pub. L No. 100-77, title V, 101 Stat 

482, 509~511 (1987), was renamed the McKinney-Vente Homeless Assistance Act in 

2000. Pub. L. No. 106-400, 114 Stat. 1675 (2000) 

10GAO, Federal Real Property: More Useful fnformation to Providers Could Improve the 

Homeless Assistance Program, GA0-14-739 (Washington, D.C .. Sept. 30, 2014) 

11 GAO Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve 

Management of Excess and Underutilized Property, GA0-12-645 (Washington, 0 C June 

20, 2012). 

Page4 GA0-16-869T 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 23485.011

completed prior to disposing of a property. 12 However, as we found in 

2012, the required environmental assessments and remediation can 

be expensive and time-consuming." For example, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) is responsible for remediation of contaminated nuclear 

weapons manufacturing and testing sites that include thousands of 

excess buildings contaminated with radiological or chemical waste. In 

June 2012, we reported that DOE officials told us that because their 

decontamination and disposal funds are limited, they might not be 

able to dispose of these buildings for many years." In addition, in 

2014 we reported that officials from the Departments of Energy and 

Interior told us that in many cases the cost of cleanup of old 

warehouses outweighs the potential sale or salvage price. 15 

Competing Stakeholder interests: Stakeholder interests can conflict 

with property disposal or reuse plans. We found in 2012 that-in 

addition to Congress, OMB, and real property holding agenciesseveral other stakeholders have an interest in how the federal 

government carries out its real property acquisition, management, and 

disposal practices. These stakeholders may include state, local, and 

tribal governments; business interests in the local communities; 

historic preservation groups; and the general public. For example, in 

the case of VA, veterans' organizations have had an interest in being 

consulted on plans to reuse or demolish VA's historic buildings and on 

how those plans affect the services provided to veterans. In cases like 

these, final decisions about a property may reflect competing interests 

and broader stakeholder considerations that may not align with what 

an agency views as the most cost effective or efficient alternative for a 

property. 16 

12The federal government is not permitted, with exceptions for deferral in certain cases, to 

transfer the deed of a property unless it can be determined that all remedial actions 

necessary to protect human life and the environment have been taken. 42 U.S. C.§ 

9620(h)(3). 

13GA0-12-645. 

14For additional information on DOE real property disposal, see GAO, DOE Real Property: 

Better Data and a More Proactive Approach Needed to Facilitate Property Disposal, 

GA0-15-305 (Washington, D.C .. Feb. 25, 2015) 

15GA0-15-41. 

16GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to Strategically Manage Historic 

Buildings. Address Mull/pie Challenges. GA0-13-35 (Washington. D.C.: Dec. 11, 2012). 

Page 5 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 23485.012

Limited Accessibility of Federal Properties: As we found in 2012, the 

locations of some federal properties can make property disposal 

difficult 17 For example, because DOE must locate buildings in remote 

areas that include acreage that can serve as security and 

environmental buffer zones for nuclear-related activities, officials 

reported that they demolish most excess buildings rather than resell 

or reuse them. Similarly, Interior officials reported that most of their 

buildings are located on public domain lands, lands held in trust, or in 

remote or inaccessible areas, and VA officials reported that most of 

their buildings are located on medical center campuses. Because 

these buildings may not be easily accessible, sales or conveyances of 

these buildings can be challenging. For example, in 2014 we found 

that almost 80 percent of excess properties identified by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development as suitable and 

available for public conveyance for homeless assistance were 

available for off-site use only-meaning that a homeless assistance 

provider would need to physically move the building in order to use it, 

which may not be feasible or worth the cost to homeless assistance 

providers." 

As discussed above, issues with the reliability of FRPP data-particularly 

the utilization variable-make it difficult to quantify the overall number of 

vacant and underutilized federal buildings. However, we have reported on 

some vacant properties in the Washington, D.C., area that illustrate the 

challenges associated with disposing of or repurposing vacant property. 

The Cotton Annex: This building, controlled by GSA as the federal 

government's property disposal agent and located just a couple 

blocks off the National Mall in Washington, D.C., is approximately 

118,000 gross square feet and has been vacant since 2007 (see fig. 

1 ). We found in 2016 that GSA's recent attempt to exchange the 

property for construction services failed when GSA was unable to 

obtain sufficient value from the exchange, making the fate of this 

unneeded building unclear. 19 

18GA0-14-739. 

19GAO, Federal Real Property: Observations on GSA's Cancefed Swap Exchange 

Involving Buildings in the Federal Triangle South Area, GA0-16-571R {Washington, D.C.: 

June 16, 2016) 

Page6 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 23485.013

Figure 1: The Cotton Annex has been Vacant Since 2007 

St. Elizabeths: The west campus of St. Elizabeths, a National Historic 

landmark in Washington, D.C., is comprised of 61 buildings on about 

182 acres (see fig. 2). Many buildings have been vacant for extended 

periods of time and are in badly deteriorated condition. As we 

reported in 2014, GSA developed a plan to establish a consolidated 

headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security on the site in 

2009. 20 Since then, GSA has completed construction of a new 

2°For additional information, see GAO, Federal Real Property: DHS and GSA Need to 

Strengthen the Management of DHS Headquarters Consolidation, GA0-14-648 

(Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2014) and Department of Homeland Security, National 

Capito! Region Real Property Strategic Plan: Business Case Analysis (Revised): Joint 

GSAJDHS Real Property Strategic Plan for DH$ Headquarter organizations, incorporating 

a revised St. Elizabeths construction plan and updated workplace standards (Washington, 

D.C .. March 3, 2015) 

Page7 GA0~16·869T 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 23485.014

headquarters building for the Coast Guard, but most of the project has 

been delayed. The estimated timeline for completing the project has 

been extended multiple times, from an initial estimated completion 

date of 2016, to an estimated completion date of 2021 based on a 

scaled back plan as of 2015. As discussed below, we made 

recommendations for addressing these issues. 

GSA Warehouses: In 2014, we found that some GSA warehouses 

listed in FRPP as utilized had been vacant for as long as 10 years 21 

GSA only lists warehouses as unutilized if they are already in the 

disposal process. This interpretation of utilization in FRPP caused 

Page 8 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 23485.015

GSA to list as utilized some warehouses that had been vacant for 

years. For example, see figure 3. We made a recommendation, 

discussed below, for improving GSA's management of its 

warehouses. 

Figure 3: Vacant GSA Warehouses Identified as Active and Utilized in the Fiscal Year 2013 FRPP: Warehouses in Washington, 

DC Had Been Vacant since 2009 (left) and 2004 (right) 

Implementing GAO 

Recommendations 

Could Address 

Challenges Related 

to Excess and 

Underutilized 

Property 

In recent years, we have made recommendations to GSA and other 

federal agencies that, if implemented, would increase the federal 

government's capacity to manage its portfolio and document any 

progress of reform efforts. The Comptroller General highlighted our 

highest-priority recommendations to GSA in an August 1, 2016, letter to 

the GSA Administrator. Of the six open recommendations, the letter 

included the following three related to excess and underutilized property 

In April 2016, we recommended that, to improve the quality and 

transparency of FRPP data, GSA, along with OMS and federal 

agencies, (1) assess the reliability of the data by determining how 

individual agencies collect and report data for each field, (2) analyze 

the differences in collecting and reporting practices used by these 

agencies, and (3) identify and make available to users the limitations 

of using FRPP data." GSA and OMS partially agreed with our 

22GA0-16-275 

Page9 GA0·16·869T 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 23485.016

recommendation, but GSA noted that it is the responsibility of 

individual agencies to ensure reliability of the data and compliance 

with FRPP definitions. OMS also noted that FRPP data are currently 

only being used by the individual agencies entering the data, and that 

the data are reliable for (and the limitations known by) the individual 

agencies. GSA has taken some action to implement the 

recommendation, including collecting information on individual 

agencies' internal guidance and the processes used to collect data. In 

June, 2016 GSA staff briefed us on additional steps they are taking to 

improve FRPP's usefulness as an analytical management tool. We 

are currently assessing the reliability of the federal government's fiscal 

year 2014 property disposal statistics. 

In November 2014, we recommended that GSA articulate a strategy 

for its role in promoting effective and efficient warehouse 

management practices across the federal government, a process that 

could include developing and disseminating warehouse management 

guidance and supporting agencies as they assess their warehouse 

portfolios. 23 GSA agreed with our recommendation and is taking steps 

to implement it. Specifically, GSA has created an online resource 

page on Warehouse Asset Management Best Practices and, 

according to GSA officials, is in the process of developing a Guide for 

Strategic Warehouse Planning, which GSA plans to complete in 2016. 

In September 2014, we recommended that GSA and DHS work jointly 

with regard to the DHS headquarters project on the St. Elizabeths 

campus, to ( 1) conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and gap 

analysis of current and needed capabilities and an alternatives 

analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and 

construction alternatives and (2) update cost and schedule estimates 

for the remaining portions of the project. 24 According to agency 

documents and our interviews with DHS and GSA officials, DHS and 

GSA have made progress in developing an enhanced plan for the 

project. In March 2015, DHS issued its National Capitol Region Real 

Property Strategic Plan: Business Case Analysis, which outlines a 

revised construction plan for the St. Elizabeths campus as well as 

updated workplace standards for the department. Additionally, 

according to GSA officials and agency documents, GSA is leading 

24GA0-14-648 

Page 10 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 23485.017

efforts to revise the project's cost and schedule estimates that take 

into account GAO's leading cost-estimation practices. However, this 

recommendation remains open until these efforts are completed and 

the results assessed. 

We continue to monitor the implementation of these and our other real 

property recommendations. 

Finally, several real property reform bills have been introduced in 

Congress that could address the long-standing problem of federal excess 

and underutilized property. For example, the Federal Assets Sale and 

Transfer Act of 2016 could help address stakeholder influence by 

establishing a Public Buildings Reform Board to identify opportunities for 

the federal government to significantly reduce its inventory of civilian real 

property and reduce its costs. 25 Additionally, the Public Buildings Report 

and Savings Act of 2016 would promote consolidations and disposals by 

requiring, among other things, that GSA (1) justify to Congress any new 

or replacement building space in the prospectus, including reasons that it 

cannot be consolidated or collocated into other owned or leased space 

and (2) dispose of specific properties in Washington, D.C., including the 

Cotton Annex. 26 Although both bills have passed the House of 

Representatives, neither one has been enacted yet 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

Gong. (2016). 

26H R. 4487, 11410 Gong. (2016). 

Page 11 GA0~16-869T 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 23485.018

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(10109£) 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact David 

Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions 

to this testimony are Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director), Katie Hamer 

(Analyst in Charge), Luqman Abdullah, David Lutter, Sara Ann 

Moessbauer, Josh Ormond, Michelle Weathers, and Crystal Wesco. 

Page 12 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 23485.019

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary tf you wish to reproduce this materia! separately. 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 23485.020

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the aud!t, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter. and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

VIsit GAO on the web at wvvw.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website http.//www.gao.gov/fraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington. DC 20548 

James-Christian Blackwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

1.} Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
31 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we’ll catch you with questions after 

we’ve heard from the other two witnesses. 

We’ll hear from our GSA representative now, Mr. Gelber. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GELBER 

Mr. GELBER. Good morning, Chairman Mica and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Michael Gelber, and I am Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. General Services Administration Public 

Building Service. Thank you for inviting me to this hearing on vacant Federal properties. 

GSA’s mission is to deliver the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to government and the American people. To meet this mission, GSA is working with Federal agencies 

to improve space utilization, reduce real estate costs, and deliver 

space that allows our partner Federal agencies to better achieve 

their missions. 

Additionally, we are working with the Office of Management and 

Budget and the Federal Real Property Council to improve the Federal Government’s inventory of real property, identify opportunities 

to better use underperforming properties, and assist agencies in 

the development of strategies to divest of their unneeded assets. 

Over the last 5 years, from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 

2015, GSA has disposed of over 940 properties, both those managed 

by GSA as well as other landholding agencies, generating over 

$275 million in proceeds. GSA disposes of Federal real property 

through public sales, public benefit conveyances, negotiated sales, 

and Federal transfers. 

This past April, GSA sold the Metro West facility in downtown Baltimore, Maryland, for more than $7 million at a public auction. 

The sale of this 1-million-square-foot facility, which previously 

housed the Social Security Administration, will save the taxpayer 

more than $3 million per year. Disposing of this building will serve 

as a catalyst for economic development on the west side of Baltimore. 

In Richland, in the State of Washington, GSA worked with the 

city to dispose of a portion of a parking lot at the Richland Federal 

Building. The city expressed a strong interest in this downtown 

parcel and will be using the site for new city hall. The city offered 

GSA cash and a city-owned half-acre parcel immediately adjacent 

to the Richland Federal Building. 

GSA offers properties to communities through its Public Benefit 

Conveyance Program. In Buffalo, New York, GSA has been working 

with the city to use the historic Dillon Courthouse for a law enforcement purpose. The conveyance of this property will reduce the 

Federal footprint by approximately 180,000 gross square feet of 

space and reduce maintenance costs by over $650,000 annually. 

In addition to traditional disposal processes, GSA uses other 

tools to redevelop properties that no longer serve the government’s 

needs. For example, as the chairman mentioned, in Miami, Florida, 

GSA entered into a long-term outlease with the Miami-Dade Community College for the historic Dyer Federal Building and Courthouse. As part of the outlease, the college will renovate the property for its use while preserving its historic features. This agreement will enable the building to continue to be a vital part of the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Miami community for years to come and save the taxpayer $1.7 

million in annual maintenance and operation costs. 

GSA is leveraging the value of Federal assets through exchanging these properties in return for construction services or newly 

constructed buildings. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center is located on 14 acres in a 

high-technology hub of the city and no longer adequately serves the 

mission of this facility. Earlier this month, qualified developers 

submitted proposals to transform this property in exchange for a 

newly constructed research and technology facility for the Department of Transportation on a portion of the current site. This project 

will result in the delivery of new and improved space for transportation research, as well as economic development opportunities and 

tax revenue for the local community. 

GSA is also supporting the ‘‘Reduce the Footprint’’ policy by creating and enhancing several analytical tools to help agencies identify possible opportunities for disposal, consolidation, and co-location. GSA’s Real Property Management Tool allows agencies to 

identify expiring leases and occupancy agreements and recognize 

cost savings that could be realized from the disposal of underutilized and inactive assets. Agencies can also use this tool to view 

benchmarks, such as rent per square foot, operating and maintenance costs per square foot, square feet per person, and compare 

agency-specific data with government-wide averages. 

Another tool, which GSA launched this June, is the Asset Consolidation Tool. This tool allows an agency user to identify what 

Federal space exists in a certain geographic area, such as a ZIP 

Code, a particular city, county, or within a mileage radius of a particular building. This information enables agencies to make targeted searches for space that other agencies currently occupy in a 

given area. 

While GSA has made significant progress and improvements in 

managing Federal real property and more aggressively disposing of 

unutilized assets, there are still a number of longstanding challenges that need to be addressed. These include incentives for Federal agencies to identify and execute disposals, statutory requirements prior to disposals, aligning non-Federal stakeholder interests, costs associated with the disposal process, and remote property locations. GSA is working diligently with agencies to overcome 

these hurdles and working with OMB to assist with its efforts. 

GSA is committed to carrying out its mission of delivering best 

value in real estate. I thank the committee for the opportunity to 

testify today, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gelber follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 23485.021

STATEMENT OF 

MR. MICHAEL GELBER 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE 

·u.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS 

OF THE 

U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

September 23, 2016 

Good morning Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of this Subcommittee. My 

name is Michael Gelber, and I am the Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. General Services 

Administration's (GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS). Thank you for inviting me to this hearing on 

vacant Federal properties. 

GSA's mission is to deliver the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to 

government and the American people. To meet this mission, GSA is working with Federal agencies to 

improve space utilization, reduce real estate costs, and deliver space that allows our partner Federal 

agencies to better achieve their missions. Additionally, we are working with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) to improve the 

Federal Government's inventory of real property, identify opportunities to better use underperforming 

properties, and assist agencies in the development of strategies to divest of their unneeded assets. GSA 

is also actively working to repurpose buildings in PBS's inventory that are underutilized or vacant. 

