U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–278 PDF 2006

THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL

INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM

(109–63)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 30, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas, Vice-Chair

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Winstead, David L., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services

Administration ..................................................................................................... 3

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESS

Winstead, David L. .................................................................................................. 20

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Roth, Judge Jane R., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Chair,

Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, statement ........... 26

(1)

THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION’S

FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL INVESTMENT

AND LEASING PROGRAM

Thursday, March 30, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster [chairman

of the committee] presiding.

Mr. SHUSTER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I was going

to welcome all the other members of the Subcommittee, but it looks

like I am the only one that has made it here so far. I know Ms.

Norton is on her way and will hopefully join us shortly, but we are

going to go ahead and get started.

We have got a crowd here this morning, too. No members, but

we have got people in the audience, which is a different twist for

us. So welcome all of you here this morning. There is, I guess, interest in what we are going to be talking about today and the bills

we are going to be marking up.

Each year, the General Services Administration submits to Congress prospectuses for the alteration, acquisition, design, construction, and lease of Federal buildings and courthouses to house Executive Branch agencies and the judiciary, and, in turn, perform a

detailed review of the request and closely examine each project

submitted for our consideration.

The resolutions we will mark up later this morning reflect those

that the Committee has determined are acceptable, sensible, and

beneficial to the Government and qualify for our consideration at

this time. Other prospectuses are undergoing additional review and

will be considered at a later date. The GSA will provide brief detail

of the submitted prospectuses and I will explain them more fully

during the markup.

It is important to note that the President did not include any

new construction for the judiciary in fiscal year 2007 budget. The

Committee is hesitant to authorize any additional courthouse construction projects at this time because they are not included in the

budget and the Committee is awaiting GAO reports on the judiciary’s rents and courtroom sharing. The judiciary has continued to

raise issues over rent payments to GSA. The courts are concerned

over the growing percentage of their budget going to GSA for rent

and the related effects on court operations.
2

The Committee is aggressively examining the rent issue, as well

as the courthouse building program. Last April we commissioned a

study of the judiciary’s rent by the GAO. We requested the GAO

to investigate how rent payments were calculated by the GSA, how

payments are planned and accounted for by the judiciary, which

changes the judiciary has experienced in rent payment in recent

years, and what impact a permanent rent exemption would have

on the Federal Building Fund. I look forward to the upcoming release of this GAO study as we continue oversight of the courthouse

construction.

This Committee has also requested that the courts initiate a

comprehensive courtroom usage study in coordination with the

GAO. This study will investigate how often courtrooms are actually

used for official functions. I appreciate the fact that the courts are

moving forward with this important undertaking, although I am

very concerned by the slow pace and limited process that they have

made to this date. I look forward to the results of the study and

hope they assist this Committee in fully grasping the needs of the

courts as we consider future requests for courtroom construction.

On a separate note, we must tackle the issue of market price increases today. Market price increases are not due to a change in

the scope of a project or failures by the government or contractor

to keep a project on budget. These increases are solely due to unexpected issues, such as significant increases in the cost of steel and

cement and labor shortages. The Committee has examined these

requests and found them reasonable and necessary to complete

these projects.

Over the past few years, this Committee’s ability to authorize

GSA projects has been delayed by GSA’s inability to provide this

Committee with Capital Investment and Leasing Program by

March, leaving little guidance for the appropriators as they consider project funding. This year is different.

I would like to commend Commissioner Winstead and Deputy

Commissioner Tony Costa for submitting the Capital Investment

Program in February and a majority of the leases program to the

Committee by the first week of March. By providing this information shortly after the submission of the President’s budget, our

Committee can properly fulfill our role as the authorizers of these

projects. I want to thank you gentlemen again for presenting those

to us in a timely fashion, and I look forward to this promptness in

the future.

I would also like to reiterate my intention to closely examine

each project that is submitted for our consideration. While we are

not delving further into the details of the courts’ supposed rent crisis today, it is an issue that has forced us to reexamine our role

in the approval of projects over the years and will require additional oversight in the future.

And, with that, we have no other members, so—oh, welcome.

Thanks for coming today.

Mr. Winstead, why don’t we ask you to come to the desk?

I need to ask unanimous consent that our witness’s full statement be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record,

the Subcommittee would request that you limit your summary to
3

five minutes or a little longer. We are not going to be too tough on

you on time today.

We do have but one witness, for those of you in the audience

today, Mr. David Winstead. He is Commissioner of the General

Services Administration’s Public Building Service.

This is your first time testifying before the Committee, so we

welcome you. Congratulations on your appointment. We have

worked together already and look forward to continuing to work

with you and look forward to your testimony. With that, you may

proceed.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. WINSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. WINSTEAD. Chairman Shuster, thank you. And, again, it is

a pleasure. This is my first appearance before the Subcommittee,

but I have met with other members prior to this to sort of brief on

the continued program at GSA Public Buildings.

Obviously, our mission—former Commissioner Moravec has been

here on a number of occasions, and our mission continues to be providing a superior workplace solution at best value to the American

taxpayer, and I think we are charged, most importantly, with the

responsibility of managing the Federal Building Fund and the Revolving Fund created in 1972 that funds the space needs of over

59 Federal agencies using a market based approach. And I think

you all have had testimony over the last couple of years of new innovations that we put in place both a customer service and an

asset management that had, I think, improved that delivery.

