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

65–449 PDF 2011

CUTTING SPENDING AND CONSOLIDATING 

FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE: GSA’S CAPITAL 

INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM 

(112–14) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Peck, Robert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 2 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 29 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Peck, Robert ............................................................................................................. 32 

vi 


Insert offset folio 001 here 65449.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65449.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65449.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65449.004
(1) 

CUTTING SPENDING AND 

CONSOLIDATING FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE: 

GSA’S CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND 

LEASING PROGRAM 

Thursday, March 10, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. This subcommittee will come to order. Ranking 

Member Norton will be detained for a short period of time. She is 

at a different hearing right now, testifying. So we are going to go 

ahead and get started this morning. 

This hearing is focused on the General Services Administration’s 

capital investment and leasing program, and examining ways to 

cut spending and consolidate Federal office space. Today we are reviewing the 2012 program and the remaining lease prospectuses 

from the 2011 program. 

Given the financial crisis facing our country, we simply must reduce the amount of money we spend to house Federal employees. 

Excess and under-utilized properties must be eliminated. The price 

we pay for space has to be controlled. And agencies will have to 

house more people in less space. The committee intends to scrutinize each project from this perspective, in order to determine if 

they will save taxpayer money. 

We received the President’s proposal, 2012 budget proposal, nearly a month ago. That budget proposes to spend $840 million 

on construction and acquisition projects, and $869 million on repairs and alteration projects. The budget includes funding for specific projects, including ports of entry, FBI consolidations, and the 

repair and alteration of other Federal buildings. 

Our committee just received GSA’s fiscal year 2012 capital improvement program yesterday, nearly a month after the release of 

the President’s budget. Year after year, this subcommittee has requested GSA provide its capital investment program early in the 

year, so that we can act in a timely fashion. I do appreciate that 

we did receive the program prior to this hearing, and hope we can 

work with GSA on ensuring timely submission in the future. 

2 

I also want to thank Mr. Peck for his response to the letter 

signed by all the Members of this Committee last week, requesting 

access and information from the Federal real property profile database regarding GSA properties. I do remain concerned, however, 

that some of the requests remain outstanding. For example, in January GSA briefed subcommittee staff on the lease prospectuses still 

pending from the 2011 leasing program, and staff requested information on many of those projects. Responses to those requests were 

only received yesterday. 

In addition, at the hearing we had last month, members of the 

subcommittee asked for information to be submitted. Many of those 

deadlines are today, including: the Old Post Office Building, an explanation to the subcommittee why the RFP has not been released; 

a list of properties losing money on an annual basis in the national 

capital region—we did have the operating costs in there, but without the revenues associated with that, it does not allow us the opportunity to see whether or not we are losing money; recommendations on any changes needed to existing law to streamline the property disposal process. 

We will be coming out with our own recommendations in bill 

form. So we would certainly like to work with GSA on their recommendations in that process. 

I hope we are going to receive the responses to those questions 

very soon. This committee does not plan to approve leases until we 

receive this information. I want to make sure GSA is very well 

aware of that. 

The administration’s goal of addressing the problem of unneeded 

and underutilized assets is one that is shared by this subcommittee. It is critical that we have access to relevant information 

in a timely fashion, so that we can effectively work with GSA and 

the administration on proposals to stop waste when it comes to our 

public buildings and facilities. I look forward to working with Mr. 

Peck on these issues. 

And I would just like to add for the record we had a great meeting yesterday over at your office. I appreciate the opportunity not 

only to get together, but some frank conversation on how we can 

greatly improve the process and work together. 

Ms. Norton will be here shortly, and I will still allow her an 

opening testimony. 

But for now, I would like to call on Mr. Peck for an opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC 

BUILDINGS SERVICE, UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. PECK. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

coming over to the office yesterday. I also thought we had a very 

productive conversation. 

Chairman Denham, Congressman Crawford, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the 

investments that GSA is making in our Nation’s infrastructure 

through our fiscal year 2012 capital investment program. The 

projects in our fiscal year 2012 program are critical investment 

needs for our country and tenant agencies. 

3 

PBS is investing in our Nation’s economic recovery while meeting 

our sustainability responsibilities. These investments stimulate job 

growth, increase space utilization, enhance asset condition, and improve the environmental performance of our inventory. 

GSA utilizes a detailed asset analysis strategy to drive investment decisions. This plan prioritizes agency requirements and 

asset needs based on criteria, including agency mission, facility 

conditions, space utilization, return on investment, and sustainability. 

PBS continues to demonstrate strong operational performance, 

surpassing many private-sector benchmarks to improve asset utilization and achieve the greatest return to taxpayers. Eighty-three 

percent of GSA’s government-owned assets achieve a positive cash 

flow. Our vacancy rate, just under 3 percent, is well below the private-sector rate of about 17 percent. 

PBS is also becoming a green proving ground through judicious 

investment in new and innovative technologies. GSA is the steward 

of more than 1,500 government-owned buildings, which have a replacement value of $45 billion. PBS is requesting a repair and alterations program of $869 million to enable GSA to maintain and 

improve these properties, so that they can continue to meet the 

needs of our tenant agencies. 

Industry benchmarks suggest investing at least two percent of 

replacement value annually in capital upgrades, and our request is 

at about 1.9 percent. This program includes completing multi-phase 

renovations at the Interior and State Department headquarters in 

Washington, and at the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Building 

in Honolulu. I just say that because I’m proud that I know how to 

pronounce it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PECK. It also includes major consolidations that will permit 

us to relocate tenants from lease space into federally owned space 

in San Francisco and in Overland, Missouri. 

PBS is requesting $840 million, as you noted, for our new construction program. PBS’s fiscal year 2012 priorities reflect urgent 

tenant mission needs, and investments that will ensure a long-term 

payback for taxpayers. Highlights of the program include: $217 

million for the Department of Homeland Security consolidation at 

St. Elizabeths in Washington; $243 million for FBI projects in San 

Juan, Puerto Rico and Frederick County, Virginia; and $371 million for land port of entry construction in New Mexico, Texas, New 

York, and North Dakota. 