GSA manages one of the largest and most diversified public real estate organizations in the world. Its 

portfolio consists of 425 million rentable square feet (RSF) in 8,525 active assets across the United 

States: in all 50 states, six U.S. tenitories, and the District of Columbia. In terms of the square footage 

of GSA's inventmy, 54 percent is owned, and 46 percent is leased. While GSA is sometimes refeiTed 

to as the "Govemment's Landlord." GSA is one of more than two dozen major landholding agencies in 

the Federal Government, and manages about 15 percent of the square footage of Federal properties. 

Performance: Disposal of Unneeded Federal Assets 

Over the last five years, from FY2011 through FY2015, GSA has disposed of947 properties, both 

those managed by GSA as well as other Land Holding Agencies, generating $289 million in proceeds. 

The bulk of the disposals were executed through public sales. Other property disposals involved 

negotiated sales, public benefit conveyances, and Federal transfers. 

For GSA-managed properties, between FY20 11 and FY2015, GSA has disposed of 62 properties, 

generating $113 million in proceeds. This past April, GSA sold the Metro West facility in downtown 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 23485.022

Baltimore, Maryland for more than $7 million in a public property auction. The sale of this 1.1 million 

square-foot facility, which previously housed the Social Security Administration, will save the 

American taxpayer more than $3.2 million per year. Disposing of this building will also serve as a 

catalyst for economic development on the west side of Baltimore. 

Last year, GSA sold the Federal Reserve Building in Seattle for $16 million at an online auction with 

eight bidders competing. The building, constructed in 1950, was transferred from the Federal Reserve 

to GSA in 2012. After analyzing options to retrofit the building and coordinating with local 

stakeholders, GSA chose to sell the building which resulted in a sale that protects the historic integrity 

of the asset while still allowing for the developer to renovate the facility. Today the building is under 

renovation and contributing to the local tax base. 

GSA's property disposal process can also result in a negotiated sale to a state or local government if 

the property will be used for another public purpose. In Richland, Washington, GSA worked with the 

city to dispose of a 1.8 acre portion of a parking lot at the Richland Federal Office Building. The city 

expressed a strong interest in this downtown parcel, and will be using the site for the new Richland 

City Hall. The city offered GSA cash and a city-owned half-acre parcel immediately adjacent to the 

Richland Federal Office Building. This transactional structure allowed GSA to divest ofunderutilized 

parking in exchange for cash and a parcel that allowed for greater efficiency and enhanced security for 

the federal personnel that work at the Richland Federal Office Building. 

GSA also makes properties available to communities through its ''Public Benefit Discount 

Conveyance" program. In Buffalo, New York, GSA has been working with the City to use the historic 

Michael J. Dillon Memorial U.S. Courthouse for a law enforcement use. The conveyance of this 

property will reduce the Federal footprint by approximately 180,000 gross square feet. and reduce 

annual maintenance costs by about $650,000 annually. 

In addition to GSA· s traditional disposal process, GSA also uses other innovative tools to redevelop 

properties that no longer serve the Government's needs. For example, in Miami, Florida, GSA entered 

into a long term outlease with the Miami-Dade Community College for the historic David W. Dyer 

Federal Building and Courthouse. As a part of the outlease, the college will renovate the property 

while preserving its historic features. GSA entered into this lease under the authority of Section Ill of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, which will enable the college to renovate and utilize this 

170,000 square foot historic building, which was built in 1933. This agreement will enable the asset to 

continue to be a vital part of the Miami community for years to come. While still owned by the 

Federal Government, this long-term lease has enabled this property to be used for the community, 

while saving the Federal taxpayer $1.7 million in annual maintenance and operations costs. 

For Federal properties that no longer efficiently serve a Federal need, and which can have significant 

upkeep and maintenance costs, GSA is leveraging the value of these assets thtough exchanging these 

properties in return for construction services or newly constructed buildings. For example, the Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts is located on 14 acres in a hightechnology hub of the city. The six buildings on the property were constructed nearly 50 years ago and 

no longer adequately serve the mission of this facility. In June 2016, GSA issued a Request for 

Proposals for qualified developers to transform this property in exchange for a newly constructed 

research and technology facility for the Department of Transportation on a portion of the current site. 

GSA, in conjunction with DOT, plans to select a developer by the end of this calendar year, which will 

Page 2 of 4 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 23485.023

result in the delivery of new and improved space for transportation research, as well as economic 

development opportunities and tax revenues for the local community through the conveyance of the 

underdeveloped portion of this property. 

Supporting Implementation of the Administration's National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real 

Property 

GSA supports the Administration's National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property to reduce 

the size of the Federal real estate inventory. To assist with this effort, GSA created and enhanced 

several analytical tools to help agencies identify possible opportunities for disposal, consolidation, and 

colocation. In addition, GSA improved data quality and user experience in the Federal Real Property 

Profile (FRPP) by automating validation and verification tools, as well as clarifying several data 

element definitions. 

Last year, GSA deployed the Real Property Management Tool to assist agencies in finding 

opportunities for consolidations, co-locations, and disposals using data visualization technology. The 

newest iteration of the tool, launched in January 2016, provides analyses and data visualization 

focusing on expiring leases and occupancy agreements, the utilization of agency assets, and potential 

cost avoidance opportunities from the disposal ofunderutilized and inactive assets. Agencies can also 

use this tool to view benchmarks such as rent per square foot, operating and maintenance costs per 

square foot, square feet per person, and compare agency-specific data with Govermnent-wide averages. 

Another tool, which GSA launched in June of this year is the Asset Consolidation Tool. This tool 

allows an agency user to see what Federal space exists in a certain geographic area, such as a zip code, 

city, county, metropolitan statistical area or mileage radius. This tool assists the user in identifying 

potential consolidation and co-location opportunities by allowing agencies to make targeted searches 

for space that other agencies currently occupy in a given area. 

GSA, in its Government-wide role, is also continuously working with agencies to improve the quality 

of agencies' FRPP data by annually reviewing and refining data element definitions with the goal of 

receiving more accurate and consistent data from agencies. In May 2016, in accordance with OMB 

policy, GSA issued new mandatory data validation and verification procedures for key FRPP data 

elements. Agencies will be required to follow these data validation and verification procedures 

beginning with the FY2016 FRPP data submissions, and then report to GSA how they addressed each 

data anomaly identified by GSA's automated reviews, improving the accuracy ofFRPP data. 

The Road Ahead and Opportunities for Improvement 

Through active planning, GSA has developed a pipeline of properties which over the next five years 

are planned for disposals, out! eases, transfers, demolitions or exchanges. Since the beginning of2016, 

GSA has disposed of over 3 million square feet of unneeded assets. Over the next four years, GSA 

plans to divest of at least another 10 million square feet ofunde1perfom1ing assets. 

While GSA has made significant progress and improvements in managing Federal real property and 

more aggressively disposing ofunderutilized assets, there are still a number oflong-standing 

challenges that need to be addressed. These include incentives for Federal agencies to identify and 

execute disposals, statutory requirements prior to disposal, aligning non-Federal stakeholder interests, 

costs associated with the disposal process, and remote property locations. GSA is working diligently 

Page 3 of4 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 23485.024

with agencies to overcome these hurdles, and working with OMB to assist with its efforts. 

Conclusion 

GSA is committed to carrying out its mission of delivering the best value in real estate. We are 

committed to aggressively managing GSA· s assets and assisting agencies to right-size their real estate 

requirements. 

I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today and look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Page 4 of4 
37 

Mr. MICA. Again, thank you. 

And we’ll hear from our last witness, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Parham. 

Welcome. You’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY PARHAM 

Mr. PARHAM. Thank you, Chairman Mica, and thank you to the 

members of the committee for allowing me to testify today on the 

Department of Agriculture’s efforts to address those properties that 

have been determined to be excess in the USDA portfolio. 

As one of the largest property-holding departments, USDA is 

well aware of the need to continually improve the management of 

its land and facilities to maximize the value of these assets for 

American taxpayers. In fact, the Department, under the leadership 

of Secretary Vilsack, went as far as establishing a target in its current strategic plan to reduce its overall space holdings. This was 

the first time that the Department has had such a target, and its 

inclusion has helped to strengthen USDA’s commitment to enhance 

stewardship of Federal resources, which have been a core principle 

of Secretary Vilsack’s tenure at USDA. 

To demonstrate this commitment, the Department has taken a 

number of actions in recent years related to better management of 

facilities and the elimination of excess properties. One example 

worth mentioning, sir, is the recent disposition of the Subtropical 

Agricultural Research Station in Brooksville, Florida. Between 

1929 and 2012, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service utilized the 

Brooksville location to study genetic and environmental interactions in beef cattle. 

Upon the closure of this facility in 2012, the Department sought 

opportunities to dispose of the property in a manner that would be 

meaningful to the surrounding community. As the property consists 

of over 3,800 acres of agricultural land and included 19 buildings, 

there was a tremendous opportunity posed by the potential disposition of the research station. 

Fortunately for the Department, Congress also noted the opportunity and provided to USDA special authority to transfer the 

property at Brooksville and other similar research stations across 

the Nation to higher educational institutions. 

By utilizing the statutory authority, the Department was able to 

enter into an agreement with Florida Agricultural and Mechanical 

University. Through this agreement, the Department transferred in 

October 2015 the entire Brooksville location to Florida A&M, which 

agreed to use the property to create educational opportunities for 

beginning farmers and ranchers. 

Not only does such an agreement enhance USDA’s effort to support the next generation of growers and producers, but it also represented one of the single largest land transfers to one of the 19 

historically Black land-grant universities established in the second 

Morrill Act of 1890. The result of this land transfer has been positive for the university and the farmers that it will serve and has 

also been a success for the Department. 

Despite the successful outcome in the transfer of Brooksville, the 

Department faces challenges in the disposition of other excess properties across the country. The specifics of such challenges may vary 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

by location, but the Department has identified some common barriers that limit our ability to move more swiftly to reduce holdings 

of excess properties. 

These barriers primarily result in situations where the costs far 

exceed the benefits of disposing of unneeded assets. In many cases, 

the Department must incur significant costs to prepare a facility 

for disposition. Such costs may include the rehabilitation of a facility to make it commercially attractive or to tear down and remove 

buildings and structures if land is to be conveyed. 

In addition, multiple USDA properties require some level of environmental remediation prior to making the property available for 

another owner. Such remediation is necessary to abate and clean 

up hazardous chemicals that were released on the property either 

through the Department’s action decades ago or as a result of actions taken by a prior owner of the property. In some cases, such 

abatement can cost millions of dollars that must be paid from current funds, creating a challenge in managing budgetary priorities. 

Another challenge is the lack of authority for the Department, 

apart from the Forest Service, to retain any proceeds from the potential sale of excess properties. As the Department may accrue 

significant costs in preparing a facility for sale, there is tremendous 

disincentive to dispose of properties when limited or no funding is 

available to offset the costs incurred. 

A further challenge that is common for many USDA excess property locations is that they are often situated in rural, if not remote, 

locations. As such, the commercial value for facilities in areas far 

away from population centers means that the demand for such facilities is often low. 

One location not located in a remote area in which I am aware 

that the subcommittee has a keen interest is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, or BARC, in Beltsville, Maryland, as you 

stated earlier. It’s a research facility of nearly 6,500 acres located 

just off the Beltway in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. 

This facility houses a number of farm sites and laboratories where 

USDA conducts research on agriculture practices of benefit to 

American farmers and ranchers. 

As a result of its proximity to Washington, D.C., there has always been a strong interest in exploring opportunities to convert 

portions of the facility for other uses, which partially explains how 

the facility is now less than half of the original size. 

Within BARC, there are hundreds of buildings and structures, 

some of which no longer support the mission needs of USDA and 

have fallen into a state of disrepair due to the lack of resources to 

maintain or upgrade or demolish the facilities. 

Another key factor when considering options for the BARC facility is the current set of restrictions in place that limit the Department’s ability to dispose of any portion of BARC. In fiscal year 

1988, Congress included a provision in the Department’s appropriation legislation that restricted USDA’s ability to dispose of any 

property at BARC. That provision remains in place today. In effect, 

this restriction requires that Congress approve in advance any 

transaction that would move property from the BARC portfolio. 

Therefore, it would—it should be noted that the legislature in the 

State of Maryland has also created a statute that limits the use of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

BARC land to agricultural purposes or open space should they be 

transferred out of Federal ownership. As a result, the commercial 

interest in the BARC lands will be limited due to this restriction. 

Lastly, I will mention that the Department has identified at least 

$18 million of environmental remediation activities that must occur 

at various locations at BARC. These costs, combined with the other 

challenges expressed generally for the Department and specifically 

for BARC, significant affect USDA’s ability to dispose of any property in Beltsville. 

Regardless of these challenges, however, the Department is committed to finding opportunities to improve the management of the 

Federal excess that it controls. As discussed previously, the barriers that the Department faces when considering how it can dispose of excess properties factor into the cost-benefit analysis done 

when considering disposal options. The Department is willing to 

work with the subcommittee and our colleagues in OMB and GSA 

to identify potential solutions across the country. 

I look forward to today’s discussion on this important topic of excess property and to answering your questions. Thank you very 

much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Parham follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 23485.025

Statement by 

Dr. Gregory L. Parham 

Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Agriculture 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

September 9, 2016 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss the issue of vacant and excess property and how it is 

addressed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

As the Subcommittee is aware, USDA provides a wide array of services to the public, 

including not only agricultural support activities, but also food safety inspections, 

implementation of conservation techniques on public and private lands, forest fire prevention and 

remediation, nutrition programs, rural economic development and conununity support loans and 

grants, trade facilitation, and research-- to name a few of USDA's on-going activities. These 

programs and services are delivered through seven programmatic Mission Areas comprised of 17 

agencies. These agencies and the Department's staff offices have a combined staff of nearly 

100,000 full and part-time employees that live and work throughout the country to support 

USDA and its customers. 

To facilitate the delivery of this myriad of programs and activities, the Department has an 

extensive field structure throughout the nation with locations in nearly eve1y county. As of 

December 2015 the Department had over 42,000 buildings and structures, which includes 

offices, laboratories, bridges, warehouses, and an assortment of other types of facilities. 

USDA occupies approximately 66.7 million square feet of owned, commercially-leased, 

and General Services Administration (GSA) assigned space and takes a very aggressive stance 

when it comes to the management of federal resources. Since 2010, the Department has saved 

nearly $300 million through improved management of buildings and facilities within the USDA 

1 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 23485.026

portfolio. The avoided costs resulted from the cancellation of Agricultural Research Service 

construction projects as well as a Departmental strategic effort that disposed of or consolidated 

leases, locations, and underutilized properties, in order to reduce the Department's national 

footprint. 

USDA reports a replacement value of $49 billion in real property assets, and the total 

operating and maintenance costs for USDA owned facilities is just over $600 million, including 

buildings and structures. Operations and maintenance costs are down over 1.86 percent (or 

$21.4 million in current dollars) since 2012. This reduction resulted from USDA's efforts to 

freeze and reduce its real property footprint. The USDA has made responsible management of 

its real property footprint a priority. 

Across government, excess property is defined as those buildings or structures under au 

agency's control that have been deemed no longer required to meet the agency's needs or 

responsibilities. Many of the properties that USDA has designated as excess are specific to the 

Department's mission, located in remote locations, or situated on Federal land, creating difficulty 

when it comes to disposal. Furthermore, many facilities deemed excess by the Depmiment are 

situated on lands that pose certain environmental challenges with regard to transferring 

ownership to other agencies or the private sector. Between USDA's former laboratories and 

scientific research facilities and the numerous former Department of Defense locations now 

located on Forest Service lands, USDA must often conduct hazardous materials assessments and 

remediation activities prior to disposing of its facilities. There is often substantial cost with 

environmental clean-up actions, and USDA faces the burden of paying for the clean-up, an 

excess cost from current budgets. 