Each year, obviously, Congress vests us and appropriates funds

to our customer agencies, who then pay user fees, a rent approximating the equivalent of commercial rents for the space that they

utilize. One of the purposes of requiring these agencies to pay rent

is to encourage them to both weigh the cost of their space needs

within their budgets, as well as to prioritize their own mission versus their facility needs, and I think this funding approach requires

agencies to make choices in balancing their demand for space, as

well as fulfilling and having the budgets to fulfill their mission program.

At the same time, I think GSA offers them the flexibility in the

selection of space options and quality, and obviously amenities.

Congress does rely on the Federal Building Fund to provide that

reliable source for GSA to both rent space from the private sector,

operate, maintain, repair, and modernize their own inventory, as

well as constructing new Federal facilities in support of GSA customer service missions.

We are pleased, as you said, Mr. Chairman, in submitting the

Capital Investment and Leasing Program to you in mid-February

this year. When we met at the end of last year, when I first got

in this position, you encouraged us to get it in a little earlier, and

I am pleased that you acknowledged that. I am testifying in support of that authorization of that program today, and GSA requests

your authorization of the individual projects that are in the project,

which we believe reflect wisely investments and scarce taxpayers,

but ultimately provide the best support for our customer agencies,
4

as well as maintaining our very important Federal real estate portfolio.

We have analyzed all these projects and feel that they address

the most critical customer needs, as well as the President’s rightsizing goal for real estate asset management. Since we last—since

I think the commissioner last was before this Committee, we have

in fact achieved a green status in the President’s Management

Agenda for asset management approach, the tiering approach we

have in our portfolio and a lot of our efforts to move both project

completions, as well as dispositions of underutilized space.

We are obviously acquiring and constructing new Governmentowned assets to meet these long-term needs, which we hope continue to be cost-effective; reducing the number of vacant underutilized facilities. Last year we disposed almost 30 properties. We

have improved conditions of mission-critical and mission-dependent

assets to ensure continued functionality, as well as increase security needs and life safety and a very pleasant work environment.

And we continue to improve the operation efficiency of key facilities

and achieving the energy efficiency goals set out in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

As you know, in the repair and alteration section of this program

we continue to be steward of over 1500 Federal buildings, with a

replacement value of about $41 billion, and we are requesting a Repair and Alteration Program of about $866 million to maintain and

improve these projects, which are critically needed for the missions

of our customer agencies.

Some of the highlights of GSA’s fiscal year 2007 Repair and Al- teration Program include: $375 million for Basic Program, $23 million for more Limited Scope, as well as $398 million for Major Renovation. In addition, there is a section in the program which devotes about $25 million for our Design Program, $15 million for

continuation of our energy focus, as well as $10 million for the CFC

program; also, $10 million additionally for the Class Fragmentation

Program, which, again, is meeting the security needs that we are

for many of our buildings these days, another $10 million for Fire

and Life Safety.

I should note that we have evaluated and ranked our repairs and

alterations proposals based on a lot of following criteria: customer

urgency based on mission requirements, as well as overall satisfaction levels; the physical urgency in these buildings in terms of the

building conditions and needs; the economic justification in terms

of financial return and present value; and as well as project timing

and execution risks.

The projects before you today have passed these three criteria

and reflect sound investment in our own portfolio, and, again, best

return to the American taxpayer.

In addition, in the New Construction section we are requesting

some $690 million under Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.

We traditionally pursue a construction ownership solution for special and unique facilities. Two of these that are obviously of great

concern to this Committee and are unique facilities are our border

station program, as well as our courthouse program, which are not

available in terms of their functional needs and designs in the real

estate marketplace.
5

We recommend new construction where it meets new housing

needs of specific agencies or to consolidate several dispersed agencies with long-term needs in terms of a given location. Our construction program requests include also funding for site acquisition,

design, construction, and management inspection costs of these

Federal facilities.

If you look at the program this year, our construction program

reflects long-term customer needs in the Washington, D.C. area for

agency headquarters, significant funding for border stations in support of our Customs and Border Protection role and their program

in securing the border initiatives. The highlights of our fiscal year

2007 program include:—and I see Delegate Norton has joined us—

$306 million for the Coast Guard consolidation at the St. Elizabeth’s Campus; another $179 million for the Food and Drug Administration at White Oak—I recently toured that facility, as well as

St. Elizabeth’s campus—$40 million for the Remote Delivery Facility in Washington, D.C.; $6 million for general infrastructure support; $53 million for the transfer of the Nebraska complex to the

Department of Navy; $97 million for site acquisition design and

construction of eight border stations; and $10 million for Non-prospectus Construction Program.

In addition, the last component is a strong leasing program with

total leasing inventory of over 166 million square feet located in

7200 buildings in the U.S. We are pleased that the vacancy rate,

which is one of our benchmark performance that we review on a

quarterly basis, is currently standing at 1.2 percent, a figure well

below the current market industry average of 12.5 percent.

We strive to keep leasing costs below market levels, and have developed, as you know, comprehensive strategies to do that, including the new national brokerage contract, including the standard

use of industry benchmark such as BOMA, operating costs, and

market surveys to compare our shop with sort of best practices in

the field.

This year, we are actually submitting 17 lease prospectuses for

your consideration. This constitutes the majority of our lease program submittal. We are currently working on additional proposals,

as the Chairman noted.

And one of the final notes I would mention is that we are always

very, very conscious of budget constraints, both within GSA, we are

looking to contain costs in our operation and our staffing. We obviously are very, very sensitive to the customer agencies and the

budget constraints they are under. You mentioned the issues with

the Judiciary. And we are continuing to devote ourselves and time

to manage our real estate and manage our purchases to maintain

and control those costs.