In addition to GSA’s budget request, the Department of Transportation has requested $2.2 billion in service transportation investments which will be transferred to GSA for the design and construction of a number of critical facilities at our Nation’s borders. 

These investments prioritize the largest border crossings that support high-volume transportation and cross-border trade. 

You have a right to ask if we can deliver on these projects. In 

our hundreds of accelerated projects under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act passed just two years ago, we met every contracting deadline, and are also on our construction targets. We 

have created some 16,000 jobs to date. 

4 

GSA’s fiscal year 2012 request assumes full funding of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget for GSA’s capital program. If, in the 

end, we do not receive funding for the fiscal year 2011 capital program, GSA may need to alter our fiscal year 2012 request. If any 

revisions to the fiscal year 2012 budget request are necessary, we 

will notify the committee accordingly. 

We do want to thank the committee and subcommittee for authorizing our fiscal year 2011 capital program in a timely way last 

year. 

We urge you also to authorize the balance of our fiscal year 2011 

prospectus level leasing program. More than half the workforce we 

accommodate is in space leased from private-sector building owners. As you know, we prefer to provide space in federally owned assets whenever possible. But when we do not have such space, we 

lease in the private market. We will submit prospectus-level leases 

for the fiscal year 2012 program to the committee this summer for 

authorization. 

I need to alert you to an urgent concern. Proposed continuing 

resolution cuts to the Federal building funds operations and leasing 

accounts for the remainder of the fiscal year would seriously inhibit 

our ability to provide basic building services, and even to remain 

current on lease payments to our lessors. 

We all want to minimize the size of the Federal inventory. The 

President announced in his fiscal year 2012 budget a legislative 

initiative to accelerate the identification and disposal of surplus 

properties. This is a follow-on to his memorandum to Federal agencies in June of 2010 ordering stepped-up efforts to identify excess 

property. That is a government-wide effort that we have been leading, since we are the Federal Government’s central agency for disposing of surplus property. 

The administration is proposing a civilian property realignment 

initiative that will enable us to improve how we identify and move 

surplus properties out of the Federal inventory, allowing us to realize a financial return, and perhaps as important, eliminate the cost 

of maintaining these properties. An appointed board would review 

all Federal agency properties and provide a mechanism to overcome some current impediments to moving surplus space out of the 

inventory. And I thank you for your passion and commitment for 

helping move surplus property out, as well. 

More than a year ago we stepped up our consulting with Federal 

agencies on ways to embrace new mobile workplace technologies 

and office strategies that should permit dramatic reductions in the 

amount of space agencies need to carry out their missions. We are 

using the renovations of our headquarters building currently underway as an example. We expect nearly to triple the number of 

people that that building accommodates. 

The program we present today reflects an analytic and best-practice-based approach to meeting Federal agency real estate needs, 

while at the same time we improve operational efficiencies and 

space utilization to minimize costs for the American taxpayer. We 

are concentrating reinvestment in core assets, and disposing of 

unneeded assets. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. And, of 

course, I am pleased to answer any questions you have. 

5 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Peck. We have got a number of 

questions here, and we expect that we will have more than one 

round of questioning. But let me start. 

As you point out in your testimony, Administration intends to aggressively pursue dispositions of unneeded assets. However, the 

2012 budget proposed by the administration anticipates that GSA’s 

proceeds from sales will drop from $24 million in 2010 to $16 million in 2012. Why is there a drop, when disposal of properties is 

a priority for the administration? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I will get you a more 

comprehensive answer for the record. But it takes a while to get 

properties into the pipeline, and then to move them through the 

process that we have and out into the marketplace. 

I will have to check on the numbers. It may be just the GSA 

properties that we are disposing. The government-wide total, I believe, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars for this year. I think 

you are talking about—remember, there are two aspects to our 

property disposal: properties that GSA itself owns and controls; 

and those that other Federal agencies give to us to dispose of. I 

think you are giving the GSA numbers, but I will double-check for 

the record. We are working pretty—— 

Mr. DENHAM. You would have those other numbers—— 

Mr. PECK. We will have—we have the estimates on how much we 

are moving through the pipeline right now. 

And one thing—can I—one thing I would like to highlight is we 

are beginning—for example, this afternoon at noon—an online auction of the Fort Worth Federal Center in Fort Worth, Texas. It’s 

about a million-square-foot warehouse and 75 acres of land. 

Mr. DENHAM. And GSA does liquidate the properties outside of 

GSA’s—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. And it’s important, I want to make sure we’re 

clear on what we do. GSA owns 1,500 building assets, and we at 

the moment have something like 30 properties that are vacant that 

we ourselves, in GSA, are trying to move out onto the marketplace. 

The Federal Government, obviously, holds thousands and thousands of assets. And, on behalf of other land-holding agencies such 

as the Department of Interior, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, we—they—when we find that they have excess 

assets, or surplus assets, we then move them out into the marketplace. 

Our job—if you give me a minute—is to take assets that an agency describes to us as no longer being needed for their purposes in 

the Federal inventory, to then, in essence, market those properties 

to other Federal agencies and see if anyone else in the government 

needs it, because we are the government’s central real estate clearinghouse. If we don’t find anybody in the Federal Government that 

has it, then we declare the property surplus, and take them 

through the surplus property process, which I think Members of 

the Committee are familiar with. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the $16 million that we’re looking at here you 

anticipate is just from GSA property? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. And that’s been confirmed by my staff behind 

me. 

6 

Mr. DENHAM. And the other properties from other agencies, you 

have direct control over the disposal of those, and should also have 

those numbers? 

Mr. PECK. It’s—I mean in most years—and we have stepped up 

our efforts over the last 5 or 6—we have hit a number somewhere 

around, I believe, $300 million in disposals. 

The other thing I will point out, though, is the sales dollars that 

we get understates how much property we actually get off our 

books. Because, in addition to sales—and, in fact, more than sales, 

if you look at square footage—we sometimes dispose of properties 

by giving them away for reduced or no compensation to cities and 

states for specific purposes that are stated in the Federal Property 

Act. 

Mr. DENHAM. Does GSA retain the proceeds for the non-GSA 

properties that—— 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. The—under legislation that passed in about 

2004, Federal agencies can retain proceeds but they go to the agency that was the original land-holding agency. 