2 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 23485.027

USDA also faces challenges in managing agency-owned properties that are similar to 

many other agencies across Govermnent in prioritizing resources, properly disposing of excess 

properties, and maintaining the safety and security of all property within the Department's 

portfolio. The Heury A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BAR C) is a prime 

example of the complexities associated with maintaining Federal property. Located in Maryland, 

just outside ofWashington, D.C., BARC is the home of ongoing agricultural research activities 

that support USDA's mission. In addition to the plots ofland dedicated to growing and studying 

crops, the BARC facility also includes 622 buildings and structures that house or fonncrly 

housed laboratories and other research facilities. The continued maintenance and upkeep of 

these buildings and structures has proven to be challenging because operating costs continue to 

increase as the buildings age. Given the increasing maintenance costs and the limited Federal 

resources available to maintain BARC, the Department is faced with the challenge of having 168 

buildings and structures at BARC that are no longer needed and yet cannot currently be disposed. 

It should be noted that since Fiscal Year 1988, the Department has operated with particular 

restrictions governing the disposal of facilities at BARC that require Congressional approval to 

proceed. 

Many of the Department's excess facilities face the same complexities as the BARC 

complex. Not only are there limited resources to maintain facilities, but other costs factor into 

the Department's ability to dispose of excess property. Such costs include environmental 

remediation, which can cost almost $20 million per facility location prior to disposal occurring. 

The estimated cost for total remediation needs at BARC is $19 million. 

Such costs are further compounded because the Department, apart from the Forest Service, 

lacks legislative authority to retain the proceeds from the sale of excess real property. As a 

3 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 23485.028

result, any costs incurred from preparing property for disposal will be paid by the program 

agencies of the Department without an ability to capture possible proceeds from disposal to 

recover those up-front expenditures. Such costs, therefore, provide a disincentive in disposing of 

excess properties where the immediate costs outweigh the long-term benefits realized by USDA. 

Lastly, there is limited interest and commercial value for many of USDA's excess properties 

due to the location of these facilities. Many of these properties are in remote locations with little 

or no easy public access or may be situated on Federal lands, requiring the re-location of 

structures off those lands as a disposal contingency. Closure of USDA county offices also 

require Congressional approval to proceed. Collectively, these factors make disposal of excess 

property challenging. 

USDA takes the management of its real property portfolio ve1y seriously. Under the 

leadership of Secretary Vilsack, the Department has sought to decrease the USDA footprint. 

USDA will continue to decrease its footprint through its commitment to making a yearly I% 

reduction in each major building category, including administrative buildings, warehouse space, 

and other property. USDA will also continue to work with GSA and other partners to find the 

best and most fiscally-responsible ways to dispose of excess property under USDA's control. 

Additionally, we are working with GSA and the Postal Service to identifY inter-Departmental 

collocation opportunities and other options to efficiently manage the real estate portfolio. 

As part of its proactive strategy, the Department is seeking options for maintaining and 

modernizing facilities to prevent those facilities from becoming underutilized, ineffective, or 

unsafe. For instance, the Department is exploring options for modernizing its Headquarters 

complex to reduce its overall footprint, thereby reducing the Department's operating costs. 

4 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 23485.029

In addition, under the guidance ofOMB, the Department's partnership with GSA has 

resulted in more strategic use of space across the nation. Although the Department does 

maintain a large footprint all across rural America, USDA is seeking opportnnities to be good 

stewards of Federal resources. I look forward to discussing with you today the numerous 

accomplishments of the Department, and to identifying opportnnities where the Department can 

partner with Congress to find additional improvements. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss USDA's successes in managing its real 

property assets. I am prepared to answer your questions. 

5 
45 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

And I thank all of our witnesses. And we’ll go right to questions, 

and I’ll start. 

Mr. Parham, you’re aware that on Tuesday, February 12th, 2013, 

I visited, along with congressional staff, the Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Center? Yeah. And we have 6,500 acres there. 

It’s very nice that you point out what you did in Florida and 

Brooksville in 2012—that was done in 2015. But I was there, asked 

to see if we could come up with some plans to do something. I saw 

office buildings with vines growing over them, empty buildings. 

And then, today, the staff reported to me on the huge number 

of vacant buildings that still exist. I’ve never seen a plan to do anything about that. 

I sent the staff out to see the condition. I didn’t get to go. 

Have you got that little video? 

I haven’t seen it yet, so let’s see what’s there. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. MICA. Okay. That one’s empty. 

Well, that looks pretty good. 

That one’s empty. 

That one’s empty. 

Uh-huh, yep. Nobody there. 

That looks pretty good. That’s well-utilized Federal property. 

This is one I saw. 

There are several of these buildings, structures. 

More. It kind of goes on and on. 

Have you been out there, Under Secretary? 

Mr. PARHAM. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I, along with the Administrator for the Agricultural Research—— 

Mr. MICA. This is the condition of our Federal properties. Looking pretty good, hey? 

I hadn’t seen it in 3 years. I think we’ve made a lot of progress— 

unfortunately, in the wrong direction. 

Look at this, members. 

This is very valuable. Now, Brooksville—I’ve been in real estate—maybe you could get $5,000 an acre. This is worth an incredible amount of money. Not that it has to be commercially developed. It may be well-suited that part of it is a park or a natural 

preserve. 

But this is disgraceful, that we have Federal properties around 

the country—and the Department of Agriculture—again, went out 

there, visited, requested that we come up with a proposal. If there 

are impediments, we need to know. If there’s a plan—it’s just not 

acceptable. I’m sorry. 

Mr. Gelber, one of the things that we came up with was we proposed—and, actually, one of the predecessors in GSA, I think public buildings officials—we said there are thousands of people who 

deal with disposing—they’re professionals—disposing or evaluating 

real estate and property and its best use and what you can do with 

it. And I asked GSA to come up with some sort of a way to bring 

those folks in, look at properties that we have, and then we could 

utilize their talents to look at what we had and come up with recommendations. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

We started a Federal Real Property Council as a result of that. 

Are you aware of that? 

Mr. GELBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. And does it still exist? 

Mr. GELBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah. Well, I met with the members about a year 

after they’d been put together for that purpose, and very few, just 

a few million dollars’ worth of properties, a handful of properties 

had actually been handled. Do you know the status of the progress 

of that? 

Mr. GELBER. It’s a continuing effort, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, but it’s a very—I mean, it’s pitiful, the response. 

And I have people that were involved in disposing of all of the 

S&L properties and things, huge numbers of properties, a great talent on that, and they tell me, you know, there’s inertia in GSA and 

the Federal Government. 

You’ve seen the bill that’s been proposed. And I think most of 

you—a couple of you commented, this is what we need to do. This 

pretty much codifies what we tried to get started, which you could 

do administratively. Yes, there are some impediments, but, no, 

again, the efforts have not come to fruition like we would like to 

see. 

Mr. Wise, you’ve done some inventories, I guess, of public buildings, but we really don’t have a complete inventory of Federal 

buildings that are vacant, do we? 

Mr. WISE. No, sir, we don’t. 

Mr. MICA. No. And some of the worst offenders are the Department of Defense. Well, actually, VA, we have a pretty good inventory; I saw that. But it’s pages and pages of vacant properties. 

Some of you may have cited the difficulty with those properties, because sometimes they’re in a complex or sometimes they’re in the 

Rust Belt where we no longer have the veterans to occupy the medical facilities, for example. Is that correct? 

Mr. WISE. That can be an issue for sure. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. WISE. We talked about that, I think, in past hearings. And 

we mentioned in our statement for the record today that you occasionally, maybe more than occasionally, run into problems. When 

you have a property that’s located, a building on a closed campus—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. WISE. —it has—it will draw a limited amount of interest, 

just because the accessibility is in issue—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. But, one, we don’t have an inventory of vacant 

Federal properties or underutilized Federal properties. That’s a 

given. Two, we don’t know the condition of the properties we have. 

And I think you found that in your evaluation. Is that correct? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir. That gets back to an issue that we’ve talked 

about in a number of our reports, and that’s the problem dealing 

with the overall database. 

And I think that many of the problems we talk about, when it 

comes to the Federal real property management, really kind of circle back to that foundational issue, which is there are still problems with having a clearly accurate and comprehensive real propVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\23485.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

erty database. I know that OMB and GSA have been working hard 

to try to improve that, but we have still found continuing issues 

with how agencies reported the data as it cycles back up into the 

larger database. 

And so that’s a continuing problem, meaning that, for Federal 

real property managers, if you don’t really know what you’ve got 

and what condition it’s in, then how do you make rational management decisions. 

Mr. MICA. Uh-huh. Well, I heard one of the things that is cited 

by the administration is they need more money for the repairs and 

for also this process. But aren’t there also the opportunity for public-private partnerships, where the capital can be provided by the 

private sector who acquires the property? 

Mr. Wise? 

Mr. WISE. We did a recent report on P3 and found that, while 

P3s have been very common in the infrastructure world, especially 

when it comes to transportation and highways, that sort of thing, 

we did not find many, if any, examples—very few examples of anything going on in the real property world. Theoretically, I think it 

certainly is a possibility, but we haven’t found it to be a reality at 

this point to any great extent. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, it depends on how you define it. The Trump Hotel, that’s a public-private partnership. We’re losing $6 

million. We had a Federal Government controlling the building, losing about $6 million to $8 million a year. The square footage, 

400,000 square feet, half of it empty. A newer annex behind, empty 

for 15 years. Anybody in the private sector would never let that 

happen. We did turn it over. We will now be getting a monthly revenue and a percentage, I think, of gross, or whatever the deal is, 

turning that around. That’s an example. 

Maybe it isn’t a public-private partnership, but we have a publicpublic partnership, where we turned the property at the MiamiDade—or the Federal courthouse in Miami turned over to a State 

institution, a college. A million and a half to keep empty, well, we’ll 

no longer do that. 

I mean, we can look for these opportunities, but it’s painful, and 

it takes so long. The property in Miami, again, we just turned over 

this May, is almost a decade. And going back and forth and up and 

down. I’ve worked on just some of the ones we outlined in our report, which is now many years old. And we’re resolving on the Cotton Exchange that has gone on, and that that was cited here. 

Mr. Under Secretary Parham cited the possibility of the Department of Agriculture with university. But there are opportunities, 

because we’re sitting on incredible Federal assets, all of them costing billions. 

Hell, we could—excuse me, I won’t say that. Heck, we can take 

the income, the revenue, just from these properties and turn it 

over. They say Congress isn’t funding. Well, the opportunities are 

there with public-private partnership, public-public partnership, 

and also assets, maximizing them and getting a return. 

We’ve actually made money tearing down, since our hearing at 

the Cape, some of the buildings and selling some of the unused material for scrap, which we’ve made money and cut our costs of 

maintenance and security because the building’s gone. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

I mean, it just goes on and on. Nobody in the Federal Government seems to be very creative in this. 

There have been some attempts by OMB in expanding, again, the 

number of square feet. And you told me you’re targeting now 61 

million square feet for the future? Is that—— 

Mr. MADER. Yes, sir, for 2016 through 2020, 61 million square 

feet of just office and warehouse space, because that, we feel—— 

Mr. MICA. Good. 

Mr. MADER. —is really where significant savings are. 

Mr. MICA. And then the President’s initiative, which I support, 

better utilization of existing space. Been working with you on the 

FTC building, consolidation of that into the Department of Commerce building, and then utilization of the old FTC building as a 

National Gallery rent space. And you have a huge amount of rental 

space with the FTC. 

Just a question: With the FTC in the new leased space—it’s the 

Constitution building, I believe. That lease that GSA had gotten 

into was a million square feet. And the lease was botched, the lease 

acquisition was botched, as I recall, and the courts ordered GSA to 

honor the lease, which moved part of the FTC in. And that’s several years back now. 

That lease expires, and I would like to see what we can do in 

consolidating some of that space in the Constitution building along 

with the existing space that’s being utilized in the old FTC building 

into the Department of Commerce, of which we’re renovating a million square feet. But there are no final plans for about 200,000-plus 

square feet, where we could have a consolidation. 

And, particularly, if you could report back to me, too, eliminating 

some of the duplicate spaces that are utilized in the buildings— 

child care; one important one is data centers; auditorium; and conference space—I would appreciate it. And I’ll ask the staff to follow 

up with a specific line of questions. 

Can you help us, Mr. Gelber? 

Mr. GELBER. Yes. We’d be happy to work with your staff on that. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you. 

I have other members. 

Did you want to go next, Mr.DeSaulnier? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I just wanted to make a comment that I’m supportive of what the chairman is after here. In my experience in 

California, both the local and State level, we have the same problems. 

And one question to Mr. Wise is, as you look at this, how you 

look at developing best practices for us, but you interact with the 

State and local agencies who, because of things like the McKinney 

Act, have a relationship with what we do with this property. 

So, in one instance, in my district, over 20 years ago we worked 

out an agreement to transition some property to the police department, the sheriff’s department, and the fire department for a public 

safety training facility. The local community is very supportive because we’re taking it out of residential areas and putting it on, to 

be fair, what was an old military base, so it was part of the BRAC 

process but it was somewhat hyphenated. 

So, 20 years later, I still get comments about, when are we going 

to move in? So that interaction between other levels of government, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

since it’s already in the statutes, and how you may recommend to 

us how we could change that. 

And then, secondarily, just, I mean, California, when we were in 

the recession, because we were unprepared in the General Services 

Department—you may recall the Schwarzenegger administration 

had a deal to sell five or six very large pieces of property, State 

property, in San Francisco and Los Angeles and lease it back. And 

when the legislative analysts came back with the analysis, it was 

such a horrible deal, even though at that time we were issuing IOU 

warrants because of our cash flow problem, we didn’t do it. And 

thank goodness we didn’t. 

But it’s an illustration of where, if all levels of government were 

acting with best practices—and the intersection, given the recession, is a very extreme example, but these things aren’t consequences, as the chairman says, where there’s just a lost opportunity. There is a process. There is the possibility for real crisis 

and opportunity. So I think it would be a great thing that we stay 

on this and make sure that we develop these best practices. 

But to Mr. Wise, maybe you could just elucidate a little bit about 

what you’re doing to interconnect the dots with State and local government. 

Mr. WISE. Well, overall, I can’t really comment too much on the 

State processes for dealing with State property that’s—— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. No, I mean, the interaction with the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. WISE. Yeah. Well, State and local governments are obviously 

part of the screening process. As you know, under the current legislative framework, any Federal property that an agency decides is 

no longer needed goes through the screening process, to include, as 

you alluded to, the McKinney-Vento for homeless, State and local 

governments, as well as, you know, other public entities. 

There can be complications to these things. You’ve got local 

stakeholders, you’ve got historical preservation, you’ve got environmental issues that all come into play. This is why, as I think the 

chairman talked about and as we mention in our statement, some 

of the legislative reforms, we think, could be helpful in getting towards dealing with some of these problems. 

But, overall, the current situation is—it can be a cumbersome— 

I think as you discuss in your question, it’s a very cumbersome 

process, and—— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So my question was more to—is more encouragement—so it may be more rhetorical, from what I’m getting from 

your response—is the encouragement to us to work with State and 

local agencies and their organizations here in D.C. Because what 

we all get, I think, when we go back to our districts or when we 

talk to our local government is, whether it’s a perception or it’s a 

reality, but I think it’s a little bit of both, they don’t want to deal 

with it because it’s too cumbersome. 

Mr. WISE. Yeah. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So there are lost opportunities for all of the entities there within the statutes and just because the perception of 

the bureaucratic process is too difficult. 

Mr. WISE. Yeah. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So I know you’re considering that as you go 

along, but however we can facilitate that conversation I think 

would be helpful. 

Mr. WISE. No. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. 

I can give you one concrete example where the process did work 

quite well. In the town where I grew up in south-central Pennsylvania, there was a new courthouse built across from the old courthouse. Now, the city government was way, way expanded beyond 

what it could absorb in the old city hall, which had been built in 

the 1920s. So what happened? The old courthouse, through public 

conveyance, went to the city government. Many offices scattered all 

over town—water department, housing department, et cetera, et 

cetera, traffic department. All were able to come in after that building was renovated to then be able to get away from all these leases 

and the extra expenses they entailed. 