We are collaborating with a lot of tenant agencies to identify feasible approaches to meeting customer constraints. Some of those,

including the FBI, which I know has a lot of lease prospectuses in

this submittal. We are identifying ways to improve operational efficiency and reducing operating costs, managing procurements, providing information for customer decision-making, as well as consolidating requirements and maximizing customer utilization of space.

In an executive order in 2004, President Bush issued the Federal

Real Property Asset Management Act, and I mentioned that it fo-
6

cused our efforts on managing that Federal inventory, as well as

utilizing very cost-effective space actions in terms of leases, and I

am pleased that, as I said before, that we have achieved green

under the President’s Management Agenda in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I think that pretty much on target here concludes

my prepared remarks. I thank the members of the Committee for

being here and I am pleased to answer any questions about our

2007 Capital Investment and Leasing Program.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you very much, Commissioner. I have

a couple questions on the Coast Guard headquarters. I know there

are going to be other tenants that join the Coast Guard down

there. Has it been determined who those other tenants are going

to be in that facility with them?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Congressman, we are working very closely with

the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the Coast

Guard. We were up here testifying at their budget hearing, the

Coast Guard budget hearing, and, as you know, in the prospectus

it has a number of investments to both look at St. Elizabeth’s, in

terms of design as well as access, and I know we are waiting for

a housing plan from the Department of Homeland Security for final

proposal for utilization of the St. Elizabeth’s campus.

Mr. SHUSTER. In that plan, you have been working closely with

them and looking at consolidating some of those DHS—

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Mr. SHUSTER.—departments, because I know they are spread all

over the city.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct. And I know we are taking an active role through the NCR. We have 11 regions around the Country. NCR is obviously engaged in the leadership on this. Delegate

Norton is having a meeting I think next week with some of the

community around there, so we are trying to both keep very engaged with the community, as well as obviously address DHS and

Coast Guard and other options.

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay. On the national brokers contract, we spoke

about it briefly before we started the hearing. I have been talking

to some of the brokers, and they feel as though they have not been

getting the number of leases that they anticipated by this time. Do

you have any—I was told by one firm that they received maybe $3

million to $4 million in contracts, and they expected to be at $20

million or $30 million. I don’t know the exact number. Can you address that here?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Sure. Congressman, I know you had a concern

about this earlier when I came up here to have sort of an introductory meeting, and I issued a letter, sent a letter to you on January

the 3rd which outlined sort of the status of the contract. As you

know, my predecessor, Commissioner Moravec, felt very strongly

that we needed to restructure our customer service approach at

GSA.

We actually did that by establishing national account managers,

which enabled us to work through the regions and from head office

to look at the long-term needs of our clients and to really look further out, anticipating their needs to be able to deal with market

fluctuations to get them the best deals, and this is now still being

implemented. Part of that effort was to expand our ability to get
7

the best market-based information on real estate options in the

6,000 communities that we are in around the Country.

We did contract, a year ago, with Jones Lang Studley, Starbuck

Company and Trammell Crowe to aid in that effort. In addition to

that, we have spent a lot of the past year training our realty specialists to understand the importance and the relationship that

these brokers can provide through these contracts in delivering the

best deal for the Federal Government in that regard.

We have had training that has taken part in all the regions

around the Country and also in Washington. We are 12 months

into the contract. We have basically had over 400 task orders

issued and basically handled almost 9 million square feet through

those leases. There is a renewal of that for a second year upon us,

and we are working closely with them to try to achieve our goals

set out for that program. They do vary from region to region.

Historically, some of our regions have been much more engaged

in utilizing broker relationships. This is our new approach to these

four contracts. Some are over 50 percent and on their targets, and

others are less, and I think what we would like to do is to continue

to focus on this as an important tool for us, and I would be happy,

as we discussed before the hearing, to come up here and really

bring the head of our customer service in our head office, our AC

up here, to go through exactly what is happening in each region

through these brokerage contracts.

But I will tell you, in conclusion, that I came back last week from

meeting with the head of all of our real estate in all the 11 regions

around the Country—we had a meeting—and we pushed and reviewed the brokerage contract, and what is very, very positive is

that they feel it is a great tool; it is yielding benefit to us and our

Federal tenants and achieving the best deal for the Government.

So I think it is working. The question is making sure we achieve

those goals.

Mr. SHUSTER. Right, because these folks are concerned that there

has been some cherry-picking going on within the GSA and they

are not getting the better contracts, they are getting sort of the low

end contract. We want to make sure to share in your enthusiasm

and moving forward, making sure this program works and that it

will be a good tool.

Mr. WINSTEAD. And I would be happy to provide to the Committee sort of a quarterly update on that contract, if you would like.

Mr. SHUSTER. That would be great. And my final question had

to do with the Federal judiciary. They are asking for permanent

rent exemptions so they would be exempt from putting money in

the Federal Building Fund. What is your view on that? How big a

hole would that create in the Federal Building Fund if that was

able to go forward?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. Mr. Chairman, we have expressed and

have appreciated historically the support of this Committee for the

Federal Building Fund and for our ability to deliver on an economic

and best-value basis facilities to the courts. We have actually

achieved almost 40 million square feet of courthouses and office

space for the judiciary, some 330 owned and another 125 leased facilities, about 2500 courtrooms. It has been a remarkable legacy I

think of a partnership.
8

I recently met with Judge Roth, who heads their facilities committee, and with Judge Hogan, who is a neighbor of mine and

chairs the executive committee for the judiciary and reports to the

chief justice, and shared with them this amazing 50 courthouse legacy of landmark buildings in our urban areas, and it has been a

very strong partnership with our efforts to both realize and implement their space designs for their Federal courthouses, obviously

work with this Committee and at the direction of this Committee

in funding those courthouses, but also looking for cost savings

where we can.