So, for example, if the Department of the Interior has a property 

that we sell, all or part of the proceeds go back to the Department 

of the Interior. The only thing we retain is we’re allowed to take 

some of our costs out of the proceeds. 

Mr. DENHAM. Also in your written testimony you had pointed out 

the President has proposed a civilian property realignment initiative, a BRAC-like process that we have talked about many times. 

What involvement has GSA had in formulating this process, and 

what would be the role of GSA, and specifically the Public Building 

Service, in the process, should legislation be enacted? 

Mr. PECK. Thank you for asking. Since the President issued his 

memorandum last June, GSA has been leading a working group of 

Federal agencies that are taking a look at—that have asked agencies to come back with Federal plans. And I should mention that 

this is under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget, 

but we have been with some of their staff, the arm executing the 

work on the President’s memorandum. 

We have been part of a group of Federal agencies that have been 

sitting around the table, figuring out how we can make that effort 

even stronger. And so, we have been a part of vetting the President’s legislative proposal, and we are actually now—legislation or 

no, we are working together to pull together a stronger inter-agency working group to make this effort go forward. We are looking 

at taking detailees out of some other Federal agencies, putting 

them in a GSA space which we have, and working on this thing 

full time, with our GSA disposal people helping to lead the effort. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, under the President’s BRAC proposal, which I 

understand is not fully out yet, or vetted, it would not be looked— 

I mean if we’re greatly expanding the $15 billion goal, does GSA, 

in the next 3 budgets, have the money and the personnel to be able 

to liquidate that number of properties, or are we looking to go out 

to private companies that can help the liquidation process, or a hybrid thereof? 

Mr. PECK. The President’s proposal, which was included as an— 

in an appendix to the budget request for this year, asks for an appropriation for—to capitalize, in essence, the effort of this property 

7 

effort of about—I think the request is for about $80-some million. 

And then the intention is that, as we get proceeds from properties 

that we sell, we would replenish and increase that fund. 

Let me say there are two reasons for that dollar amount. One is 

to pay for private-sector expertise, where we need it to do analysis 

of the properties and possibly to help take it to market. I should 

note that right now, when we do disposals, we sometimes use private brokers to help sell them under a blanket purchase agreement. 

But we also need some of the money because, in some cases—I 

will give you an example from some of our buildings. We have a 

couple of buildings that we report as partially vacant. And if we 

have as much of—in a case where we have a third of a building 

vacant, if there are other Federal agencies in the area, what we 

would like to do is have enough money to be able to move people 

out of the partially vacant building, consolidate them into other 

buildings, and create a vacancy—and totally empty out the partially vacant building and put it on the market. It takes some upfront money to do that, as they learned in the Defense BRAC, as 

well. 

One other thing, Mr. Chairman. The $15 billion is a goal that the 

administration put forward in the President’s press briefing last 

week. It is a $15 billion—— 

Mr. DENHAM. We expect to exceed that goal. 

Mr. PECK. We would love to, as well. But let me say one thing, 

that, again, I want to note that there are two ways to look at the 

numbers. One is how much money do we get from selling. The 

other is the savings that we get from not operating and maintaining vacant properties. And even when they’re totally vacant, people 

say, ‘‘Well, how much can that cost?’’ Well, you have to secure 

them, just so people don’t break into them, so they don’t become 

nuisances in their communities. And there are some costs of keeping them—— 

Mr. DENHAM. $6 million a year for the Old Post Office, correct? 

Mr. PECK. Well, it’s—you know, again, the Old Post Office has 

tenants in it. But we do lose money on it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And just as a side note before we start 

a round of questioning, I’m looking forward to watching the online 

auction today on how things go with the Fort Worth, Texas property. But it did come to my attention that this committee held a 

hearing on that in 1997. Why has it taken so long to get to this 

process? 

Mr. PECK. Well, I can tell you, as Jeff Zients said in his press 

briefing last year, a couple of things. One is we had to move 

some—we had some of the warehouse space partially occupied, and 

we were—I don’t know—I can’t account for before 2007, which is 

the farthest back time that I have been briefed on. But we did have 

to move some people out of the warehouse so it could become vacant. 

And then we spent a long time talking to local officials about 

their interest in taking the property. And as you and I have discussed, and as Jeff Zients, the deputy director of OMB, mentioned 

in his briefing last week, sometimes local political considerations 

really extend the amount of time that it takes us to get properties 

8 

out on the market. The process that allows us to talk to states and 

localities looks like it has a time bound to it when you look at our 

process. But I will just say it sometimes gets extended. 

Mr. DENHAM. Political from both the local level, as well as sometimes Members from Congress that may have an interest in a specific area, or—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. And, more often than not, it’s—localities have 

legitimate uses to which they want to put the properties. But we 

have, in law, some fairly narrow purposes for which they can get 

it at a discount. And if we can’t give it to them under that law at 

a discount, which usually means for free, we talk to localities about 

paying fair market value. And then, sometimes negotiations become protracted. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And as we discussed yesterday, some 

of the challenges with putting a property like this on auction, as 

well as the timing, again, one of the things that this committee is 

looking for that we had discussed 30 days ago was how to streamline the process. And we still look forward to a list of recommendations on that. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. With that, I would like to start our five-minute 

round of questioning. First Member would be Mr. Crawford, our 

vice chair. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for being here 

today. 

In your written testimony you highlighted GSA’s vacancy rates 

in leased space, as compared to the private sector. How are those 

GSA vacancy rates formulated, and do they take into account the 

actual utilization by tenant agencies? 

Mr. PECK. The fair answer is yes and no, sir. The way we count 

tenancy and occupancy—and I have done this in the private sector—is the way a private sector landlord would. If a Federal agency 

is paying us rent on the space, we count it as occupied space. 

That—and the ‘‘no’’ part of my answer is that that could mean that 

an agency is, by our own standards, not making the optimum use 

of the space. Or, in some cases, we have a lease on space where 

one agency has downsized and another one has increased, and we 

are moving people in. So there are occasional vacancies, too. 