So there was an example where the city was able to get a public 

conveyance and it turned out to be, I think, pretty good public policy. So hopefully that can—I understand the problems you’re getting at, but sometimes the system does work to the benefit of the 

taxpayers. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. We want that to be more the norm rather than 

the exception, which is what the perception is, I think. 

Mr. WISE. Okay. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So when you can point out examples of that in 

an area that the land cost is very expensive, that’s a perfect thing, 

where if all of these agencies are working together, it’s in the best 

interests of the taxpayers. 

Mr. WISE. Sure. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. 

Mr. WISE. You’re welcome. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And, again, a lot of what we do, sometimes we get into some 

pretty tough stuff, and they go back and forth in this committee, 

and some of it’s partisan. This is meat and potatoes, this is—you 

know, we have the potential for saving billions of dollars, and we 

are trillions in debt. This isn’t very glamorous. But just look at the 

progress we’ve made. We’ve had to hammer away, but I thank you. 

The bipartisan cooperation has been very effective in moving this 

forward. 

I started out one time with, I think, like, 16,000. That was the 

number we had initially identified, just under GSA, of vacant or 

underutilized properties. And I think when we did the first hearing, I crossed it out and we put 15,999. Well, we’re going down the 

list. That’s a tough way to do it. 

This bill, though—and you weren’t here earlier; I had it made 

part of the record—is a bipartisan effort. Passed the House and is 

now in the Senate. And it does all the things we’re discussing 

here—streamlining some of the disposal process, giving you the 

tools that you need to do this. So we can make progress. 

With that, Mr. Grothman, our vice chair. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. Interesting topic. I’d like to thank the 

chairman for bringing it up. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

What we’re told here is right. We have about 7,000 Federal properties—and I take it these are just Federal buildings, not vacant 

properties—7,000 properties that are unutilized or underutilized. 

Just GSA. Amazing. Amazing, amazing, amazing. Waste money, 

waste money, waste money. 

And how many of those buildings—and somebody give me a shot 

at guessing—how many of those buildings, like we saw up here, are 

just, in essence, abandoned? I mean, every year, the value of the 

properties drop because they’re not keeping up the electrical or 

even repairing the windows? Does anybody have an opinion on 

that? Give me a shot? 

Mr. Wise? 

Mr. WISE. We don’t have any—the numbers that exist are numbers that are, I think, developed by the administration. So I think 

the question probably should be directed at the administration. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Is it unusual to have buildings in which we just 

let them—even let windows break and let, you know, the rain come 

in? Is this a common thing? 

Mr. WISE. Well, it certainly is existing in Beltsville, as the video 

showed, and there have been other cases where we have seen— 

when we did some work a few years ago looking at—it was actually 

work looking at the accuracy of some of the FRPP data, we saw 

some places, especially in, I can recall, in one of the national parks 

that we saw some kind of abandoned huts and little buildings 

that—I think some of the problem to do with that, sir, is that—and 

I think this was discussed in some of the previous statements—is 

that the cost to deal with these things is sometimes greater than 

just letting them go—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Mr. WISE. —because they don’t have a use for it, and you’ve 

got—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WISE. —environmental issues to deal with and no money for 

demolition—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Great. 

Mr. WISE. —and to take care of them. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. When is it determined—I mean, how long does 

a building have to be vacant before it’s determined we better sell 

this thing? 

Mr. WISE. That’s up to the individual agencies, I think. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. In general? 

Mr. WISE. I would probably defer on that question since it’s not 

something that we’ve really looked at in any detail. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Once it’s determined that we ought to get rid of a building, how 

long does it take to get rid of it? 

Mr. WISE. Well, again, it could take years. And, as we mentioned, under the current legislative framework, there’s a pretty 

complicated process that needs to go forward, including all the 

issues to do with public conveyance. You’ve got issues to do with 

environmental—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You don’t have a guess? Is there an average you 

can think off the top of your head? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. WISE. It just ranges. It can be quick, or it can take years. 

I mean—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What does ‘‘quick’’ mean? 

Mr. WISE. Sorry? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What does ‘‘quick’’ mean? 

Mr. WISE. Well, quick could be anywhere from a few months to 

a number of years. I mean, there’s no discernible pattern that I 

know of. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. One thing that sticks out when I look at 

this, first of all, you’ve got to give a shot to the State and Federal 

Government; then you’ve got to do something or other to see if the 

homeless need it. 

Mr. WISE. Right. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I don’t understand the purpose of either one of 

those. I mean, it seems to me, if I have a building and I want to 

sell it, I don’t say, first of all, I’ve got to call the local city and see 

if they want it and I’ve got to call the local homeless shelter and 

see if they want it. 

Is there any reason we shouldn’t get rid of both of those, what 

I look at as just wasteful things? 

Mr. WISE. Well, that’s up to Congress because that’s the current 

legislative framework. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I know that’s what it is, but do you see any benefit? 

Mr. MADER. You need—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Mader, you—— 

Mr. MADER. Congressman, you need to change your legislation, 

and that’s what we’ve been—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, I know, I know, I know. 

Mr. MADER. I know, but—and that’s what the proposed legislation from the House does. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. It looks like they’re still keeping this homeless 

thing. And I’m not sure, are they still keeping—— 

Mr. MADER. What we’ve been working with Chairman Chaffetz 

and the House is in streamlining it, because there is a value to 

availing these properties for use for the homeless. What we’ve been 

trying to do is to actually streamline that process. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What’s the value? I mean, if I have a house and 

I want to sell it and I want to get out the best I can, you know, 

if the local homeless shelter or the local city want the property, 

they can bid on it or contact my broker. 

Mr. MADER. Under the legislation—you know, to Mr. Wise’s comment, and I’ll ask Mr. Gelber to talk more about it—the public conveyances, they’re not paying for it. It’s actually being transferred 

to them, similar to the example that our friends from Agriculture 

gave. 

So, again, you know, I have to reemphasize, as frustrated as the 

members are and the chairman, I’ve been doing this for 2 years 

since I came to the administration. I’m frustrated, too, that we 

can’t get the House and Senate to agree on legislation that everybody agrees on: that we need savings coming back to do more disposals, we need McKinney-Vento streamlined. I mean, we’re as 

frustrated as you are, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Mr. GROTHMAN. As I understand, it’s being held up, what, in the 

Democratic cloakroom on the Senate side? Is that what’s going on 

now? I think. That’s what somebody told me. 

In your experience, when you deal with these—another thing. We 

have these 7,000 properties here. Of those, how many, if you 

bought the property, about, do you think you’d buy the property for 

the land, and how many do you think the building still has value? 

And I think there are many, many buildings that don’t have 

value. I mean, you let a building go for 5 years, 6 years, particularly if the thing was built 50 or 70 years ago in the first place, 

my guess is usually the land is more valuable than the building. 

But do you know how many of these 7,000 buildings have value 

apart from the land? 

Mr. MADER. I don’t have that level of detail. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you guess wildly? Half? 

Mr. MADER. I wouldn’t even hazard a guess. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Kind of shameful. Well, we’ll go ahead with—give the remainder—I guess I’ve used up my time. So we’ll let the chairman—— 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. 

We’ll now recognize Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I actually heard some good ideas here. I did hear some creativity. 

I wanted to follow up on that. 

Mr. Mader, you said something that sounded pretty catchy to me, 

‘‘Freeze the Footprint.’’ Can you tell me more about that? Is that 

a policy or a statutory thing? Or how are you pursuing that? 

Mr. MADER. Congressman, as I mentioned, in 2012—and a lot of 

this was driven at the time by the decreasing budget, and I think 

agencies have recognized that there’s value in addressing their real 

property program. And so we said in 2012—and it became effective 

in fiscal year 2013—it’s like, okay, nobody—these are DOD and civilian agencies—nobody will increase their footprint with office and 

warehouse space. 

And, as I mentioned—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me ask just quickly, does that mean owned footprint or also leased? 

Mr. MADER. No, leased too. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. 

Mr. MADER. So leased too. So, basically, we overachieved. You 

know, not only did we freeze it, but we actually reduced it by the 

24.7 million square feet. 

And then we said, look, that was a one-time event; what we need 

is a management strategy to go forward. We need agencies to manage these assets in an aggressive way. So, hence, the national 

strategy, which required each of the agencies to prepare this 5-year 

plan. 

Now, a component of that 5-year plan was, oh, and also, by the 

way, tell us how you’re going to reduce your inventory of office and 

warehouse space. And we required that those plans be signed by 

the deputy secretaries of every Cabinet-level department. 

And, this past summer, we actually went out and did an on-site 

review with each of those agencies to talk about, you know, how 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

are you progressing against the goals that you set? What are the 

obstacles? 

So I think, Congressman, we’ve put in place a good management 

practice going forward. And, again, as I said, this is a rolling plan. 

So 2016 to 2020, great. Now we’re getting 2017 through 2021. 

Mr. MASSIE. It sounds so good to me, I’d like to put it in statute. 

And I think people would get creative, more creative, within the 

government when they needed to expand somewhere and there had 

to be some sort of conservation of mass, if you will, where, okay, 

before we can do this—and we need to do this, and we want to do 

this—we’ve got to find some property and solve the problems that 

have been articulated here, we’ve just got to bust through and solve 

these problems, whether it’s legal or statutory requirements like 

Mr. Wise talked about—I know in my district there’s some VA 

buildings that used to be housing for officers in the military a long 

time ago, but we’ve got all these historic requirements, lead abatement, asbestos abatement. 

Mr. Wise, what sort of statutory things could we do to bust 

through those problems? Because you end up with a situation 

where you’ve got real estate and it’s valuable to the city or to developers there, but once you impose all the constraints on it, its value 

is below zero sometimes. 

Mr. WISE. Well, one of the things that I think has been an ongoing concern is that—and I think you kind of hint at that in your 

question—is that you get a lot of stakeholder issues that come into 

play when you talk about what to do with a conveyance or what 

to do with a certain property. And as I think Mr. Mica talked about 

and Mr. Mader also talked about, some of the recent legislation 

that has passed the House could, to some degree, I think, address 

some of these things. 

For example, you know, the Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act 

that was passed this year, that act, one of the things that it does 

is it bundles properties together. So that helps mitigate the individual stakeholder interests that come from the local business or 

the local government or all these other groups that can come in— 

tribal groups, State and local groups—that can then end up really 

kind of jamming up the process or they’ll get involved in public 

hearing court cases of one sort or another that can really slow 

things down. 

But if the properties are bundled together for a congressional decisionmaking, then that helps mitigate some of these stakeholder 

influences. And we think, from what we can see from the legislation, that would be a step forward in helping to help smooth out 

the process. 

Mr. MASSIE. So it may take an act of Congress, or an act of Congress could help—— 

Mr. WISE. Well, there’s been—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —get it right? 

Mr. WISE. Yeah, there’s been reform legislation going back—I 

mean, I’ve been working on these issues I guess for about 8 

years—— 

Mr. MASSIE. But, I mean, what I heard you say is, instead of sort 

of general reform, just start a list of properties and we, you know, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

write them down here in Congress and put them legislatively, 

okay, we’re going to bundle this and—— 

Mr. WISE. Yeah, well, the current framework is what it is. And 

so we see the results of that. And, to some degree, I think, as the 

chairman’s pointed out, there’s bipartisan support to look for reforming that process in order to make it more efficient. And there’s 

been a number of bills—and we can go back to—I think you talked 

about this, Mr. Chairman, your bill, Mr. Denham and you, with 

H.R. 1734, back about 5 years ago, that had some of the similar 

characteristics of the 2016 act. 

So I think there’s definitely congressional recognition. Unfortunately, none of these reform bills have been able to get passed by 

both the House and the Senate. They’ve all passed the House, but 

they’ve gotten stuck in different places in the Senate for various 

reasons. And so that’s been one impediment to trying to enact reforms in how the government should or could manage its real property portfolio. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me for 1 more 

minute? 

Mr. MICA. Oh, take your time. We have plenty of time this morning. 

Mr. MASSIE. The final thing that I wanted to talk about—this 

has been touched on, I think, by most folks here—is getting an accurate inventory of this is really important. I think if we get rid 

of the logjams and we set up the incentives the right way and then 

introduce this clearinghouse, this database, that the private sector 

will be farming that, you know, they’ll be mining that list continuously. 

And that’s why, Mr. Gelber, I was excited when you mentioned 

working on software to locate this inventory. You putting your constraints, almost like a search engine, it sounds like. That would be 

extremely valuable, particularly if the database is accurate, if the 

database lists the constraints on each of the properties, you know, 

in a consistent way across all of the various departments, and if 

it’s available to the public. 

The first thing is I want for it to be available to Congressmen 

so each of us could go into that software and look and say, okay, 

here’s something I need to go visit in my district, and then go talk 

to the local stakeholders, try and anticipate some of these court 

cases or whatever that may come up. 

But, anyway, can you tell us about that software and a little bit 

about the challenges in developing it and where you’re at with it 

right now? 

Mr. GELBER. I would be happy to, sir. 

As with any database, one of the key issues is the accuracy of 

the data. And we are working with our colleagues across the executive branch to ensure that data is as accurate as possible. We have 

instituted several verification and validation tools that would identify anomalies in the data. Then we can go back to agencies and 

ask questions about a particular property or a particular set of 

properties that, for one reason or another, the numbers just don’t 

seem to add up properly for other types of properties that are similar to that around the country. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

In addition, we’re allowing agencies to use the data to analyze 

both their own inventory but compare their inventory to other Federal agencies to see if, in fact, their operating and maintenance 

costs are higher or lower than other agencies, if the utilization of 

a particular property is not as efficient as it could be, when a particular lease would end, and then, using that information, reach 

out to other Federal agencies in a particular community to say, 

‘‘We have a property that you might be interested in,’’ or, as an 

agency, ‘‘I’m looking for space in this community. You have a property that we may be interested in.’’ 

And so these tools, as you mentioned, are very similar to the traditional search types of tools that you see in the commercial marketplace that allow people to mine data and look at data to more 

effectively make decisions. 

Mr. MASSIE. I mean, if it’s an open dataset, I can almost imagine 

a start-up that would write that app for you because of the incentives, if we had the incentives set up right. There are probably 10 

start-ups dealing with, you know, finding and helping transfer 

property—if there’s some financial incentive. Now, if they’re just 

going to turn it over to the city or the county or local law enforcement, there may not be that financial incentive. 

But, anyway, I would love to be a beta-tester for that software 

if you’ll let Congress beta-test that before you go live, understanding it’s going to have a lot of glitches and stuff. I think it’d 

be a helpful tool for our staff to go in and try and anticipate some 

of these places. 

Mr. GELBER. That’s something we’re reviewing at this point. 

There are still questions about some of the data may not be appropriate to share with the public in general. 

Mr. MASSIE. Correct. 

Mr. GELBER. And as we go through this process of evaluating information and using information, we want to make sure that, as we 

share information, it’s shared for good, if you will, but that actors 

who may not be as predisposed to—you know, hoping the government makes good decisions, but using that information for other 

purposes, we want to make sure that we don’t share the data inappropriately at this point. 

So it’s something we’re reviewing and discussing within the executive branch as well as with Congress. 

Mr. MASSIE. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

I see the chairman was very generous. I’ll yield back the time I 

don’t have. 

Mr. MICA. I thank you, Mr. Massie. And we’ll work with you on 

trying to get ahead of that IRS possible departure from your district, because I’m sure they have a huge footprint as far as square 

footage and space and then a huge economic impact. 

Mr. MASSIE. If I can talk to that, it’s an enormous footprint. It’s 

two city blocks, a single-story building, surrounded by private development, which is, you know, much taller buildings and parking. 

And, like I said, I want to reiterate we’d love for the IRS to stay. 