And I am concerned about the situation with the courts. Obviously, they have increased caseload. I am a lawyer by training.

They have increased caseload, they have to meet those needs. At

the same time, they are seeing budge constraints which are impacting. Their rent portion is getting bigger and bigger percentagewise. So what I have proposed—and I have talked to David Bibb,

who is our acting administrator.

In fact, next week we have meetings, and will continue to on a

quarterly basis, with the courts. We need to address this with

them. But as you all know, and have been a strong supporter of

GSA, the integrity of the Federal Building Fund is based upon

rents, which allow us to both build new buildings at your direction,

to renovate our buildings, and to deliver, in the case of the courts,

50 landmark, beautiful urban buildings over the last 10, 20 years.

So we are focused on this. We are going to be meeting regularly

with them. You mentioned the utilization issue. I have actually and

tried to understand better from the judges this 1:1 ratio between

courthouses and judges, and why that is necessary or where it isn’t

necessary, and we are exploring those things and waiting for this

report from GAO. The bottom line is—and I think we have responded to this Committee—that if you look at the fiscal year 2004

in terms of per square foot charges, their rent is about $25 a

square foot, and the average rent for all our other Federal agencies

is about $22 a square foot. In addition, over 2005, they actually

achieved more back in terms of construction than they did in rent.

So I will be—

Mr. SHUSTER. Better return?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Sorry?

Mr. SHUSTER. They had a better return on their investment

than—

Mr. WINSTEAD. Basically, they have been getting more back than

they have paid in. And I think the real issue I raised with Judge

Hogan, and will continue to raise with the leadership of the judiciary, is that this is a partnership that makes sense because the

economies that are gained between centralized real estate control,

our Design Excellence Program, our Construction Excellence Program, that we deliver better value than if the judiciary and every

other Federal agency spin off and establish real estate departments

to do so.

My last comment is that this Design Excellence Program, which

is where we have had peer review from the best architects in the

Country and selected them through a competition, has really yielded some remarkable structures. Now, I am not an architect, and I

can’t tell you that in every case is that design the most effective,
9

but when taken in aggregate, I think the program has not only

been a legacy for this Country, but has also galvanized the Country’s best architectural and design minds, and produced really very

outstanding buildings for the judiciary. We are committed to considering that and continuing that relationship, and will continue to

work with the courts on their rent problem.

Mr. SHUSTER. And their calculation on rent goes through the

same process as any Federal agency?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes.

Mr. SHUSTER. And that $3 more per square foot is probably due

to the fact that their buildings are more pleasing to the eye?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right.

Mr. SHUSTER. Larger than—

Mr. WINSTEAD. I was just out in Fresno with Justice Kennedy for

the opening of that courthouse, and if you have the opportunity to

see it, it really is a remarkable building, as the Sandra Day O’Connor is in Phoenix. They are beautiful architectural landmarks.

I would tell you, though, I am very focused on the issues of our

Design Excellence Program, Construction Excellence Program. We

are actually hiring a new assistant commissioner and sort of bifurcating the construction function in that office so that we can have

better pre-award control and post-award monitoring of these

projects. What we have seen and has been reflected in the rent are

the huge increase in material costs over the last four years in the

marketplace, and that has translated into rent increases.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue

to build beautiful structures, landmark structures, but we need to

make sure we are utilizing them, so I urge you to continue, as I

am going to continue to talk to the folks in the courts to get this

utilization plan, because I am concerned they are dragging their

feet because they are going to find out that they are not utilizing

these buildings the way they should. And these are taxpayer dollars. We have got to be good stewards and make sure that the utilization is significant.

With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, if you have any

questions, statements, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize

to you and the Committee that I was unavoidably detained, and

you did just the right thing to go ahead with this important hearing.

I do want to say a few words. I won’t read an entire statement,

but I do want to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about some of

the issues, indeed, that you have raised and thank you for the way

in which you have given oversight to important issues in this Committee. You mentioned in your last question the courthouses, for

example, and the President—and I think for good reason—in his

2007 budget, did not authorize new construction for Federal courthouses. Now, virtually all that we build have been courthouses,

and this has been perhaps the most troublesome form of construction in my 15 years on the Committee, and for reasons that vary

from one period to another.

The so-called Design Excellence Program that you speak of, Mr.

Winstead, I congratulate you on. Design was one of the great and

terrible controversial issues that faced this Committee when GSA
10

virtually abdicated its responsibility some years ago to the courts

and we have a virtual scandal, papers wrote about courthouses

with high ceilings and chandeliers and kitchens and accouterments

and trappings.

That was a sorry, sorry period, as far as I am concerned, in the

history of American jurisprudence, and it happened because courts

sometimes confuse their jurisdiction over cases and controversies,

which is theirs alone, and, Mr. Chairman, the jurisdiction that is

yours and mine and, if I may say so, especially GSA’s, and that is

the jurisdiction over building the things.

Building the things is not for judges. I had a very troublesome

meeting with the very good friend who heads this work for the judiciary, where she literally cited cases and controversies as a reason

why they ought to have input. I am a law professor. I had to then

read her the riot case about cases and controversies and the Constitution of the United States.

This has been a chronic problem, though, as some of my questions will indicate, for GSA, that is to say, not as much for the

courts, because this Subcommittee—and this was some years ago,

Mr. Chairman—reined in GSA on that issue, but, frankly, on how

much leverage an agency has when it comes to spending of taxpayers’ money, and that has to do with everything from how it is

located to how it is designed.