And I want to be clear. This is not—we are in a very different 

situation from the private sector. This is not a knock on the private 

sector. The private sector has vacancy because the economy has 

contracted more than in previous recessions, for example, where 

the private sector may have overbuilt. So I don’t—this is no knock 

on them. In our case, we are much more able to control the tenancy. We just—when we lease space, it’s because we know we have 

a real need for it. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. Thank you. In the 2012 program, GSA included a number of projects intended to avoid costly leases, including the consolidation of the FBI in San Francisco, and back-filling 

the Veterans Benefits Administration into a Federal building in 

Missouri. What would be the avoided lease cost for those projects? 

Mr. PECK. Let me—unless someone behind me knows immediately, it’s something I can provide you for the record. It’s a finite 

number. 

9 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK, sure. If you want to, provide that for the 

record a little bit later on. 

And then I have one other question here I would like to ask, if 

I could. Can you explain why the request for energy and conservation measures has doubled from $20 million in 2011 to $40 million 

in 2012, especially given that most of the $5.5 billion Recovery Act 

funds went to converting buildings into high-performance green 

buildings? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. The Recovery Act funds of the $5.5 billion, 

about $3.5 billion was money to be—to put—some of it was new 

construction, and $3.5 billion was money to put into repairs and alterations in our buildings that included not just greening the buildings, it included, in many cases, total building rehabilitations, 

where we had a 40-year-old building. So it means replacing the 

roof, replacing facades, all that kind of stuff. 

In every case where we did that, we did green the buildings, 

that’s absolutely true. But even that didn’t reach—there was something like 270 major building renovations projects. We have 1,500 

buildings. And so there are still buildings that need work on their 

energy and water conservation. And these funds generally go to 

smaller things that you can do to buildings, like putting in smart 

meters, low-cost technology upgrades that can make a difference. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. And I’ve got a little bit of time left, so I am 

going to ask you another question. Can you explain why two of the 

most costly projects included in the President’s budget for 2012 include an FBI consolidation in San Juan, Puerto Rico, at a cost of 

$146 million, and the renovation of a Federal building and courthouse in Hawaii at a cost of nearly $200 million? Can you talk 

about the need for each of those projects, what the utilization rates 

are, and how they save money? 

Mr. PECK. In the—in Hawaii, there are two issues in the—I’m 

not going to try to pronounce it again—the PJKK Building, as it’s 

affectionately known. The building is—it’s an old building. It’s had 

some major—we don’t have structural issues, but we have some 

major facade issues, water infiltration in the building, and it’s— 

mostly it’s—in that case, it’s mostly an operating asset. 

And we operate like a private-sector landlord in this sense. At 

some point a building gets to the point where it’s no longer functional. We can, by investing that money, save money on operating 

costs. And I will say that, since we do operate like a business in 

the sense that we have a rent roll—we’re mostly self-financing— 

when we do that we are also able, over the years, to recapture our 

investment by raising the rent, because the building will now be 

a higher class building. That’s in that case. 

In the FBI—in Puerto Rico, there are—I will get you the utilization rates in the building, but I’m going to just say to you, sir, that, 

looking at our inventory, utilization rates in general could be improved. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. 

Mr. PECK. I’m not going to—I will see what they are in that 

building, but I think we could improve. And I’m looking forward to 

having an opportunity to discuss with you some of the things that 

we’re doing to do that. 

10 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. Thank you, Commissioner. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for being here. A few questions. 

The President proposes over $200 million for projects related to 

DHS consolidation at St. Elizabeths in D.C. Can you explain how 

these projects fit into the overall consolidation plan, and what is 

needed for Coast Guard’s occupancy of its new headquarters? 

Mr. PECK. OK. The Coast Guard building is well along, as anybody who flies out of National and gets to sit on that side of the 

plane will notice. We are on track to finish that building. We have 

got funding for the Coast Guard building. But there are associated 

projects at the DHS headquarters that are essential, both in the 

fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 programs. 

So, let me just restate. The purpose of the consolidation is to 

get—as we all know, one of the issues on homeland—with improving homeland security is getting the various agencies that are involved to coordinate better, so that they coordinate intelligence and 

operations. And the idea is to get their major operating entities up 

on the St. Elizabeths campus. 

The next phase of projects, the immediate next phase of projects 

in fiscal year 2011, in fact, is to create the national operations center, which is, obviously, the heart of their operation. There is some 

construction on that going underway at the moment. The space for 

the Secretary’s headquarters—again, the heart of the agency—is 

next on the agenda. And there is a lot of infrastructure work that 

has to be done so we can continue with some of the other buildings 

which will house aspects of—parts of customs and border protection. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The President’s proposal requests funds to begin 

a repair and alteration project for a Federal building for ICE in Los 

Angeles. Wonder if you could just talk briefly, too, how you see that 

this project would save money and increase utilization. 

Mr. PECK. I’m sorry, tell me—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. The ICE in Los Angeles. 

Mr. PECK. Oh. 

Mr. HULTGREN. For ICE—— 

Mr. PECK. That’s a—oh, that’s a good story. That was a—we 

were going to do a—what’s called a lease construction project, a 

project in which we go out in the private market and ask someone 

to basically do us a build-to-suit project. And we have converted 

that to a government construction project. 

The advantage is—I am going to be clear about what I say about 

leasing. As with any corporate real estate operation, there should 

be a mix of leased and owned space. You generally lease space 

when you have relatively short-term needs, or needs that you think 

you might have to move around. When you have permanent operations that you know will be around—and generally it’s for more 

than 15 to 20 years—it makes sense over time to own the asset. 

And so, this is a product that we converted from leasing to construction. And, in the long run, that means that we—that the Federal buildings fund, which is basically a revolving fund, will retain 

11 

the revenues and make enough of a net income to be able to do 

those things we have to do in our inventory. 

Mr. HULTGREN. OK. So you do see it with the ICE project, there 

is a net savings? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. I could get you the net present value difference between leasing and ownership, as well. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That would be great, if you could. Thank you. 

The President’s proposal also requests funds for the FBI record 

center in Frederick County, Maryland. Why is this space needed, 

and how will the project cut spending and improve space utilization, as well? 