We’d love for them to find some other use for that building. But, 

sort of, my foreboding sense is that I could—maybe one day I’ll be 

in Congress as long as you, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll be sitting in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

that seat asking some witnesses 20 years later why this singlestory building’s got vines on it. So I want to prevent—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, again—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —that dystopian future. 

Mr. MICA. —and just as some institutional advice for being here, 

if you see this coming and you can work with these agencies—and 

you had Mr. Mader talking about, well, we have need for placing 

Federal agencies in square footage, and it all doesn’t have to be in 

Washington, D.C. 

Here is an example—I don’t know your square footage—where 

you could work in anticipation of transition to another agency that 

doesn’t have to be here. They want to spend an incredible amount 

of money on relocating all of Homeland Security in one location. It 

kind of reminds me of putting all the western fleet at Pearl Harbor. 

But some areas that don’t need to be right in the capital center 

here may have a reuse capability. 

Again, I think you can sometimes get ahead of this, but you have 

to do an inventory because there are all these separate entities operating independently. Getting with GSA, finding out what the 

property needs are, OMB and maybe others, and identify, and 

maybe transitioning in a smoother fashion and utilizing some fairly 

valuable property that probably in your locale could be operated a 

lot less also as a square-footage cost, employment cost, the whole 

realm, for saving the Federal Government and saving your community. 

So just a little advice. 

I worked on the closure of a Veterans medical complex in my 

community. And we got them to keep part of it open, and then they 

had to do an assessment. But I wrote them 5 years ago, and I said, 

‘‘Hey, this is going to become empty when we open the new one. 

Let’s have a plan.’’ But I’ll tell you, it always don’t work that way. 

We are still repurposing, and we are into having already the new 

facility open, have a vacant 120-bed nursing home vacant, which 

I just turned over to the State of Florida from the Federal Government because they can open it and operate it faster. 

So you can get ahead of these things. I mean, again, I’m just trying to help you, Mr. Massie, and that is certainly a big responsibility in your district. So words of advice, whatever they’re worth. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. And the same thing with Mr. DeSaulnier. He pointed 

out some things. He reminded me that we had been up to New 

York and looking at some projects, the old post office there, which 

is being converted now. 

And I thank you. 

He helped call attention. We had been up there many times for 

a post office that had been vacant for 30, 40 years, will now be a 

center of commerce, a station, at a fraction of the cost and with a 

public-private partnership. That property got turned over, I think, 

to the New York Development Authority, but still a lot of Federal 

responsibility in that project. 

So those are some of the things—Mr. DeSaulnier, did you have 

anything else? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. No, I just—that also is an example of one of 

the most valuable pieces of property in the United States sitting 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

there being not used, underused, for 20 years, where there was a 

general interest in doing something positive about it. So, to the degree that we can get on top of those things—and I know you’re trying to—that would be beneficial. 

Mr. MICA. And this bill certainly will help. And you cited that 

legislation we’ve struggled with here, so hopefully we can get our 

Senate colleagues to act on that. 

Just two quick updates, Mr. Gelber. Okay, the Coast Guard we 

had located over here on the waterfront, and they moved into their 

new building, when was it, at the new location? 

Mr. GELBER. I believe they moved in in late 2014, possibly the 

beginning of 2015. 

Mr. MICA. So 2014, 2015? 

Mr. GELBER. That’s my understanding. We can get the exact 

dates to your staff. 

Mr. MICA. And they’re fully moved, right? 

Mr. GELBER. They’re currently out of the locations that they were 

in previously, in the—I believe it’s referred to as the Buzzard Point 

area of Washington, D.C. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. And what’s the status of that property? 

Mr. GELBER. That property is a leased facility, so it’s owned by 

a private entity. And so I don’t know—— 

Mr. MICA. Is it vacant? 

Mr. GELBER. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. MICA. I think it’s vacant. 

Mr. GELBER. As I said, it’s owned by a private entity and not in 

the inventory. 

Mr. MICA. I know, but I think you’re paying a lease on it. Can 

you let us know the status of that? 

Mr. GELBER. We can, sir. I believe—— 

Mr. MICA. Yeah. Here’s an example of one coming vacant. I’m 

pretty sure it’s been vacant since at least the beginning of last 

year, and I think we’re still paying rent on it. Sometimes we don’t 

plan these things very well. 

Then can you give, also for the committee and the staff, I want 

an update on that building. And then, let me see, we’ve got an— 

oh, what’s the latest and greatest on the FBI building? 

Mr. GELBER. That’s a procurement that’s currently in process. 

Bids have been submitted to the government, and we’re currently 

reviewing those bids, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Uh-huh. And have they narrowed it to one of the 

States? I think it was between Maryland and Virginia. Or is it still 

open competition? 

Mr. GELBER. The actual site selection will be part of the award 

of the contract, and that has not occurred yet. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Maybe you could just give us that in writing 

too. I like to keep up with these things, and then we put a date 

on them, a response from the committee, and then we can come 

back, or whoever is in charge, and make certain that we’re making 

progress and we’ve documented where we are and where we need 

to go. 

Well, there being—Mr. Massie, did you have anything else? 

Thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

There being no further business before the subcommittee today, 

I would like to thank our witnesses for participating. I look forward 

to working with you. You have an important responsibility. We 

could save billions of taxpayer dollars. We can make idle Federal 

assets very productive and a good return for the taxpayer. 

So, with that, there being no further business, this subcommittee 

hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(61) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 23485.030

Opening Statement 

Ranking Member Tammy Duckworth 

Hearing on "Vacant Federal Properties" 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

September 23,2016 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

Today's hearing is an important opportunity to assess the progress the federal 

government has made in longstanding challenges related to real property management and 

disposing of excess properties. 

Due to evolving mission needs and technological advances such as internet-based service 

delivery and employee telework, agencies have accumulated a large number of excess, 

underutilized, and unutilized properties. 

These buildings often languish in the federal inventory instead of generating muchneeded revenue. Maintaining unneeded federal property costs the American taxpayers billions of 

dollars. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has designated federal real property 

management as a high risk area since 2003, in part because of the number and cost of excess 

properties. 

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have seen firsthand how 

agencies like the Department of Defense can realize significant cost savings through reductions 

in excess property, and also the challenges that agencies face in the disposal process. 

This is not a new issue for this Committee or for this Congress. Several hearings have 

been held by this Committee over the years and the same challenges to real property 

management and the disposal of excess property are repeatedly identified. 

These obstacles include a lengthy statutory disposal process, the cost of preparing 

properties for disposal, conflicts with stakeholders, and a lack of accurate data. 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 23485.031

I'm happy to see that despite these longstanding challenges, this Administration has made 

real progress on this issue. For example, in March 2015, the Office of Management and Budget 

issued a National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property. This strategy responds to a 

priority GAO recommendation, and GAO has said that it is a "major step forward". 

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government disposed of 4,900 properties, with an 

estimated annual cost savings of $46.1 million. 

While there has been progress, challenges remain. Too many buildings remain 

underutilized or unutilized at significant cost to the taxpayer. 

The Committee has toured vacant U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) facilities, and 

I'm looking forward to hearing about USDA's plans to dispose of and consolidate vacant 

properties across their portfolio and how Congress can support those initiatives. 

We can always do better. That's why I am glad this Committee endorsed the Federal 

Asset Sale and Transfer (FAST) Act, which would direct the establishment of a six-year 

commission of experts to recommend the disposal or consolidation of federal properties. This 

much needed legislation passed the House, and is now awaiting further action in the Senate. 

!look forward to hearing from our witnesses about other steps Congress can take to 

address the challenges the government faces in property disposal; as well additional steps the 

Administration can take to address the remaining challenges. This problem requires a joint 

approach, with Congress and the executive branch working collaboratively together to solve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

2 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 23485.032

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

114m CONGRESS 

2D SESSION 

(Original Big'nHtnlT of :'.lt•inlH'l') 

H.R. 

To dl'<'l"l'HSP the dl'fieit by eonsolidating and selling l.<'ederal buildings and 

other l"iYilian real property, aw1 for other purposes. 

I;\ TilE HOUSE OF REPRI'JS}jN'l'A'l'IVES 

Mr. DE:\ILUI (for himself, Mr. CIL\FFETZ, :VIr. SHl"S'l'ER, i\Ir. CniMl:\liS, 

:VIr. DEFAZIO, 1\Ir. RI.HLETTA, and Thlr. CAHSO:"' of Indiana) introdneed 

tlH> following bill; whieh was rdern'd to the CmrunitteP on 

A BILL 

To decrease the deficit by consolidating and selling Federal 

buildings aiHl other eivilian real property, au<l for other 

purposes. 

Be d enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States qf"A me rica 1:n Conqress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) Smm:r TI'l'Lg.-'fhis Art may he cited as the 

5 "Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Aet of 2016". 

6 (b) TAllLE OF Co:--;TE:-\TS.-

St'<'. 1. Slim-! ti1k'; tahle of mntents. 

::.;ee. ~. Purpost'~. 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 23485.033

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

See. :1. Definition:.\. 

0\ec. 4. Board. 

S<•t•. ,). Board mPetiugs. 

2 

Rcc. G. Compen.sation aw1 tl·avel expenses. 

See. 7. ExeentiYe Dire<'tor. 

8cc. ~- 8taff. 

8Pe. 9. Coutraeting authority. 

Nee. 10. Trrmination. 

See. 11. DevelolmJcilt of reeouUllewla1imJ~ to Bo:wd. 

S{'(•. 12. Board tlntit'S. 

Bee. 13. Hcvicw by 0:\IB. 

Se,·. 14. Implementation of Bo::n-d l\~t~omnWtHltttion~. 

Sec. 1S. Anthorization of approprintimlH. 

See. 1 G. F'nnding. 

Nee. 17. Cong-ressional approval of propose<l projeets. 

See. 18. Preelusion of judieialreviPw. 

~('{'. 19. Implementation n•,iew hy GAO. 

See. 20 . .i\~.reHc·:· l'l'tentioH of proece{1s. 

St~('. 21. P(:dt'l'Nil'(~Hl pt·opcrt~· dntnhnse. 

~ec. 22. Htremnlining-l\lcKinne:T~Vento Homeles.s A~si;:.;1anee .Act. 

St'L'. 23. A<l(1itiomll propel'ty. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

2 The purpose of this Act is to reduce the costs of Fed3 era! real estate by4 (1) eonsolidating- the footprint of Fedm·al build5 ings and facilities; 

6 (2) maximizing the utilization rate of Federal 

7 building·s and facilities; 

8 ( 3) reducing the relianee on leased spaee; 

9 ( 4) selling· or redeveloping high value assets 

10 thai are underutilized to obtain the highest and best 

11 value for the taxpayer and maximize the returu to 

13 ( 5) reducing the operating and maintenance 

14 eosts of I<~ederal civilian real properties; 

f:\VHLC\0204161020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 23485.034

F:\i\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

3 

(6) reducing redundancy, overlap, and costs as2 soeiated with field offices; 

3 (7) creating incentives for Federal agencies to 

4 achieve greater efficiency in their inventories of civil5 ian real property; 

6 (8) facilitating· and expediting the sale or dis7 posal of unneeded li'cderal civilian real properties; 

8 (9) improving the cffieiene.v of real property 

9 transfers for the provision of scnices to the home10 less; and 

11 (10) assisting Federal agencies in achieving the 

12 Government's sustainabilit~' goals by reducing excess 

13 space, inventory, and cner;:,':v commmption, as well as 

14 by leveraging new technologies. 

15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

16 In this Act, unless otherwise expressly stated, the fol17 lo·wing definitions apply: 

18 (1) Amrr~IS'l'RA'l'()R.-'l'he term "Adminis19 trator" means the Administrator of General Scrv20 JCeS. 

21 (2) BoARD.-The term "Board" means the 

22 Publie Building-s Reform Board established by see23 tion 4. 

24 (3) CERCLA.-rl'hc term "CERCLA" means 

25 the Comprehensive Em1ronmcntal Response, Comf:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 23485.035

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

4 

pcm;ation, and Ijiability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 

2 9(101 et seq.). 

3 ( 4) FEDERAL AGE:"JCY.-The term "Pederal 

4 agency" means an executive department or inde5 pendent establishment in the executive branch of the 

6 Govemment, and a wholly owned Government cor7 poration. 

8 ( 5) FEDEHAI, CIVILL.\:"J REAL PROI'ERTY AND 

9 CIVILL\:"J REAl, PROPERTY.-

lO (A) IN GENERAI".-The term.s "Federal ci11 vilian real property" and "civilian real prop12 erty" refer to Federal real property assets, in13 dueling public buildings as defined in section 

14 3301(a) of title 40, United States Code, oeeu15 pied and improved gnmnds, leased spaee, m· 

16 other physical structures nuder the custody and 

17 <'ontrol of any Federal ageney. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

f:\VHLC\0204 16\02041 6.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:1 1 a.m.) 

(B) EXCLUSTONK-Suhparag1·aph (A) 

shall not be construed as including any of the 

following tJ11eR of }Jl'operty: 

(i) Properties that are on military installatious (includiug any fort, camp, post, 

naval training station, airfield proving 

gnmnd, military supply depot, military 

(62218511) 
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 23485.036

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

5 

school, m· any similar facility of the Department of Defense). 

(ii) A base, camp, post, station, yard, 

center, or homcport facility for any ship or 

actiyity unrler the jurisdiction of the Coast 

Guard. 

(iii) Properties that are excluded for 

reasons of natioual security by the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budg·et. 

(iY) Properties that are excepted from 

the definition of the term "woperty" 

unrler section 102 of title 40, United 

States Code. 

(v) Indian and NatiYe Alaskan properties, including-

(I) any property ·within the limits 

of an Indian resm"Vation to ·which the 

United States owns title for the be11-

efit of an Indian tribe; and 

(II) any property title that is 

held in trust by the United States for 

the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 23485.037

F:\Ml4\DENHAMIDENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

indiYidnal snbjert to restriction by the 

United States against alienation. 

(vi) Properties operated and maintained by the Tennessee Valley Authorit~' 

pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority Aet of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). 

(vii) PoRtal propelties owned by the 

United States Postal Serviee. 

(viii) PropertieR nsed in connection 

with Federal programs for agrieultural, 

recreational, or eonservation purposes, ineluding· research in connection ·with the 

progTams. 

(ix) Properties used in connection 

with river, harbor, flood eontrol, reelamation, or power prqjects. 

(x) Properties located ontside the 

18 United States operated or maintaim~d hy 

19 the Department of State or the United 

20 StateR Ag·ency for International Dewlop21 ment. 

22 (6) ~F'UJijD lWFICE.-The term "field offiee" 

23 meanR any Federal offiee that iR not the head24 quarter,; office loeation for the Federal ag·eney. 

l:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 23485.038

F:\M l4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

7 

(7) HUD.-The term "IIUD" means the De2 partment of Housing and Urban Development. 

3 (8) O:VIB.-Tlw term "O:VIB" means the Office 

4 of 1\Ianagement and Budg·et. 

5 

6 "value of transaetions" means the sum of the esti7 mated proceeds and estimated costs, based on the 

8 aeeouuting system deYeloped or identified under see9 tion l2(e), associated with the tl'am:aetions inelnded 

10 in Board recommendations. 

11 SEC. 4. BOARD. 

12 (a) ESTABI,ISIDIENT.-There is established an inde13 pendent board to be known as the Public Buildings Re14 form Board. 

15 (b) DFTms.-The Board shall eany ont the dnties 

16 as specified in this Act. 

17 (e) ME:\IBERSIIIP.-

18 (1) I" GE""EHAL.-The Board shall be eom19 posed of a Chairperson appointed by the President, 

20 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

21 and 6 members appointed by the President. 

22 (2) APPOII:\T:\IEl\'l'S.-ln seleeting· individuals 

23 for appointments to the Board, the President shall 

24 consult withf:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (1 0:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 23485.039

F:u\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

(A) the Speaker of the Honse of Rep2 resentatives concerning the appointment of 2 

3 members; 

4 (B) the majority leader of the Senate con5 cerning the appointment of 2 members; 

6 (C) the minority leader of the House of 

7 Representatives concerning the appointment of 

8 1 member; and 

9 (D) the minority leader of the Senate ron10 eerning the appointment of 1 member. 