Now, I compliment you for the fast way in which you are moving

ahead on what the President has included in his budget, and that

is the construction of a new headquarters for the Coast Guard. And

that comes at an opportune time not only because it is part of the

Department of Homeland Security, but, Mr. Chairman, that is a

building not fit to house Federal employees or anyone else in, and

I think that moving first on the Coast Guard part of the Homeland

Security—perhaps there will be others; we don’t know exactly what

yet—was very wise for the President and wise for you, and, yes, I

look forward to working with you, as we will with the community.

It is a truly historic building because it is the first time that the

Federal Government has built east of the Anacostia River.

We own this huge piece of land that was St. Elizabeth’s Hospital,

closed decades ago, and we have let it lie there, even though the

policy of this Committee is, of course, that the Federal Government

will build on its own land before we go out and rent space from others. So this is a historic development for the District of Columbia

because you are moving over to the other side of the Anacostia, and

it is an important path-breaking work for you that the President

has, himself, ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there is going to be a hearing

on courthouses later. You and I sent a letter in 2005 for the courts

to begin studying, with the help of the GAO, sharing of courtrooms,

and I was very disappointed that that study seemed to have literally, or at least the involvement of the courts in it, had literally

just begun when they met with me a couple of weeks ago. I am

sure they met with the Chairman and his staff as well.

So it seems to me that there is real reticence doing what the

Committee said, and that is seeing the extent to which courtrooms

can be shared among judges. And here we have this radical notion

that of all of the agencies, the courthouses don’t have to pay into
11

the Building Fund. Of course, we who shouted to the hilltops, that

means everybody else’s budget in the Federal Government will

make up for the fact that the courts are not paying into that fund,

even though they are taking from that fund to build the courthouses. It doesn’t work that way; it is a revolving fund, and I don’t

think that anybody in the Congress in either house is likely to do

that.

There is a very serious set of other questions that I will reserve

for my own questions, and I think probably the best thing to do,

since I have given something of a statement during this, is to then

let you go, Mr. Chairman, to the next person, and on the next

round I will have a few questions.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I think you make a great

point there, that what the courthouse looks like doesn’t stop our

courts from administering justice; they could that from a warehouse, they don’t need these opulent places. But we certainly

don’t—we are not suggesting we move them into warehouses, but

they could do it in a warehouse if they had to. That is the reality

of it. And it wouldn’t affect what we do up here with them administering justice.

Mr. Kuhl, you are recognized.

Mr. KUHL. Thank you for coming. I appreciated your testimony.

Being a new member on the Subcommittee, there are some things

that I will probably ask you about that everybody else here knows.

But I am just curious as to your perception of the need across the

Country as to other buildings. Obviously, you haven’t included everything in your request here. How do you go about deciding what

buildings are ready to be renovated or torn down and reconstructed?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. Congressman, we have—I mentioned a little earlier, the structure of our real property asset group at GSA

is doing a constant assessment based on a return on equity, the

same principles that a private real estate firm would do, looking

at the rent and looking at the reinvestment in those facilities, and

we have actually—and this is sort of—Bill Matthews, who is here,

Assistant Commissioner, is in charge of that.

We have actually, over the last three years, completely—as we

do regularly—review those assets and determine which ones are efficient to the goal to both return, as well as energy and operating

costs, and we compare them to industry standards, the BOMA

standards, which sort of evaluate operating costs. And if those facilities are in fact meeting the client need and are efficient, we continue to invest in them, and part of these requests are obviously

the renovation, alteration programs as well. So that is how we sort

of evaluate the properties in terms of reinvesting in them.

We also have a realty specialist on the local level and regional

account managers that are dealing with our major Federal tenants

in the 11 regions around the Country, so they are constantly understanding what their contracting needs are. There is much consolidation going on, as well as, in the case of the FBI and other

agencies and DHS, major expansion. So we sort of can predict

where they are moving.

And based on market information that we are getting for the national brokerage contract and our own information, we can, you
12

know, manage those flows, trying to keep them in governmentowned buildings that historically are more cost-effective for the taxpayer, as well as where we need special space or we need space

quickly, the marketplace in our lease program—which is actually

half of our inventory—can address that.

So we are constantly managing our own inventory, constantly

looking at our leased inventory to make sure that we understand

when are leases expiring, working with our client agencies to understand what their space needs will be beyond that termination

date, and renegotiating on their behalf to meet those needs.

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Are there facilities right now that you would

like to do but the financial burdens of the Country really are kind

of limited and prohibit you from doing that?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, Congressman Kuhl. There are constantly an

inventory of projects. These prospectuses before you are actually

our current focus in 2007, but there are unmet needs that we are

constantly sort of benching and preparing to move into the program

in terms of renovation or new construction.

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Could you tell me, there is a facility in Buffalo,

New York, I think it is a new Federal courthouse that is on, I

think, the list to be done. Could you tell me where that rates as

far as other projects that might be considered?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. I personally went up with the regional administrator in New York to meet the judges in Buffalo, and it is

remarkable what that new courthouse will do for the downtown

area of Buffalo across from city hall. And we are moving to try to

get that funded. It is in the queue to move forward, but it is not—

I think there has been some Senate action on it, but it is not a part

of this program here. They were concerned about that.

The existing courthouse up there, in my opinion, has been recently renovated, it is very attractive, quite unusual older building,

and it is meeting their current needs, but they are very anxious to

obviously get beyond the site acquisition, into design and completion of that new courthouse.

Mr. KUHL. Any thoughts about time line for completing that?

Mr. WINSTEAD. I know we are working very hard. It depends

upon when the funding is approved. I know that we are constantly

in touch with the courts and with the Buffalo interests in that regard, but I can’t predict exactly when the construction dollars are

going to be in the program.