Mr. PECK. There is a long and, in the end, I think, a good story 

here. We have been—the FBI has needed a place for its records. 

A lot of things are digitized these days, and so they need different 

kinds of record storage facilities. They still have a lot of paper 

records. And they have needed this for a long time. 

But because of technology, we have been able to—this project has 

gone from at one time being nearly a million square feet down to 

where it is today, which I think is a little over 300,000. 

And again, at one time we were talking about a lease construction project, and this too has been converted to a request for funds 

to build it. I mean this is a classic kind of a warehouse records center kind of a facility that we’re going to need for a long time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. So with the smaller size, though, it does appear 

that it would still accomplish the purposes of the FBI, but also 

would have the utilization that we really need there? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HULTGREN. OK. 

Mr. PECK. We have taken out of it at least one minor function 

that they don’t feel needs to be collocated there. But, because of 

technology and another look at how they do their work, we have 

been able to skinny it down. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I’m going to switch just a little bit. I’ve got just 

a little bit of time left here. 

But dealing with border crossings, the 2012 program includes 

funding for a number of land ports of entry. As you know, last year 

our committee had concerns that some of the Recovery Act funds 

were going to border crossings that saw very little traffic. Can you 

provide the committee with the traffic and utilization rates for each 

of the facilities in the President’s budget? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir, I will. And that’s in the—these projects were 

screened by looking at where we have the most cross-border traffic. 

Could I just say I was in—about a month ago I went down to— 

looked at a number of the border crossings in Arizona and our border crossings in El Paso, and there are places in which the trucks 

line up for, sometimes, eight hours to get across the border. It increases—they need to be screened, there is no question about that. 

But it increases cost to the American consumers when that happens. And so we have—I will get you the counts. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, sir. Do I have time for one more 

question, or—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Absolutely. 

Mr. HULTGREN. In your testimony you note that the Department 

of Transportation has requested $2.2 billion in their surface transVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:10 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\3-10-1~1\65449.TXT JEAN
12 

portation funding for critical facilities at the borders. These funds, 

you note, would be transferred to GSA out of what the DoT account—I’m sorry—out of what DoT account would these funds come 

from? Is it from the highway trust fund, or from another account? 

Mr. PECK. I think—yes, it’s service transportation funds, but I’m 

going to have to—I want to—I know a little bit about this. I want 

to find out if it’s from highway trust funds. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, if you can get that to us, as well—— 

Mr. PECK. I will. 

Mr. HULTGREN [continuing]. That would be great. I will just keep 

going, if that’s OK, until they cut me off. Would the $2.2 billion in DoT funding be for actual construction 

of new buildings and facilities, or for the roads leading to the facilities? 

Mr. PECK. It’s mostly design and construction. But in a lot of 

cases on our facilities as they are, we—well, not in a lot of cases. 

In some cases we do pay for some of the road infrastructure, although generally that’s done by the state departments of transportation. 

But there are cases in which, because if we just plunk a land 

port of entry—a new one—down we will create terrible congestion, 

we do spend some of the money outside the ports as well. 

Mr. HULTGREN. OK. Will we receive prospectuses for the projects funded with the $2.2 billion in DoT funding? 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. I believe on that—am I right? On that account 

you would get a spending list, somewhat the way we did on the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I note, though, that 

transportation funds come through this committee as well, so you 

would certainly have every opportunity to review it. 

Mr. HULTGREN. OK. One last thing, if I could sneak it in, you 

highlight in your written testimony again that more than 10,000 

jobs have been created through GSA’s $5.5 billion that was included in the Recovery Act. Do you have a breakdown of the types 

of jobs created, and how many of them are long-term permanent 

positions? And, if you do, could you get those to us? 

Mr. PECK. I will. But I should say they are—these are generally 

not long-term, permanent positions. These are design, architecture, 

engineering, and construction jobs. 

Mr. HULTGREN. OK. But if you could, get us a list of approximate 

time for those positions, and just a follow-up of how that’s gone. 

Mr. PECK. I will. Actually, on those, I have to tell you we have 

been very scrupulous about that. We even go out and ask our contractors on a monthly basis, I think it is, to give us their breakdown of their jobs. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. Obviously, we went over 

the five minutes because there is some new questions that have 

come up under this. I didn’t realize that the $2.2 billion is coming 

from the highway trust fund. 

Mr. PECK. I believe it is not coming from the highway trust fund. 

It is coming from the Department of Transportation. We are going 

to check and find out if it’s highway trust fund money or appropriated funds. Generally, appropriated funds. 

13 

Mr. DENHAM. Because the highway trust fund would go to fix 

roads and highways. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. We know that. And the reason that the 

money would come from the Department of Transportation is that 

this is—has a lot to do with cross-border traffic and trade. And the 

administration felt that it was—that the DoT funding was appropriate to carry this activity. 

You will see the—in the projects that we are going to propose, 

you are going to see they’re mostly from congested land ports of 

entry. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. And even though this is DoT funding—I know 

you’re going to go back and see which fund this is coming out of— 

but DoT funding, and we’re not going to receive prospectuses on 

this? 

Mr. PECK. That’s—it would be because it’s a transfer of funds, 

somewhat the way the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

was carried out. We would provide a list of projects that we would 

propose to fund under it. 

I think some of the thinking has been, Mr. Chairman, that this 

committee obviously funds the Department of Transportation and 

the transportation program as well, and would have every opportunity to review the list of projects. It’s a matter of legislative interpretation that funding that comes to us outside of the public 

buildings fund, the Federal buildings fund, doesn’t go through a 

prospectus process. 

It doesn’t mean that we aren’t—that you aren’t welcome to have 

a hearing and make whatever decision you make, because it’s going 

to be a full—it’s going to be a request for at least an appropriation. 

And I believe that an authorization to the Department of Transportation, but I have to check on that. 

Mr. DENHAM. We can obviously hold a hearing any time we find 

out new information. This seems like it is trying to get around the 

process, almost like a blank check. We’re going to go out and spend 

the money, and then we will tell you where we spent it afterwards. 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. I mean you will get a list of proposed projects 

to review before any spending is done. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. When do you expect to have that list? 