11 (3) TEltl\IS.-The term for each member of the 

12 Board shall be ()years. 

13 (4) VACA.'ICIER-Vacancies shall be filled m 

14 the same manner as the original appointment. 

15 (5) QUALIFICATIONS.-In selecting individuals 

16 for appointment to the Board, the President shall 

17 ensure that the Board eontains individuals ·with ex18 pertise representative of the following-: 

19 (A) Commercial real estate and redevelop20 ment. 

21 (B) Space optimization and utilization. 

22 

23 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(C) Community development, ineluding 

transportation and planning. 

(62218511) 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 23485.040

F:\MI4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

9 

SEC. 5. BOARD MEETINGS. 

2 (a) OPEN l\TEETINGs.-Eadt meetiug of the Board, 

3 other than meetings in 'vhich elassified information is to 

4 be discussed, shall be open to the public. Any open mcet5 ing shall he annomwecl in the Federal Register and the 

6 Federal Web site established by the Boarcl. at least 14 cal7 endar days in advance of a meeting. For all public meet8 ings, the Board shall release an agenda and a listing of 

9 materials relevant to the topics to be discussed. 

10 (b) Qnnm:.\I AND MEETINGS.-Five Board members 

11 shall constitute a quorum fm· the purposes of conducting 

12 business and 3 or more Board members shall constitute 

13 a meeting of the Board. 

14 (c) TRANSPAREl\'CY OF INPORl\IA'l'ION.-All the pro15 ceeding·s, information, and delibcrfltions of the Board shall 

16 be open, upon request, to the Chairperson and ranking 

17 minority party member, and their respective subcommittee 

18 Chairperson and subcommittee ranking minority party 

19 member, of20 ( 1) the Committee on Transportati011 and ln21 frastmetnre of the House of Representatiws; 

22 (2) the Committee on Oversight and Govern23 ment Reform of the House of Representatives; 

24 (3) the Committee on Homeland Securit0' and 

25 Governmental Affairs of the Senate; 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416. 025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 23485.041

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

10 

(4) the Committee on Environment and Pnblic 

2 \Vorks of the Senate; and 

3 (5) the Committees on Appropriations of the 

4 Honse of Hepresentatiws and the Senate. 

5 (d) GovER:-mgl'\T Accoc:-JTABILITY 0FFICE.-.A.ll 

6 proeeedings, information, and deliberations of the Board 

7 shall he open, upon request, to the Comptroller General 

8 of the United States. 

9 SEC. 6. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES. 

10 (a) COI\ll'El'\SATIOl'\.-

11 (1) R.\'l'E OF P.\Y F'OH ME:.\IBEHS.-Each mem12 her, other than the Chaiq1erson, shall be paid at a 

13 rate equal to the daily equivalent of the mm1mum 

14 annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 

15 ExeeutiYc Sehcdnle under scetion 5:ll5 of title 5, 

16 United States Code, for eaeh day (including travel 

17 time) dnring which the member is <'ngaged in the ae18 tual performam:e of duties vested in th<~ Board. 

19 (2) RxrE OI<' P.\Y FOH CllAIHl'EHSOl\'.-The 

20 Chairperson shall be paid for each day n:ferrcd to 

21 in paragraph (1) at a rate equal to the daily eqniya22 lent of the minimum annual rate of basie pay pay23 able for leYel III of the ~Jxecutivc Schedule under 

24 section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. 

f:IVHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 {10:11 a.m.) 

{62218511) 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 23485.042

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

11 

(b) TRA\TEL.-Memhers shall receive travel ei\'J)enses, 

2 ineluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance 

3 with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States 

4 Code. 

5 SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 

6 (a) APPOIXTl\IEJ\'T.-The Board shall appoint an Ex7 eeutive Director, who may he appointed v\rithout regard to 

8 the proYisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 

9 appointments in the competitive senriee. 

10 (b) l~A'l'I<J OP PAY.-The ExecutiYe Director shall he 

11 paid at the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 

12 Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 

13 States Code. 

14 SEC. 8. STAFF. 

15 (a) ADDI'J'IONAI~ PERSOKKE!J.-Subjcct to subsection 

16 (h), thl' Exeeutive Director may request additional per17 sonnel detailed from Federal ageneies. 

18 (b) REQUES'l'S F'OR DETAIL E:\IPLOYEES.-Upon re19 quest of the Chairperson and approYHl of the Director of 

20 OlVIB, the head of any Federal agenc;' shall detail the re21 quested personnel of that ageney to the Board to assist 

22 the Board in earrying out its duties under this Aet. 

23 (c) QrL\LIPICATIOI\8.-Appointments shall be made 

24 vYith eonsideration of a balnnee of expertise eonsistent with 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 23485.043

F:\M 14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

12 

the qualifications of representatives described m section 

2 4(c)(5). 

3 SEC. 9. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) EXPER1'S A?\D CO:--JSUI,TAc'ITS.-'fhe Board, to 

5 the extent pradicahle anrl subject to appropriations Acts, 

6 shall use eontraets, including· nonappropt'iated ('ontraets, 

7 entered into by the Administrator for services necessary 

8 to carry out the duties of the Board. 

9 (h) OFFICE SPACE.-'l'he Administrator, in eonsulta10 tion with the Board, shall identifY and provide, Vi':ithout 

11 charge, suitable office space within the existing l<"'cdcral 

12 space inwntory to house the operations of the Board. 

13 (c) PI<JH:-:10?\,\L l'ROPEHTY.-The Board shall use per14 sonal property already in the custody and C(mtrol of the 

15 Administrator. 

16 SEC. 10. TERMINATION. 

17 The Board shall eease operations and terminate G 

18 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 SEC. 11. DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

20 BOARD. 

21 (a) SUBl\IISSIO?-J:-:1 OF AGE?\CY l?\li'ORMATION A)JD 

22 RECO:\ll\IEJ\'DA'l'IO)JS.-Not later than 120 days after the 

23 date of enactment of this Act, and not later than 120 days 

24 aftet' the first day of eaeh fiscal year thereafter until the 

25 termination of the Board, the head of eaeh Federal agen(>y 

f:\ VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511} 
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 23485.044

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

13 

shall submit to the AdminiRtrator and the Director of 

2 OMB the follmving: 

3 (1) CURRE:'-1'1' DA'l'A.-Cnrrent data of all J<~ed4 ern! ciYilian real propertieR ow-ned, leased, or con5 trolled by the agency, ineluding· all releYant informa6 tion prescribed by the Administrator and the Direc7 tor of OMB, including data 1·elated to the age and 

8 condition of the property, operating costs, history of 

9 capital expenditures, omstainability metrics, number 

10 of Federal employees and functions housed in the re11 spcetive property, and square footage (including 

12 gross, rentable, and usable). 

13 (2) Acnmcy HECOl\L\m:"'DATIOI"S.-Rec14 ommendations of the agency 011 the following: 

15 (A) Pedcral civilian real properties that 

16 cau be sold for proeeeds or otherwise disposed 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

of, reported as execss, dedared surplus, 

ontleased, or otherwise no longer JTI(~Pting the 

needs of the agency, exc.luding leascbacks or 

other such exchange agreements where the 

property continues to be usert by the agency. 

(B) l<~ederal (•ivilian real properties that 

can be transferred, exchanged, consolidated, colocated, reeonfig·ured, or redeveloped, so as to 

reclnee the eivilian real property inventor:·, rc-

(62218511) 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 23485.045

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

14 

dncc the operating costs of the Government, 

2 and create the highest n1lue and return for the 

3 ta..xpayer. 

4 (C) Operational efficiencies that the Gov5 emmcnt can realize in its operation and main6 tcnmwe of Federal civilian real properties. 

7 (b) S'l'iL\iDARDS .\l\'D CRITERIA.-

8 (1) DEVI•JLOP:\IEl\'T OF STANDARDS AND CIU9 TERIA.-Not later than 60 days after the deadline 

10 for .submissions of agency recommendations under 

11 subsection (a), the Director of 0::\lB, in consultation 

12 vvith the Administrator, shall13 (A) review the agency recommendations; 

14 (B) develop consistent standards and eri15 teria ag·ainst whieh the ag·eney reeommenda16 tions ·will be reviewed; and 

17 (C) submit to the Board the reeommenda18 tions developed pursuant to parai,>Taph (2). 

19 (2) RECo:\IMEKDATIOl\'8 'J'O BO.\HD.-The Di20 rector of OlVIB and the Administrator shall jointly 

21 develop recommendations to the Board based on the 

22 standards and eriteria dewlope(l uuder parngTaph 

23 (1 ). 

24 (3) F'AC'l'ORS.-In deYeloping the standards and 

25 eritcria under paragraph (1 ), the Direetor of OlVIB, 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 23485.046

F:\M 14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

15 

in consnltation with the Administrator, shall incor2 poratc the following· factors: 

3 (A} The extent to which the civilian real 

4 property could he sold (including property that 

5 is no longer meeting the needs of the Gow~rn6 ment), redeveloped, outlcascd, or othenvise used 

7 to produce the highest and best value and re8 turn for the taxpayer. 

9 (B) The extent to whieh the operating and 

10 maintenance costs are reduced through consoli11 dating, eo-locating, and reconfiguring space, 

12 and through rca lizing other operational cffi13 ('1Cl1CICS. 

14 (C) The extent to which the utilization rate 

15 is lwing maximized and is consistent with non16 goyernmental industry standards for the giwu 

17 fimetion or operation. 

18 (D) The extent and timing· of potential 

19 eosts and savings, including the number of 

20 years, beginning vvith the date of eompletion of 

21 the proposed recommendation. 

22 (E) The extent to whieh relianee on leasing 

23 for long-term spaee needs is redueed. 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 23485.047

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

16 

(F) The extent to which a eiYilian real 

property aligns with the current mission of the 

Federal ageney. 

(G) The extent to which there are opportunities to eom;olidate similar operations aeross 

multiple ag·mwies or ·within agerwies. 

(H) The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the eivilian real property. 

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

12 (e) SPECIAij RFLE FOR U'l'ILIZATIO:-.J RA'rEs.-

13 Standards deyeloped hy the Director of 01\iB pursuant to 

14 sub,;cction (b) shall incorporate and appl~· dear standard 

15 utilization rates consistent throughout each category of 

16 .-;pace and with nongovernment space utilization rates. To 

17 the extent the spaee utilization rate of a giwn agency ex18 eeeds the utilization rates to be arlplied under this sub19 section, the Director of Ol\IB may rpeommcnd rPalign20 mcnt, co-location, consolidation, or other t,;rpc of' action to 

21 improYe space utilization. 

22 (d) 8CB:.\'ll8SION TO Bo"um.-

23 (1) IN GENimAL.-Thc Director of' OMB shall 

24 submit the stawlards, criteria, and recommendations 

25 deye]oped pursuant to subseetion (b) to the Board 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416. 025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 23485.048

F:\!\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

17 

with all supporting information, data, analyses, and 

2 documentation. 

3 (2) PUBLICA'l'IOK-'l'he standards, criteria, 

4 and recommendations developed pursuant to subS section (b) shall be published in the Federal Register 

6 and transmitted to the eommittees listed in seetion 

7 5(c) and to the Comptroller Geneml of the United 

8 8tates. 

9 (8) ACCESS TO 11\'FOR;\L\TIO:'\i.-The Board 

I 0 shall also lnwe access to all information pertaining 

11 to the recommendations developed pursuant to sub12 section (h), including· supporting information, data, 

13 analyses, and documentation submitted pursuant to 

14 snbse<'tion (a). Upon request, a Federal agency shall 

15 provide io the Board any atlditional information per16 taining· to the ciYiliau real properties under the cus17 tody, eontrol, or administrative jurisdiction of the 

18 Federal ag·ency. 

19 SEC. 12. BOARD DUTIES. 

20 (a) lDEKTH"ICATIO?-J OF PROPERTY REDUCTIO!\' 0P21 POH'!TI\I'l'IER.-The Board shall identify opportunities for 

22 the Government to reduce significantly its inventory of ei23 vilian real property and reduce costs to the Government. 

24 (b) lDE-"''l'IFICATION OJ<" limn YAUJE ASSETS.-

f:\VHLC\0204161020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 23485.049

F:\M 14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

18 

(1) lllE~TIFICATION OF CEiiTAI~ PROP2 EHTIES.-:'-Jot Inter than 180 days after Board 

3 members arc appointed pursuant to section 4, the 

4 Board shall5 (A) identify not fewer than 5 B'ederal civil6 ia11 real properties that are Hot on the list of 

7 surplus or excess as of such date with a total 

8 fair market Yalue of not less than $500,000,000 

9 and not more than $750,000,000; am! 

10 (B) transmit the list of the Federal civilian 

11 real properties to the Director of 01\IB and 

12 CongTess as Board recommendations and sub13 jeet to the approval process described in seetion 

14 13. 

15 (2) l~FORl\UTIO:"\ Ai'JD DA'l'A.-ln order to 

16 meet the goal established under paragraph (1), each 

17 Federal ageney shall provide, npon request, any and 

18 all information and data regarding· itR civi.lian real 

19 properties to the Board. 'l'he Board shall notify the 

20 committees listed in Rection 5(c) of any failure by an 

21 ageney to eomply with a request of the Board. 

22 (3) B'ACTORS.-In identifying properties pnrsu23 ant to paragraph (1 ), the Board shall eonsider the 

24 factors listed in seetion ll(b)(3). 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 23485.050

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

19 

(4) LEASEBACK RESTIUCTTOKS.-None of the 

2 existing improvements on properties sold under this 

3 subsection may be leased back to the Government. 

4 (5) REPORT OF EXCESS.-Not later than 60 

5 days after the HJlprovnl of Board reeommendations 

6 pursuant to paragTaph (1), F'ederal ageneies with 

7 custody, control, or administmtive jurisdiction over 

8 the identified properties shall submit a Report of 

9 Excess to the General Services Administration. 

10 (6) SALE.-

11 (A) l:\TrL\TI0:-.1 OF SALE.-.:Jot later than 

12 120 days after the acceptance by the Aclminis13 trator of the Report of l<}xcess and notwith14 standing any other prmision of law (including· 

15 section f501 of the l\IeKinucy-Vento Homeless 

16 As.sistane(' Act (42 H.S.C. 11411), but except 

17 as provided in seetion 14(g)), the General Sen:-

18 icPs Administration shall initiate the sale of the 

19 civilian real properties described in paragTaph 

20 (1). 

21 (B) COMPLETIOK OF Slll,E.-.:Jot later 

22 than 1 year after the aeeeptauee of the Report 

23 of Bxeess, the Administrator shall sell the civil24 ian real properties at fair market value at hig·h25 est and best use. 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February 4, 2016 (1 0:11 a.m.) 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 23485.051

F:\;Vll4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

20 

(e) AKALYSIS OF I?\"VEl'\TORY.-The Board shall per2 form an independent analysis of the inventory of Federal 

3 civilian real property and the recommendations submitted 

4 pmsnant to section 11. The Board shall not be bound or 

5 limited by the recommendations submitted pursuant to 

6 seetion 11. If, iu the opinion of the Board, an agency fails 

7 to provide needed information, data, or adequate 1·ec8 ommeudations that meet the standards and criteria, the 

9 Board shall develop snch recommendations as the Board 

10 considers appropriate based on existing· data contained in 

11 the Federal Real Property Profile or other relevant infor12 mation. 

13 (d) INFOR:UATIO:'J A.'\'D P!WPOSALS.-

14 (1) RECEIPT.-Notwithstamling any other pro15 vision of law, the Board may receive and consider 

16 proposals, information, and other data submitted by 

17 State and local officialR and the private seetor. 

18 (2) Co:NSPL'l'A'l'IOC\1.-The Board shall consult 

19 with State and local officials on information, pro20 posals, and other data that the officials submit to 

21 the Board. 