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Congressman, I would be happy to get you a

briefing on it, get back to you.

Mr. KUHL. That would be great. That would be great. Thank you.

Mr. SHUSTER. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I am going

to. I think it would help the courts immensely if they moved quickly on this study that we have requested, and I believe they have

agreed to it now. As we bring up new courthouses, I know I will

be hesitant to approve any new construction until we figure out exactly how to utilize it. So the courts need to move forward.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. Well, I look forward to the GAO study as

well. I mean, we have looked at their new design guide. We are

working in trying to save design costs and utilization, increase
13

space and things of that nature, but that would be very helpful to

us.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Michaud, questions?

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have

three questions; they are all related. Within GSA, how is the Border Crossing Station Program managed and is there an office dedicated specifically for this program? And my last question is how

does GSA work within Homeland Security?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. Congressman, we do have an office of border station portfolio. They manage a huge increase for our client,

Customs and Border Protection. Essentially, we have three offices.

One is for the courts and one is for the border station because it

is a large part of our construction program. You may see in this

request for authorization, you will see six new requested border

station programs totaling about $95 million. That is on top of fiscal

year 2006, where we had five at about $211 million.

I had the occasion last week to meet with a coalition of communities on our northern and southern borders that are very interested in—it is called the Border Trade Alliance, I believe—very interested in the efficiencies that can be gained with throughput of

traffic and commercial vehicles and these border stations.

Obviously, we have very, very specific needs in containment

areas and all sorts of needs in terms of scanning freight, so it is

a very unique facility. On a per square foot basis, they tend to be

more expensive, and I know one question of the Committee that

came back to our staff before this hearing was why do you have

a variation between various border stations. It is because of both

the need and a case configuration site specifics that might change

some of those costs.

But we do feel—and I have a brochure that will lay out some of

our stations in the northern part, on the Canadian border, that I

can leave with you. But I think it has been an excellent program

and I think, again, through the efficiencies of our design, construction, and architectural team, that we can deliver it very efficiently

for, obviously, CBP, and we can continue to do that. And I would

be happy to provide you specific information on any of the prospectus for any of the specific projects, background information, if you

would like.

Mr. MICHAUD. What about leased? Are all your border stations

leased, government-owned?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. We have the majority of them are, but there

are some situations where there are leased facilities. And I know

that some of them are unusual in that regard. There are several

cases where we essentially have the communities on the border and

some private interests involved in certain passages, but the majority of them are government-owned, Federally-owned border stations.

Mr. MICHAUD. I would appreciate it if you can provide that for

the Committee. I would be interested in seeing that.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I would be happy to.

Mr. MICHAUD. And what elements of the Homeland Security Department will be reassigned to St. Elizabeth?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. We are working very closely with DHS now

in that regard. They, as you know, have the Nebraska complex,
14

and although they haven’t released a proposed plan, we are working the NCR here. The National Capital Region is working very

closely with them to try to make sure that we take advantage of

the St. Elizabeth’s Campus. Congressman, it is about 176 acres. It

is a large piece of ground with enormous visual impact on Washington. If you would like a tour of it, I would be happy to arrange

it.

But it is very secure. It meets all the highest-end security setback requirements. There are some historic buildings that we will

incorporate within the campus plan for the Coast Guard and other

potential tenants from DHS. But we do feel that it is the last remaining piece of major secured real estate, and Washington, I

think, offers an excellent opportunity for a campus for a lot of these

high-end security DHS functions.

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.

Ms. Norton, do you have further questions?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I note that

GSA and, it looks like, the State Department want or at least have

put in their own bids for Walter Reed Hospital. I can certainly understand that given the hunger of the Federal Government for land

here. There are millions of square feet of office space you need and,

of course, you want to do as much in the Nation’s capital, especially

since cabinet agencies should be consolidated in the Nation’s capital in particular.

I am wondering when we will know—well, first of all, I am wondering if there is any chance that some of that, for example, the

part that borders Georgia Avenue, would be utilized by the District

of Columbia, which has set up its own—according to, of course,

Federal law—its own authority in case they may have some part

of the land and, of course, in order for you to consult with the local

authority.

The part of the land on 16th Street, of course, is very residential.

You would expect the State Department to want that because there

are embassies on 16th Street. Georgia Avenue is a very commercial, and the hospital has some considerable setback from Georgia

Avenue. So what I am asking is whether you believe that some

kind of mixed development with the Federal Government using the

space it needs with the appropriate setback, but with a curbside

commercial space being possibly used by the District of Columbia

is a possible configuration.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Delegate Norton, you have been such a partner

with our agency over the decades in terms of the District and of

our needs here. In addition, some of these innovative projects such

as St. Elizabeth’s and the Southeast Federal Center. I know that

Mayor Williams this morning had a comment in the paper regarding Walter Reed, that he has set up this local redevelopment authority committee to help look at some of these ideas, some of these

mixed use ideas. Obviously, there has been, from GSA’s perspective

and the State Department, there are obviously needs in terms of

embassy functions or potential Federal office options.

I would hope that our NCR—we chatted about this when I came

to your office. We want to make sure that we have the best plan-
15

ning perspective in how we can help that partnership with the city,

and it seems to me the most successful office environment, as you

know well, is this mixed use approach. I just don’t know, firsthand, what the whole campus utilization would be.

I agree with you that 16th Street is much more residential in

character than Georgia Avenue with the investments made. Both

on the D.C. and Maryland side of Georgia Avenue is a major commercial corridor and a major redevelopment area, and should be,

also transit-served, which is helpful.