Mr. PECK. I will have to get back to you on that. I don’t—it’s not 

being developed—there is a draft list, and I don’t know where it 

is at the moment. 

Mr. DENHAM. When do you expect to spend the money? 

Mr. PECK. Well, it’s for fiscal year 2012, so we would propose to 

start at the beginning of the fiscal year, if we get it funded. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, similar to our prospectus, you must have some 

information on it—— 

Mr. PECK. We do. There is—like I said, there is a spending list 

that is not—a project list that has not yet been cleared for submission to the Congress. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Chairman Mica? Five minutes to 

Chairman Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Peck. Good to see you today. I know you’re talking a bit 

about some of GSA’s capital investment leasing program. 

14 

I always go back to my favorite subject, which is the consolidation of the FTC current space. And for some time now you have 

had before us a prospectus to lease a total of over 400,000 square 

feet. And we have one lease expiring, the FTC currently has their 

306,000 gross feet of space in the Apex Building, where they are 

headquartered now. And then they have, on New Jersey Avenue, 

I think, another over 200,000 square feet. And then they lease a 

smaller amount of space. And there was the possibility of getting 

a third building for them, or consolidation. 

Now, the New Jersey space lease expires. Is that in 2012 or 

2013, do you recall? 

Mr. PECK. Checking my—expires in August of 2012. 

Mr. MICA. 2012. The other thing, too, is I know some time ago 

you did propose leasing additional space for them, and they have 

additional requirements. We also have the Apex Building in which 

they are housed as 306,000 gross square feet, a net usable of 258, 

and they’re using 180, or maybe a little more than that currently, 

with somewhere between 450—and they claimed up to 700—employees. But that request for additional space—have you been in 

consultation with them on their space needs? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, I have not personally, but we certainly have, as 

an agency. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. And when we received the prospectus last year I had 

pretty much the agreement of the former chair of the committee to 

try to move forward with the consolidation of—approval on moving 

forward. And, as you know, we passed a resolution. 

I have been here a while. It’s sort of unprecedented to have a resolution of the nature we did in response to a prospectus request. 

Isn’t that—that’s sort of unusual. I know it puts you—— 

Mr. PECK. Right. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. In a dilemma, but I think it set forth 

some of the issues that we felt were important. You provide us 

with a prospectus and a request, and then I thought it was incumbent on us to pass or adopt a resolution that stated our position. 

I know that puts you in a little bit of an awkward situation, and 

there has been a certain amount of lobbying by the FTC commissioners to retain their space. Have you undertaken yet, or your 

folks undertaken yet, since we have passed the resolution, any discussions with FTC about, again, consolidation of space or meeting 

their space needs, given that we are intent on trying to transfer 

their building to the National Gallery of Art, so they don’t have to 

lease additional space outside, and could consolidate some of their 

operations? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I have not talked to them. I don’t know 

that anyone else in GSA has, but I have not personally engaged 

them since you all passed the resolution. But I intend to. And I 

would like to, if I could, lay out a couple of points of view, and see 

if we can continue a discussion soon about—— 

Mr. MICA. We would like to work with them. My intent is not 

to deprive them of any of the space that they need, but rather to 

look at a consolidation that makes sense. Folks have quoted, you 

know, Roosevelt, when he dedicated the building. We went back 

and researched the—when the building was dedicated in the 1930. 

In fact, it was a consolidation of multiple FTC locations around 

15 

Washington that they put into one building. And now we have a 

situation where they need much more beyond this space than they 

have in the headquarters. 

And you also came to us with their request for additional lease 

space, which we think would make sense, and finding something 

suitable—and Ms. Norton, of course, would like that in the District—and I think there could be substantial savings. Our resolution outlined that. 

Plus we have the unprecedented situation of the National Gallery of Art being willing to come in and renovate an 80-year-old 

building, and again relieve of us leasing space that they currently 

lease, and meeting their space requirements for the future. So, it’s 

not a wild-eyed proposal, but I think it also has the potential—if 

you start out with $200 million in saving and renovating a building, eventually you will have to renovate. I saw the figures, 138, 

but I think it will be closer to the $200 million mark by the time 

you get through giving, again, the cost of projects we have seen 

that we have a pretty good handle on. 

We have no intent on changing—our proposal wouldn’t change 

the facade in any way, and I think that many more people would 

access the structure. They have 4.5 million versus 450 or 600 or 

700 that go into the building every day now, which would again 

provide an opportunity also to let people know that that was historically their building, what the FTC does, and they wouldn’t be 

lost, so to speak, in the mix. 

The other thing, too, is we outlined in legislation we passed in 

the transfer—you have space coming up at the GSA building, we 

have space behind us next to the Ford building. 

And we have also heard—and I won’t get into public discussion 

of it—several other agencies that might like to relocate that are in 

the District that—this might be a good time to be looking at those 

kinds of deals, where they, for security or other reasons might 

want to relocate or spread out some of our activities in national security interest that I think you’re aware of. 

So, we have a number of choices. The committee will work with 

you. We will be willing to sit down, if—I know the FTC commissioners like their view and their particular setting right now, but 

that’s not—that shouldn’t be the paramount question. It should be 

the net savings, the—providing adequate space, both for the FTC 

and for the National Gallery, and doing it all in a responsible fashion that looks out for the taxpayer, too. Because I know you will 

work with us and appreciate it. 

And if you see any obstacles, too, that we can assist you with, 

I want to make certain that you know that we have initiated this 

process, and we are willing partners to work with you to find a satisfactory resolution. It’s not something we just want to cram down 

people’s throats or act on in a singular fashion. It has to be a cooperative effort. We know that. 

So, again, I look forward to working with you on it. And if you 

start those discussions, you can let Mr. Denham know, and we 

would be glad to join you and, again, look for positive solutions. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, may I response? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

16 

Mr. PECK. First, I really—I very much appreciate your statement. And, as you know, I once worked at the National Endowment for the Arts. I have been friends with two directors of the 

Gallery, and I—— 

Mr. MICA. I didn’t know all that. 