22 (3) A\".\llu\IHLITY.-lnformation submitted to 

23 the Board shall be made publically aYailable. 

24 (e) ACCOL'NTIXG SYS'l'l~l\1.-1\ot later than 120 days 

25 after the date of enaetment of this Aet, the Board shall 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4. 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 23485.052

F:\Ml4\DENHAMIDENHAM_042.XML 

21 

identifY or develop and implement a system of accounting 

2 to be used to independently evaluate the costs of and re3 tums on the recommcudatious. Such accounting system 

4 shall he applied in developing the Board's recommcnda5 tions and determining the highest return to the taxpayer. 

6 In applying the accouuting systein, the Board shall set a 

7 standard performance period. 

8 (f) Pum,rc liEAHI:\G.-Thc Board shall conduct 

9 pnblie hearings. All testimony before the Board at a public 

10 hearing under this subsection shall be presented under 

11 oath. 

12 (g) HEPORTING 01<' Il\FOH!\IATIO~ AND REC13 01\ll\iE~DATIO:-.JH.-

14 ( 1) IN GENERAL.-Subjeet to the sdtedulc and 

15 limitations specified in paragraph (2), the Board 

16 shall transmit to the Direetor of 01\IB, and publicly 

17 post on a Federal \Yeb site maintained by the 

18 Board, l'eports containing thf:' Board's finding·s, eon19 elusions, and recommendations for20 (A) the con>;olidation, exchange, eo-loca21 tion, reconfig11ration, lease rerluctions, sale, 

22 outleasf:', and rcden~lopment of I<~ederal eivilian 

23 real properties; and 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 23485.053

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

22 

(B) othe1· operational effieiencieo; that can 

be realized in the Government's operation and 

maintenauee of sneh properties. 

(2) SCIIED1JLE Al\D LI:\IITA'l'IO:\"S.-

(A) Fms·r nomm.-Not later than 2 

years after the date of transmittal of the list of 

properties reeommemled pursuant to subseetion 

(b), the Board shall transmit to the Director of 

O:VIB the first 1·eport required under paragraph 

(1). The total value of transactions contained in 

the first report may not exceed $2,500,000,000. 

(B) SECOI\'D IWU:-JD.-Not earlier than 3 

years after the date of transmittal of the first 

report, the Board shall transmit to the Direetor 

of O:VIB the second report required under paragraph (1). The total value of transactions contained in the second report may not exceed 

$4,750,000,000. 

(3) CoNSEI\'SUS Il\' 1\LI..JOill'l'Y.-'rhe Board 

20 shall seck to develop consensus recommendations, 

21 but if a consensus cannot be obtained, the Board 

22 may include in the report,; required under this snb23 scetion recommendations that are supported hy a 

24 majority of the Board. 

f:\ VHLC\0204161020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 23485.054

F:\MI4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

23 

(h) FEDEHAL WEB SrTE.-The Board shall establish 

2 and maintain a Federal \Veb site for the purposes of mak3 ing relevant information pnblieally available. 

4 (i) REvmw BY Gi\0.-The Comptroller General of 

S the United States shall transmit to Congress and the 

6 Board a report eoHtaiHing a detailed analysis of the ree7 ommendations and seleetion process. 

8 SEC. 13. REVIEW BY OMB. 

9 (a) REVIEW OP RECOMl\IEl\D"\TIONS.-Upon reeeipt 

10 of the Board's recommendations pursuant to subsections 

11 (b) a!l(l (g) of section 12, the Direetor of Ol\IB shall eon12 duct a rcYicw of the recommendations. 

13 (b) REPORT TO BOARD AND CONGHESS.-Not later 

14 thaH 30 days after the re(~eipt of the Boa1·d's rceommenda15 tions, the Director of Ol\IB shall transmit to the Board 

16 and CongTess a report that sets forth the Director of 

17 O:VIB's approYal or disapproYal of the Board's ree18 ommendations. 

19 (e) APPROYAL Al'.W DISAPPROVAL.-

20 (1) APPRO\'"\L.-If the Director of OMB ap21 proves the Board's recommemlations, the Director of 

22 OMB shall transmit a copy of the recommemlations 

23 to Congress, together with a certification of such ap24 proval. 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 23485.055

F:\MI4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

24 

(2) DISAPPROVAL.-Tf the Director of OMB 

2 disapproves the Board's reeommel1(tations, in whole 

3 or in part, the Direetor of OlVIB shall transmit a 

4 copy of the recommendations to CongTess and the 

5 reasons for disapproval of the recommendations to 

6 the Board aml CmJgTess. 

7 (:n REVIS!<iD RECOi'vfl\IEl\DATIOl\8.-Not later 

8 thaH 30 days after the receipt of reasons for dis9 approval nnder paragraph (:2), the Board shall 

10 transmit to the Direetor of OJ\IB rm'ised rec11 ommendations for approval. 

12 ( 4) APPHOYAI" m' REVIRED RECOiVDIE.:-.JDA13 TIO.:-Js.-If the Director of OJ\IB approyes the re14 vised reeommemlatiom: reneived nnder paragraph 

15 (:3), the Din'ctor of 0::\IB shall transmit a copy of 

16 the revised recommendations to Congress, together 

17 with a ccrtifieation of sneh approval. 

18 (d) TElDHNATION (W PHOCESS F'OH GIVEN 

19 ROPND.-If the Director of o:.vrB does not transmit to 

20 Congress an approval and certification described in para21 gTaph (1) or (4) of subseetion (e) on or before the 30th 

22 day following: the rceeipt of the Board's recommendations 

23 or revised recommendations, as the ease may he, the proc24 ess shall termiw1te until the follo"'ing· round, as deseribed 

25 in sedion 12. 

f:IVHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 23485.056

F:\i\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

25 

SEC. 14. IMPLEMENTATION OF BOARD RECOMMENDA2 TIONS. 

3 (a) DEADU:-JES.-

4 (1) PREPAHATI0:\1.-Federal agencies shall5 (A) not later than 60 day:-; after the Diree6 tor of Ol\TB transmits the Board's ree7 ommemlation:-; to Congres:-; pursuant to para8 graph (1) m· (4) of section 13(c), immediately 

9 begin preparations to carry out the Board's rec10 ommemlations; and 

11 (B) not later than 2 ;.rears after such 

12 transmittal, initiate all activities necessary to 

13 carry ont the Board's recommendations. 

14 (2) COl\IPijE'l'IO:\'.-Not later than G years after 

15 the Director of 0:\'IB transmits the Board's rec16 ommemlatiom; to Congress pursuant to paragraph 

17 (1) or (4) of section 1:3(c), Federal agencies shall 

18 complete all recommeuded actions. All actions shall 

19 he economically beneficial and be cost neutral or oth20 erwise favorable to the GoYernment. 

21 (3) EXTE:\'FATTNG CIECUMSTA:\TCES.-For ae22 ticms that ''ill take long-er than tht• 6-year period de23 scrilled ill paragraph (2) due to extenuating· eir24 cnm.stanees, Federal ag-encies shall notifY the Dircc25 tor of OlVIB and Congress, as soon as the extenuf:IVHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4,2016(10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 23485.057

F:\M 14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

26 

ating circumstance presents itself, with an estimated 

2 time to complete the relevant action. 

3 (b) ACTIO:\'R 01<' FEDERSL .i\(iEl\CmR RELXl'ED '1'0 

4 CIYILIA)J HgAL Pnorgn:rms.-In taking actions related 

5 to any eivilian real property under this Act, F'ederal ngen6 cies may take, pursuant to subsection (c), all such nee7 essary and proper actions, including'--

8 (1) acquiring land, constructing replacement fa9 cilities, performing snPh other activities, and con10 dncting advanee planning and rlesign as may be re11 qnired to transfer functions from a F'ecleral asset or 

12 property to another Federal civilian property; 

13 (2) reimbursing other F'cderal agencies for ac14 tions performed at the request of the Board; and 

15 (:i) taking Rnch actions as are praeticablEJ to 

16 maximize the value of Federal civilian real property 

17 to be sold by clari(ving zoning and other limitations 

18 on use of such property. 

19 (c) AcnoNs OP FEDgHJ\1, Aogl\'CIES 'l'o ll\LPLE:\IEJ\'T 

20 BOAHD HECmll\fE)JDATTOl\S.-

21 

22 

23 

24 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(1) TTRE (W EXI8Tl)JG LEGAL Al:THOIUTIER.-

(A) I:\' GEJ\'gRAh-gxeept as provided in 

paragraph (2), IYhen acting· on a recommendation of the Board, a :F'edcral agency shall-

(62218511) 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 23485.058

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

27 

(i) in eommltation with the Administrator, continue to act within the Federal 

agency's existing· legal authorities, including legal authorities delegated to the Federal agency IJy the Administrator; or 

(ii) work in partnership with the Administrator to carry out such actions. 

(B) NECESSARY Al'\D PIWPER ACTIONS.-

The Administrator may take such necessary 

and proper actions, including the sale, conveyanec, or exehange of civilian real property, as 

required to implement the Board's recommendation.'> in the time period required 

under suhseetion (a). 

(2) EXPEH'l'S.-A Federal agency may enter 

16 into no cost, uonappropriated eontraets for expert 

17 eommereial real estate scn1.(•es to carry ont the Fed18 era! agency's responsibilities pursuant to the ree19 ommenclations. 

20 (d) DIRCHETIOX OF ADMINISTRATOR REGARDI:\TG 

21 TRANSAC'l'IONs.-For any transaction identified, rec22 ommendcd, or commenced as a result of this Act, any oth23 eJ'\\i.se required leg-al pri01·it~' given to, or requirement to 

24 enter into, a transaction to convey a ~~ederal ei,1.lian real 

25 property for less than fair market value, for no eonsiderf:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 23485.059

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

28 

ation at all, or in a transaction that mandates the exelu2 sion of other market partieipants, shall be at the discretion 

3 of the Admiuistrator. 

4 (c) RELATIONSHIP TO 0THEH LAWS.-An~' rcc5 ommendation or commencement of a sale, disposal, con6 solidation, reeonfig11ration, eo-location, or realignment of 

7 civilian real property under this Act shall not be subjeet 

8 to9 (1) sePtion 545(h)(8) of title 40, United States 

10 Code; 

11 (2) sections 550, 5;53, and 554 of title 40, 

12 United States Code; 

13 (:~) any section of the Act entitled nAn Act Au14 thoriziug· the transfer of eertaiu real property for 

15 wildlife, or other purposes" (16 U.S.C. 667b); 

16 (4) section 47151 of title MJ, United States 

17 Code; 

18 (5) sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United 

19 States Code; 

20 (6) section 1304(h) of title 40, United States 

21 Code; 

22 (7) section 13(d) of the Surplus Property Aet 

23 of 1944 (50 U.S.C. App. 1622(d)); 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 23485.060

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

29 

(H) any other provision of law authorizing the 

2 conveyance of real property owned by the Goyern3 men t for no consideration; and 

4 (9) any congressional notification requirement 

5 other than that in section 545 of title 40, United 

6 States Code. 

7 (f) Pl:BLW BrJJ:\EBTl'.-

8 (1) SGBl\W:lSION OF INFORl\IATIOl\ TO HUD.-

9 The Direetor of OlVIB shall submit to the Seeretary 

10 of IIUD, on the same day the Direetor of OlVIB sub11 mits the Board's reeommell(latious to Congress pur12 suant to paragTaphs (1) and (4) of section 13(c), all 

13 known information on Federal civilian real prop14 ertim; that are iududed in the reeommendatiom; (ex15 ecpt those reeommended under section 12(b) ). 

16 (2) IIUD TO REPORT '1'0 BOARD.-Not later 

17 than 30 days after the submission of information on 

18 Federal properties under paragTaph (1), the See19 retary shall identif}' any suitable civilian real prop20 erties for use as a property benefitting the mission 

21 of assistance to the homeless for the purposes of fur22 ther S(•re,ming pursuant to seetiou 501 of the 

23 :VIeKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 

24 U.S.C. 11411). 

f:\VHLCI020416\020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 23485.061

F:\Ml4\DENHAMIDENHAM_042.XML 

30 

(3) ADDI'fiO~AL AP'fHORITY.-Following the 

2 rmiew under paragraph (2), with respect to a eivil3 ian real property that is not identified by the See4 retary as suitable for use as a property benefitting· 

5 the mission of assistance to the homeless and that 

6 has been reeommelHled for sale by the Board, the 

7 Director of Ol\IB may exelude the pt·operty from the 

8 Board's recommendations if the Director determines 

9 that the property i;; suitable for nse as a pnblie park 

10 or recreation area by a State or local government 

11 and it is in the best interest of taxpayers. 

12 (g) El'-J\'IHONlVIK'\TAL CONSIDERA'fiOKS.-

13 (1) 'l'l{Al\::iFims OF HEJ\I, PROPER'l'Y.-

14 (A) I~ GE~ERAL.-v\1ten implementing the 

15 recommended actions fm· civilian real properties 

16 that have been identified in the Board's report, 

17 as specified in section 12(g), and snhjeet to 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

paragraph (2) and m compliance with 

CERCLA., iududing section 120(h) of CERCLA 

(42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may 

enter into an agreement to transfer by deed, 

pursuant to section 120(h)(3) of that Aet ( 42 

U.S.C. 9620(h)(:j)), ehilian real property with 

any person. 

(62218511) 
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 23485.062

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

31 

(B) ADDITIOi\AL TER:.\IS Al'\D CO:--!DITIONS.-The head of the disposing ageney may 

require any additional terms and eonditions in 

eonneetion with an agTeement authorized by 

subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing 

ag·eney eonsiders appropriate to proteet the interests of the United States. Such additional 

terms and eouclitions shall not affeet or diminish any rights or obligations of the Federal 

ageneies under seetion 120(h) of CERCL.A (ineluding, without limitation, the requirements of 

subsections (h)(3)(A) ami {h)(3)(C)(iv) of that 

section). 

(2) CERTIFICATI0:--1 CONC!~H.NI:--!G COSTS.-A 

15 transfer of Ji'ederal eivilian real property may he 

16 made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the 

17 di~posing· ageney <'ertifies to the Board and Congress 

18 that19 (A) the costs of all enYiroumental restora20 tion, waste management, and environmental 

21 compliance activities othenvise to he paid hy the 

22 disposing agcney with respeet to the property 

23 are equal to or gTeater than the fair market 

24 Yalue of the property to he trausferred, as def:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 23485.063

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

32 

termine<l hy the head of the disposing· agency; 

2 or 

3 (B) if such costs arc lower than the fair 

4 market value of the propert~', the recipient of 

5 the property agrees to pay the difference be6 tween the fair market value ami sueh costs. 

7 (~3) PAYJ\IENTS TO RECIPIE:-.JTS.-ln the ease of 

8 a civilian real property covered by a certification 

9 under paragraph (2)(A), the disposing agcJ1(;y may 

10 pay the recipient of such property an amouut equal 

11 to the lesser of12 (A) the amount by which the costs in13 cunwl by the reeipicnt of such property for all 

14 environmental restoration, waste management, 

15 and environmental compliance activities with re16 speet to sueh property exceed the fair market 

17 va lne of such pro pert~' as specified in sneh ccr18 tifieation; or 

19 (B) the amount by which the costs (as de20 termined by the head of the disposing agency) 

21 that would otherwise haYe been incmrred by the 

22 Secretary for sneh restoration, waste manag-e23 ment, and environmental eomplianee activities 

24 with respect to such property exceed the fair 

25 market valnc of sneh property as so speeified. 

f:IVHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (1 0:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 23485.064

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

33 

(4) TNFOR:viATIOl'\ TO BE PIWY1DED TO RECIPI2 ENTS.-As part of an agTcement under paragn1ph 

3 (1), the head of the disposing· agency shall disclose, 

4 in accordance with applicable law, to the person to 

5 ·whom the civilian real property 1vill be transferred 

6 information possessed by the disposing agency re7 garding the environmental restoration, waste man8 agemeut, and emi.roumental compliance activi.ties 

9 that relate to the property. The head of the dis10 posing agency shall pro-vi.de such information before 

11 entering into the agreement. 