So I think we will continue to partner with the city, with the

NCPC and other groups, State Department, in trying to look at the

needs and options—

Ms. NORTON. But you don’t know when a decision will be made

as to whether or not the Federal Government agencies, GSA and

State Department, who want the land will get the land. When will

that decision be made?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Delegate, I believe NCR is currently working on

trying to set a time line for that. I can’t—but I can get to back to

you on what our plans are.

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would get back to me. I just want to

say—I am not going to take up the Committee’s—

Mr. WINSTEAD. I am sorry, Delegate Norton. I apologize. We do

expect by next month that decision. I apologize.

Ms. NORTON. That is important information. But I do want to say

I don’t think the Committee is going to have to think about Walter

Reed for a very long time. I really do not believe that—although

BRAC has said that the Walter Reed Hospital will now be constructed at Bethesda, I don’t, for a moment, think that anybody is

going to put down $1.5 billion to build a new hospital at a time

when we have such a deficit, and when we have, if not a state of

the art hospital—it was built in the 1970s—at least a going hospital that everybody was surprised to see closed anyway. So I am

not going to spend a whole lot of time on that.

I just have a couple of questions.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. And this has been a perennial problem with GSA,

and it really goes back to what I was saying about the courts, what

the Chairman indicated when he talked about the plan, and that

is the locational policy of GSA and its handing off its responsibility

to other agencies. When I say the courts, it was certainly not the

courts alone.

GSA has been roundly accused of participating with agencies in

redlining, to just use the nasty word. Actually, GSA helped me

fight an attempt by an agency to redline when an agency chose to

put the FCC down where—which is now one of the up and coming

elegant areas of the city, and the FCC wanted to renege on it literally after the building was built.

Now, here are people who had gone through a competitive process—and I want to stress that this is a competitive process, where

you, the experts, say to the agencies, tell us your needs, and then

you put out an RFP and people have to come in, and you do not

award on the basis only of price, but you have a competitive process that you choose the best place based on the taxpayers’ responsibilities and the agency’s responsibilities.
16

With that as a preface, I have some real concerns about some

leases, such as the Department of Justice consolidation lease. I

mean, we have been trying to consolidate Department of Justice for

decades, and the Department of Justice seems to have a total veto

over leases even after you go through a competitive process. You

canceled a recent Department of Justice process after, apparently,

the winning party had been chosen.

The Chairman has pulled the FBI lease until we can all be

briefed because you seem to be into piecemealing the FBI, whereas,

the policy of the Federal Government is consolidation to the greatest extent possible. And if you see an agency like the FBI that is

growing, you would think that the experts—and goodness knows

that is what you are—would look at whether or not there would be

a housing plan somewhere here, or somewhere else, if that is not

possible, that would consolidate the agency. I think the Department of Justice is located in more than 20 different sites someplace

around the city and the region.

So my question really goes to how you conceive of your role once

a determination has been made through the competitive process

that a site is in the best interest of the Federal Government. How

do you conceive of your role when the agency may want to be elsewhere, such as wanting to be as near K Street as possible, wanting

to be in the hub nearer the mall, when everybody knows that that

space is virtually gone, not wanting to go to new areas, despite the

statutory provision that says that the Federal Government has a

responsibility to go to an area first, because when it does, it opens

up the area and it renews the area almost instantly because other

kinds of commercial and housing comes in? That has been the statutory role of the agency forever.

And yet, for example, I note there is an area of the District of

Columbia which has been cleared, it is literally on the gateway to

the District of Columbia in downtown Washington. It is the last remaining large site in downtown Washington. We call it NOMA,

North of Massachusetts Avenue. You cooperate with me to have an

opportunity for Federal agents to come in and find out about

NOMA.

And what did they find out? That once, Mr. Chairman, the ATF

decided to move—now, this is New York Avenue and Florida Avenue. It couldn’t be more central. Once the ATF decided to build

there, almost as if, magically, we have got hotels planned, restaurants planned, the renewal of a whole area, won’t cost the Federal Government one dime, but all it had to do was to find the best

space for an agency. The ATF agreed to that space. It did not want

to go to the region, for example.

So when it saw—you know, let us see, what my choices are—it

agreed to that space. Spaces had precisely the effect that Federal

construction always has, and yet this block of land around it—

where, by the way, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government, the

D.C. Government, and the private sector, for the first time in Metro’s history, have cooperated to build a whole new subway station,

new subway station that the Federal Government only had to pay

one-third of the price for, the only one of its kind in the whole region where the private sector and the locals have contributed in
17

this way—vacant land where the private sector is doing what you

would expect them to do. It is a new area.

Yes, we know those things are coming. Federal agencies haven’t

been there before. Yes, it is very close to Union Station. Yes, it is

very close to downtown Washington. But, yet, there will be reluctance because it is a new area.

My question to you is whether or not there is any single agency

which is going to this section. And, further, my question to you is

whether or not you have advertised this section for any single

agency so that RFPs could come in and you could see and compare

it to other RFPs in the city and in the region.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Delegate Norton, I appreciate your concern and

I understand it. You know, we do have authority under Section 120

to direct under the delineated areas, the agreed upon space and options and to procurement, both construction and lease. Your problem—and I did chat with you when I came by your office—in terms

of the NOMA area is your commitment to it and my commitment

to it are the same. My concern is that we will continue to make

sure that it all of—

Ms. NORTON. Well, answer my question. Have RFPs come in?