Mr. PECK. It’s the—it’s a—it’s one of the great art museums in 

the world. And I think doing what we can for the National Gallery 

is—should be a high priority for the government, as it has been 

since the Roosevelt administration. 

I very much appreciate your concern, as is ours, and we have discussed this, that we—since the strategy, which the committee and 

GSA mutually has pursued for a long time is trying to keep government agencies in government-owned space as much as we can, we 

have a concern which you have just expressed, too, that we try to 

keep the FTC in government-owned space. 

I will just add two things. One is that, as you noted, I have a— 

we have a tenant, a client who wants to stay in their building, they 

are wedded to it. That’s kind of a good thing, because it’s a beautiful building, and I appreciate the fact that they like it a lot. 

And finally, I will just say I will take you up on the suggestion 

that we talk to staff and Chairman Denham about how we proceed 

on this. As you note, there may be alternatives. I need to talk to 

the FTC. And at some point soon we should try to find a way to 

satisfy all the parties, including—as I recognize—the needs the National Gallery of Art, and us, to keep the FTC in governmentowned space. 

Can I also assure you that I have spoken to Chairman Denham 

any number of times, and he has never once failed to include this 

on his list of issues? 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, we have certain priorities. This is my priority, working with Mr. Oberstar—and we were close to an agreement at that point. 

And I think the other thing, too, is we have to do things that are 

in the best interest, long-term, of the government. And this is our 

Nation’s capital. And I think, looking to the future and what we’re 

leaving here, the National Gallery, which is the repository of our 

Nation’s treasures, FTC, which has an important function, we can 

both serve their needs in a responsible way for the taxpayers and 

for the mission that we’re responsible making certain they complete. 

So, I look forward to working with you. I know we put you sometimes in a difficult position. We will be working with the other 

body now. But I can assure you that, one way or the other, that 

this transfer will take place, and we want to work with you to 

make it as smooth as possible. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, this is a great job that the people and 

the President have allowed me to have. And dealing with issues 

with this is one of the challenges that I welcome taking on. 

Mr. MICA. And I will just tell you I have no other priority for the 

balance of my tenure in Congress, so I am sort of focused on this. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PECK. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. We are going to continue on questions 

a little bit further here, specifically the evaluation process on how 

17 

you take a look at weighting different properties and how you sell 

them. 

When you’re prioritizing projects, are you looking at mission urgency, energy conservation, return on investment? How are the different factors weighted? 

Mr. PECK. OK. You’re talking about repair and—when we do 

the—look for repair and alteration projects and mostly—or new 

construction? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes. 

Mr. PECK. Either one? 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, as you’re evaluating projects as a whole. I 

mean, if you have one that may not be utilized completely, you 

know, before that goes out to other agencies and other uses, are 

you also weighing in that proposal different weights on—you know, 

is it going to—do you have extensive TIs, do you have energy conservation—— 

Mr. PECK. If you’re asking about properties that we think are 

close to being excess or surplus, we—there are two different levels 

on which I think we should all be talking about our surplus properties. 

One is—and this will also describe the process that we are going 

though right now, under the President’s memo, and hopefully 

under some kind of legislation to go deeper—is, one, we have properties that we know are either unused or almost unused at the moment. And as I said, when the ones that are almost done used— 

meaning that we have enough vacancy or enough underutilization 

that we think that we can move out—we take a look at, ‘‘Is it a 

property worth putting more investment in, so that we can get 

more people into the property and use it better?’’ 

Some properties, I should note, in other agencies—you can imagine; I will just give you a—the example that people use a lot is at 

one point lighthouses were important to the country. And then, obviously, technology overtook them and the Coast Guard had a lot 

of excess property on its hands. Even there, we asked other agencies if they could use that kind of property on the coast. And in 

many, and probably most, cases the lighthouses went out to somebody else. So, there are those things, where you say, ‘‘All right. Can 

anybody use it?’’ 

There are properties in which you—that—in our properties— 

more often, say a Federal building, we have areas in which we ask 

ourselves the question, ‘‘OK, if we have vacancy in a Federal building, should we take it to—should we try to tenant the building, or 

is this an asset that’s not worth spending the money on?’’ And you 

can do—you can crunch the numbers on it. Because we charge rent, 

we can figure out what our return on investment would be. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, how often do you crunch the numbers? I mean 

do you do a general assessment for every property, all 1.2 million 

properties, to see exactly where we are? Because some of these 

properties may not have been assessed for decades. 

Mr. PECK. No, I’m talking about GSA properties now. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. So—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes. GSA properties, we have three tiers of properties. 

We—there are short-term holds, meaning we’re looking to get rid 

18 

of them; medium term, and we—we’re not sure; and long term, that 

we are going to keep for a long time. 

For our other properties—and can I just say that for the other 

properties and other government agencies, one of the issues that I 

think anyone will tell you we have in the government is that there 

are—we don’t, as GSA, review other agencies’ properties, at least 

haven’t until the last year, unless and until the agencies report 

them as excess to us? 

I will qualify that only through this. We have a very entrepreneurial, aggressive disposal staff in GSA, and when they get word 

one way or another that an agency has a property that may be underutilized, they have in the past gone out to the agency and said, 

‘‘Is this possibly an excess property?’’ 

I think anyone who has looked at this business over the last 20 

to 30 years would tell you that there are properties that agencies 

sometimes hold on to in the wish, in the hope, that some day they 

will get the funds to do something with it. They may even have legitimate plans. 

But there comes a point—and this is where I think we ought to 

work together—there comes a point where it’s pretty clear that 

we’re not going to get the funding to do it, that the uses to which 

an agency wants to put the property are not going to come about, 

and that we ought to get them out of the inventory. 

And what percentage of underutilized properties are in that category that we could move them into excess, it’s really hard to tell 

at the moment. But I think in the next six months or so, we will 

have a much better handle on that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Just under GSA properties, 1,500 properties—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. You begin your evaluation based on 

underutilized properties, and then push them to become surplus 

properties at a certain point when you deem the criteria not met? 

Mr. PECK. Right, right. As you will note, we don’t have all that 

many. We have—most of our properties are in major or almost 

major metropolitan areas, in which there is a continuing Federal 

need. So if we own a Federal building and some agency moves out, 

we almost always have someone we can move in from leased space. 