12 (5) CONSIDI<JRATION OF ENVIRO:"JT\IJ<jl'\'l'AL RE13 lVIIWIATION I:\T Gl{<\l\TING Tll\IE EXTE:\T8IO:'-IS.-Por 

14 the purposes of granting time extensions under sub15 section (a), the Director of 01\IB shall give the need 

16 for significant environmental remediation to a civil17 ian real property more weight than any other faetor 

18 in determining whether to gTant an extem:ion to im19 plenwut a Board recommemlation. 

20 (6) LniiTATIOl'\ ON STATFTORY CONSTRFC21 TIOK.-Nothing- in this Act may be construed to 

22 modifY, alter, or amend CERCLA, the National En23 'i.ronmental Policy Act of 1%9, or the Solid Waste 

24 Disposal Aet (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 23485.065

F:\.1\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

3-J. 

SEC. 15. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

3 this Act an initial appropriation of4 (1) $2,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the 

5 Board; and 

6 (2) $40,000,000 to he deposited into the Asset 

7 Proceeds and Space Management Fund for aetivities 

8 related to the implementation of the Board's rec9 ommendations. 

10 SEC. 16. FUNDING. 

11 (a) 8.\.LARIES AND EXPENSI<JS ACCOUNT.-

12 (1) ESTABLISIIl\!IE:-.1'1'.-There is established in 

13 the Treasur~' of the United States an account to be 

14 known as the "Pu!Jlie Buildings Reform Board Sala15 ries and Expenses Account" (in this subsection re16 fened to as the "Aeconnt"). 

17 (2) NECESSARY PAYl\IEN'l'S.-There shall be de18 posited into the Account such amounts, as are pro19 vitled in appropriations Aets, for those neressary 

20 payments for salaries and expenses to aecomplish 

21 the administrative needs of the Board. 

22 (b) ASSET PHOCEED8 AND SPACE 1\L'....'JAGEl\mNT 

23 Fuxn.-

24 (1) ESTADLISIDIENT.-Thcre lS established 

25 within the :B'ederal Buildings :B'und established under 

26 section 592 of title 40, United States Code, an acf:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 23485.066

F:'u\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

35 

eonnt to be knmm as the Pnblie Bnildings Reform 

2 Board-Asset Proeeeds and Space Management 

3 l<'und (in this subsection referred to as the "l<'und"). 

4 (2) UsE OP A:IIOUKTS.-Amounts in the Fund 

5 shall be used solely for the purposes of carrying out 

6 aetions pursuant to the Board reeommendations ap7 proved under seetion 1:3. 

8 (3) DEPOSI'l'S.-The following amounts shall be 

9 deposited into the Fnntl and made aYailahle for ohli10 gation or expenditure only as provided in advance in 

11 appropriations Acts (subject to seetion 3307 of title 

12 40, United States Code, to the extent an appropria13 tion normally covered by that section exceeds 

14 $20,000,000) for the purposes spe(~ified: 

15 (A) Such amounts as are provided m ap16 propriatious Aets, to remain available until ex17 pemled, for the consolidation, eo-location, ex18 dwnge, redevelopment, reeonfiguration of 

19 spaee, disposal, and other actions recommemled 

20 by the Board for Federal ageneies. 

21 (B) 1:\mounts received from the sale of any 

22 (~iYilian real property aetion taken pursuant to 

23 a reeommendation of the Board. 

24 ( 4) USE OF A:i!OU:\''l'S TO C0v1~R COSTS.-As 

25 provided in appropriations Aets, amounts in the 

f:\VHLCI020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4. 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 23485.067

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042XML 

36 

Fund ma;v be made available to rowr neeessary 

2 costs associated ·with implementing the reeommenda3 tions pursuant to section 14, including costs associ4 atcd vvith5 (A) sales transactions; 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

(B) acquiring' laud, construction, eonstrueting replacement facilities, and conducting 

advance planning and design as may be reqnired to transfer fimctions from a Federal 

asset or property to another Federal ci-vilian 

property; 

(C) co-location, redevelopment, disposal, 

13 and reconfiguration of space; and 

14 (D) other a<~tions recommended by the 

15 Board for Federal agencies. 

16 (c) ADDI'l'IO::\AL REQUIHI~MEN'l' FOR BUDGE'!' C0?\-

17 TEKTS.-The President shall transmit along v.ith the 

18 President's budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of 

19 title :31, United States Code, an estimate of proceeds that 

20 are the result of the Board's recommendations and the 

21 obligations and expenditures needed to support sueh rec22 ommendations. 

f:IVHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 23485.068

F:\t\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

87 

SEC. 17. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 

2 PROJECTS. 

3 Section 8:307(b) of title 40, United States Code, 1s 

4 amended5 (1) by striking· "and" at the end of paragTaph 

6 (G); 

7 (2) by striking the period at the cud of para8 graph (7) and inserting "; and"; and 

9 (:5) by arlcting at the end the following: 

10 ''(8) a statement of how the proposed projeet is 

ll consistent with the stawlards and eriteria dewloped 

12 under seetion 11 (b) of the l<"ederal Assets Sale and 

13 Transfer Aet of 20Hi.". 

14 SEC. 18. PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

15 The following actions shall not be subject to judieial 

16 review: 

17 (1) Actions taken pursuant to sections 12 and 

18 13. 

19 (2) Actions of the Board. 

20 SEC. 19. IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW BY GAO. 

21 Upon transmittal of the Board's rceommendations 

22 from the Director of Ol\IB to Congress under section 1!3, 

23 the Comptroller General of the United States at least an24 nnally shall monitor and re,icw the irnplerncntation aetivi25 ties of Federal agencies pursuant to section 14, and report 

26 to Congres::; any findings aud recommendations. 

f:\VHLC\0204161020416.025.xml 

February4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 23485.069

F:\.\114\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

38 

SEC. 20. AGENCY RETENTION OF PROCEEDS. 

2 (a) 1:--J GKI'\ImAh-Sed,ion 571 of title 40, Uuited 

3 States Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) and 

4 (b) and inserting the following: 

5 "(a) PROCEEDS FROl\I TRA:JSFER on S,\I,E OF REAIJ 

6 PROPERTY.-

7 ''(1) DEPOSIT 01<' :'-JE'r PHOCEEDS.-l'\et pro8 eecds described in subsection (c) shall be deposited 

9 into the appropriate real property account of the 

10 ageuey that had eustody and aeeouutahility for the 

11 1·eal propert~- at the time the real property is deter12 mined to he excess. 

13 "(2) EA"PEI'\DITURE OF NET PROCEEDS.-The 

14 net proceeds deposited pmsunnt to paragraph (1) 

15 may only be expended, as authorized in ammal ap16 propriations Acts, for activities described in sections 

17 i'i4:3 and 545, including paying costs incurred hy the 

18 General Services Administration for any disposal-re19 latcd activity authm·izcd by this chapter. 

20 "(3) DEFIUI'r REDUCTIO:\'.-.Any net proceed.s 

21 described in subscetion (e) from the sale, lease, or 

22 other disposition of surplus real property that are 

23 not expended under paragraph (2) shall he used for 

24 deficit rcdlH~tion. 

25 "(b) EP1<'EC'l' ON OnmR SgcTIOI'\S.-Nothing in this 

26 section is intended to affect section 573(b), 573, or 574. 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416. 025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 23485.070

F:\MI4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

"(c) l'\ET PROCEEDS.-The net proceeds described in 

2 this subsection are proceeds under this chapter, less ex3 peuses of the transfer or disposition as provifled in section 

4 572(a), from a5 "(1) transfer of excess real property to a I<'ed6 era! ag:mwy for agency use; or 

7 "(2) sale, lease, or other disposition of surplus 

8 real property. 

9 "(d) PROCEEDS l<'nmi TRAXSFER OR SAI,E OF PER10 SOl\AL PHOPimTY.-

11 ''(1) ll\ GEl\ER..I.L.-Except as otherwise pro12 vidcd in this subchapter, proceeds described in para13 graph (2) shall be deposited in the Treasury as mis14 eellaueons receipts. 

15 "(2) PROCEEDS.-The proceeds described in 

16 this paragraph are proceeds under this chapter 

17 from18 "(A) a transfer of excess personal property 

19 to a Federal ag·euey for agency use; or 

20 "(B) a sale, lease, m· other disposition of 

21 surplus personal property. 

22 ''(3) PADIE)JT OF EXPENSES OF SAI,E BEFOHE 

23 DEPOSI'I'.-Suhject to regulations umler this sub24 title, the expenses of the sale of personal property 

25 may be paid from the proceeds of sale so that only 

f:\VHLC\0204161020416. 025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 23485.071

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

40 

the net proceeds are deposited in the Treasury. This 

2 paragraph applies whether proeeeds are deposited as 

3 miscellaneous receipts or to the credit of an appro4 priation as authorized by law.". 

5 (b) EF'F'EC'l'IYE DA'l'E.-'rhe proYisions of this sec6 tion, ineluding the amendments made by this section, shall 

7 take effeet upon the termination of the Board pursuant 

8 to section 10 and shall not apply to proceeds from trmls9 aetions eondueted under section 14. 

10 SEC. 21. FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY DATABASE. 

11 (a) DATABASE REQUIHED.-1\'ot later than 1 year 

12 after the date of enactment of this section, the Adminis13 trntor of General Seniees shall publish a single, eom14 prehensive, aud descriptive database of all F'ederal real 

15 propert~· under the custody and control of all executive 

16 agencies, other than F'ederal real propert;v excluded for 

17 reasons of national security, in accordance with snhsed.ion 

18 (h). 

19 (b) REt~PIRED l~F'OHl\lA'l'IO~ POR DA'l'ADMlE.-The 

20 Administrator shall collect from the head of each executive 

21 agency descriptive information, except for classified infor22 mation, of the nature, use, and extent of the Federal real 

23 property of each such agency, including the follO\\ing·: 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4. 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511) 
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 23485.072

F:\M 1 4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

41 

(1) The geogTaphie location of each Federal 

2 real property of each such agency, ineluding the ad3 dress and description for each such property. 

4 (2) The total size of each Federal real property 

5 of each such agcney, including squan' footage and 

6 acreage of each s1.wh property. 

7 (3) The relevance of each "F'ederal real property 

8 to the ag·ency's mission. 

9 ( 4) The level of nse of each l<'ederal real prop10 erty for each such agency, inelnding whether such 

l 1 property is excess, surplus, umlerutilized, or unuti12 lized. 

13 (5) The number of days each l<'ederal real prop14 erty is desig·nated as excess, surplus, undm·utilized, 

15 or unutilized. 

16 (6) The annual operating costs of each Federal 

17 real property. 

18 (7) The replacement value of each Federal real 

19 property. 

20 (c) ACCESS TO DATAR\SE.-

21 (1) FEDEIL\L A(iE!\cm:c;"-'rhe 1\.dministrator, 

22 m com;ultation with the Director of OMB, shall 

23 make tlw database established and maintained under 

24 this section available to other Federal agencies" 

f:IVHLC\020416\020416"025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a"m") 

(62218511) 
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 23485.073

F:\M 14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

42 

(2) PUBLIC ACCESS.-To the extent consistent 

2 with national security and procurement hrws, the 

3 database shall be accessible by the public at no cost 

4 throug·h the \Yeb site of the General Services Admin5 istration. 

6 (d) TnA:JSPAREl\CY OF DATABASE--To the extent 

7 practicable, the Administrator shall ensure that the data8 base9 (1) nses an open, maehine-readable format; 

10 (2) permits users to search and sort Federal 

11 real property data; and 

12 (3) includes a means to download a larg·e 

13 amount of l'~ederal real property data and a selection 

14 of such data retrieved using a search. 

15 (e) APPLICABILITY.-Nothing in this section may be 

16 con;>trued to require an agency to make available to the 

17 pnblic information that is exempt from diselosnre pnrsn18 ant to section fi52(b) of title fi, United States Code. 

19 SEC. 22. STREAMLINING MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS AS20 SISTANCE ACT. 

21 Section 501 of the l\lcKinney-Vento Homeless Assist22 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411) is amended23 

24 

25 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

(1) in subsection (h)(2)-

(A) by striking· "(2)(A)" and inserting 

"(2)"; 

(62218511) 
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 23485.074

F:\Ml4\DENHAMIDENHAM_042.XML 

43 

(B) by redesignating clanses (i) and (ii) as 

2 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 

3 (C) in subparagraph (A) (as so redesig4 nated) by striking "and" at the end; 

5 (D) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesig·-

6 nated) by striking the period at the end and in7 scrting "; and"; and 

8 (E) by acldiug at the end the following: 

9 "(C) in the case of snrplns property, the 

10 pru\'i.sion of permanent housing v1ith or 11ithout 

11 supportive serYices is au eligible usc to assist 

12 the homeless under this section."; 

13 (2) in subsection (e)(l)(A) by striking "in the 

14 Federal Register" and inserting "on the Web site of 

15 the Department of Housing· and Urban Dcwlopmcnt 

16 or the General Services Administration"; 

17 ( 3) in subsection (d)-

18 (A) in paragTaph (1 ) hy striking "period of 

19 GO dayR" and inserting ''period of :30 days"; 

20 (B) in paragTaphs (2) aml (4) b~· striking 

21 "60-day period" and inserting ":30-day period"; 

22 and 

23 (C) in paragraph (:3) b~· adding at the end 

24 the following·: "If no such review of the rleter25 mination is reqnested within the 20-day period, 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml (62218511) 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 23485.075

F:\.Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

!:\ VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (10:11 a.m.) 

44 

snrh propert~· will not be inrlnded in subsequent 

publications unless the landhokling agency 

makes changes to the property (e.g. imp rowments) that may change the unsuitable determination and the Secretary subsequently determines the property is suitable."; 

(4) in subseetion (e)-

(A) in paragraph (2)-

(i) by striking "(2)" and insc1ting 

"(2){A)"; 

(ii) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated)-

(I) by striking ''90 days" and inserting "75 days''; and 

(II) by striking "a eomplt•te application" and inserting "an initial application"; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

"(B) An initial application shall set forth-

"(i) the services that will be offered; 

"(ii) the need for the servires; and 

"(iii) the expPriener of the applicant that 

demonstrates the ability to providl' the sen·-

. ~' wes. ; 

(62218511) 
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 23485.076

F:\M14\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

45 

(B) in paragTaph (3) by striking· "25 days 

2 after receipt of a completed application" and in3 serting· "10 days after receipt of an initial ap4 plication"; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ''(4) If the Sceretary of Health and Human Services 

7 approves an initial application, the applicant has 45 days 

8 in whieh to provide a final application that sets forth a 

9 reasonable plan to finance the approved progTam. 

10 "(5) No later than 15 c1ays after reeeipt of the final 

11 applieatiou, the Seeretary of Health and Human Services 

12 shall review, make a final determination, and complete all 

13 actions on the final application. 'l'he Secretary of Health 

14 and Human Serviees shall maintain a public record of all 

15 actions taken in response to an application."; and 

16 (5) in subsection (f)(l) by striking "available 

17 by" am! inserting "available, at the applicant's dis18 cretion, by". 

19 SEC. 23. ADDITIONAL PROPERTY. 

20 Section 549(c)(3)(B)(Yii) of title 40, United States 

21 Code, is amended to read as follows: 

22 

23 

24 

25 

f:\VHLC\020416\020416.025.xml 

February 4, 2016 (1 0:11 a.m.) 

"(vii) a museum attewlerl by the publie, and, for purposes of determining 

whether a museum is attended by the publie, the Administrator shall eonsider a mu-

(62218511) 
109 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 23485.077

F:\Ml4\DENHAM\DENHAM_042.XML 

46 

senm to be pnblie if the nonp1·ofit edn2 cationnl or public health institution or or3 gauization, at minimum, aececles to any re4 quest submitted for access during· business 

5 hours;". 

f:IVHLC\0204161020416.025.xml 

February4. 2016(10:11 a.m.) 

(62218511)