Mr. WINSTEAD. There are a number of procurements underway

in that area, and I know that because of that it is—

Ms. NORTON. Are these people bidding on the procurements you

are putting out? The people who own that land, are they bidding

or not?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, they are. There are options—

Ms. NORTON. All right, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. I

want to put on the record, because I am very concerned that there

is—these people tell me—because after GSA and I went and had

this whole big thing to say to the agencies, look here, you then involve yourself in something that this Congress has nothing to do

with.

You then have to decide competitively what is the best place.

These people tell me that because they know they are a little distance away from where agencies are used to going, that they are

putting in bids that they know that their competitors could not possibly put in. In other words, they are willing to be lost leaders in

order to in fact get Federal agencies to come to this space.

So they tell me—and they don’t know what your bids are from

others and I don’t know what your bids are from others. All I

know, that if developers in D.C., of which there are a fair number

who own space there, tell me they know they are very significantly

under-bidding, under-pricing their land relative to everything in

the region and everything in the city, then I have real questions

as to whether or not you are engaged in redlining a central area

of the District of Columbia from Federal agencies going there and

costing the taxpayers more by either doing as you did for DOJ and

saying, well, they don’t want it, so we canceled the lease, or otherwise not doing the job of encouraging agencies to go there once you

find that that is the best place for the taxpayers and for the agencies.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Delegate, I understand your concern, and our

commitment is the same. We will continue to communicate with

the developers and understand their options. We think this area,
18

with the investment of the new Metro there, which was, by the

way, historically unique in its funding base. You actually had contributions through TIFs to bring that in place. It was brought online and completed faster than any system in the Metro system.

It is a very—it is a brilliant corridor in terms of office options

for GSA, and we will continue, as I mentioned to you in a meeting,

continue to make sure that we are engaged in information and both

the options that exist there as well as, obviously, the procurements

that are out there that this area is a part of. And I will be happy

to continue to report to you on that. I know that our NCR realty

specialists are reaching out through the DCBIA in a lot of these forums, real estate forums, where a lot of these areas of growth and

opportunity are presented and are being educated—

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Winstead, just let me say this.

Mr. WINSTEAD. All right.

Ms. NORTON. Unless you do what realtors do, people in your position, for the private sector and market this part of the area, these

people are not going to want to go there.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I understand.

Ms. NORTON. And they are going to force you if you look like

GSA has always looked, like it will do anything to please the agency.

Because, Mr. Chairman, this Committee hasn’t done the kind of

oversight on this issue. We have complained about it.

And I think what you are doing—if you are going to leave a huge

section of the District of Columbia in downtown Washington vacant, where there is a subway stop, where the private sector has

already pioneered—

Mr. Chairman, this is where XM Radio has located and pioneered. We are not talking about some God-forsaken part.

If you are going to leave that, I think you invite further oversight

of this Committee as to how you handle RFPs, and particularly if

we find that, all of a sudden, RFPs for people like the DOJ are vacated—whoops—for no reason—there it goes; there it was—particularly since you have a number of agencies coming up. You know,

some of these people are not going to want to go to St. Elizabeth’s.

The President has made it clear, though, that this is a secure agency we are building here.

But you are going to find people saying, well, we don’t want to

go to this new place. If they don’t want to go to New York Avenue,

imagine wanting to go across the river. Where are they going? And

once they get there, they will find it is just fine. But if they don’t

have somebody besides me trying to convince me, if they don’t have

the experts in the field talking about what happens when a Federal

Government builds a building.

All you have got to do is look at Southwest. Look at downtown

Washington. If you think downtown Washington got to be the way

it is somehow because people decided let us make a beautiful downtown, then you don’t understand the role of the Federal Government.

One more question, Mr. Chairman. I am on the Homeland

Security—
19

Mr. SHUSTER. I just want to mention we are going to have a vote

at about 11:15, 11:30, so if you can have a final question, and we

will try to get through as much as we can of the markup also.

Ms. NORTON. We have a markup?

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will go to the markup. I just

want to say—

Mr. WINSTEAD. I will get back on the—

Ms. NORTON. And I want to say the notion of your role in this

interagency committee on security, I would like to know the difference between your own security guidelines and what that interagency security came up with.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I would be happy to get that back to you.

Mr. SHUSTER. All right.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Thank you, Delegate Norton.

Mr. SHUSTER. Commissioner, just one question briefly, if you answer it. The design guide, allowing the—and I think Ms. Norton

brought this up before—was it a good idea to give it to the Federal

courts to design their own buildings? And is there any thought at

the GSA of taking that back? Because I understand GSA decided

to give it to them, and it would seem to me you would do a better

job of that oversight.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, there has been repeated editing

efforts on the design guide. We have the most recent input back

from the courts’ design guide and we had opportunities, actually

since I have been at GSA the last six months, to input into that

document to ensure that our designers and architects and their

team are working that it is the most efficient guidelines, and the

courts have been receptive to that. They are actually working with

them. We have a meeting on April the 11th, Mr. Chairman, with

the facility committee of the courts and the chairman of that,

Judge Roth, to actually discuss the design guide and its impact—

Mr. SHUSTER. But to discuss GSA taking back that or not?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Well, we haven’t approached that yet, but we will

bring it up at that meeting.

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Okay, well, thank you very much for

being here with us today. Appreciate it and look forward to

talking—

Mr. WINSTEAD. Thanks for all your support and for the Committee’s support.

Mr. SHUSTER. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that

the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our

witness has provided answers to our questions that may be submitted to him in writing, and unanimous consent that during such

time as the record remains open, additional comments offered by

individuals or groups may be included in today’s record. Without

objection, that is so ordered.

If no one else has anything to add, the Subcommittee is in recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37Æ