We do, however, have some smaller properties in outlying locations around the country where we—too, if we find a vacancy, we 

decide, you know, it’s probably not worth putting the money into 

the building. And in that case we might dispose of it and lease 

what space we need. But we just do a financial analysis, like— 

that’s fairly straightforward, and just like anybody in the real estate business would do. 

Mr. DENHAM. But there is nothing that would alert you or your 

team, unless you have one of the properties that’s up for a new 

lease, if somebody moves out or—— 

Mr. PECK. Oh, no. I’m sorry. We, on a rotating basis, continually 

look at our own inventory. We have a portfolio management office 

in our national headquarters and in each region, and their job is 

continually, whether we have something moving in the building or 

not, to take a look at it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Continuously, or random? 

Mr. PECK. Continuously. And the way that—the—— 

19 

Mr. DENHAM. So, how often? 

Mr. PECK. Well, I—I’ll tell you what drives it. I will tell you why 

it’s a continuous process. Every year we put out a call. We have, 

as I said, a benchmark of wanting to spend something like two percent of the replacement value of our inventory on repairs and alterations. We put out a call to our operating elements, our 11 regions 

every year, and say, ‘‘Given your inventory, tell us’’—you know, ‘‘do 

an evaluation of the inventory that you hold, and tell us which of 

the buildings you think need a repair and alteration investment in 

them.’’ 

We have hurdle rates. We know how much of a return on taxpayer dollar put into that building we expect to get back in increased rents or increased usage. So—and as I said, we have already tiered all of our properties into three tiers in which we know 

which ones we think are short, medium, and long-term holds. 

I will note in the early 2000s, GSA disposed of a number of prop- erties, and we actually sold off about $220 million worth of properties as a result of that kind of tiering of the inventory. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the 1,500 GSA properties have all been evaluated at some point in the recent past? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you know—— 

Mr. PECK. You know, I have—first of all, one of the great things 

about GSA is we have weekly, monthly data on vacancy, rent rolls, 

by asset, by region, and nationally. So we’re constantly looking at 

where we have vacancy, where we’re not getting—at the beginning 

of every year we have a budget for a building. And if we’re not getting the rent that we expect from the building, we go to people and 

say, ‘‘What’s happening here? Does that mean that nobody is in the 

space?’’ And so we have that. 

We have asset status studies on every single one of our buildings. And let me ask how—what’s the longest period a building 

could go before the asset study gets reviewed? Every building, 

every year, is going to get some kind of a review of its asset status. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you are confident that the 1,500 properties 

under your purview, you can tell me, square footage, how many 

people are in there, what it’s worth, what the ROI is? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I want to be—I want to make the 

other point I have made to you before. Take the GSA building. One 

of the things we are doing as we are looking at renovating it is that 

we could probably assign—we will assign a lot more people to the 

building. 

So, when we say our main Federal building in a city is fully occupied, it is. We are in the process of talking to a number of Federal 

agencies intensively about how well they utilize that space. Some 

of them are—we’re probably not far off from current industry 

benchmarks, but the industry is moving. A lot of progressive firms 

are moving to a point where they can get a lot more people into 

a lot less space, because they just recognize that people can work 

from anywhere. 

So, I think you will see, over the next year or two, strenuous efforts on our part to increase the space utilization. And that, in 

itself—the reason I’m saying that is that that in itself may mean 

that what we regard as a fully utilized occupied building today may 

20 

not be—that may not be the same standard we apply to it years 

from now. 

Mr. DENHAM. On top of the 1,500 properties that are directly 

under your purview, how many leases go through GSA? 

Mr. PECK. We have about 8,100 leases, and—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So—— 

Mr. PECK. Around the country. 

Mr. DENHAM. So does GSA oversee all leases under the Federal 

Government? 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. What—— 

Mr. PECK. We are—when you look at the—if you look at the 

data, I believe we are the government’s largest leasing agency in 

the United States. But other agencies have their own leasing authority. The Army Corps of Engineers does some leasing on behalf 

of the military. And some other agencies also have their own authority. So we’re not the only ones. But we are the—at least the 

largest lessee in the Federal Government. 

Mr. DENHAM. So what type of oversight is there over the independent agencies? 

Mr. PECK. The independent agencies are—and what I’m describing there are agencies that have their own legislative authority. We 

sometimes delegate authority to a government agency to do leasing 

that would otherwise be done by GSA. And in that case it’s our responsibility to make sure that they follow—that they’re following 

the government’s procurement rules. 

If an agency has their own independent legislative authority, 

they are responsible themselves for following the Federal acquisition regulation and all the other things that you have to do to do 

a lease. 

Mr. DENHAM. SEC is independent? 

Mr. PECK. They have their own legislated leasing authority. 

Mr. DENHAM. So should those leases not go through you? 

Mr. PECK. I would say, given the recent experience of the SEC, 

I would say we would have done a better job than they did. By 

which I mean, just to be fair, when agencies come to us with space 

requirements, we have ways, including checking back with the Office of Management and Budget—where they say that they need 

space to expand their activities, we check to make sure that the activities are actually budgeted for expansion. That’s a crucial step. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would agree that is a crucial step. 

At this time I would like to yield five minutes to Ms. Norton, as 

well as an opening statement, if you would like. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

first, I offer my apologies. There was a mark-up involving a bill directly affecting the District of Columbia. It has just ended, and I 

could not leave. I always know that if I leave when a District of 

Columbia matter is up, the Congress could sell the District. So I 

stay on duty. 

I did want to—however, I am not going to read my opening statement, but I am going to summarize what was—what is in my opening statement. 

And I want to say to you, Mr. Peck, that you will note that the 

chairman has proceeded, although we have not yet received all the 

21 

prospectuses for the 2012 program, and I endorse the chairman’s 

resolve. If your prospectuses aren’t up here, too bad. Because what 

he is trying to do—and I’m going to say we should have done a better job with this—is to make sure that the authorizers indeed have 

acted before the appropriators do. So, I fully endorse the chairman 

proceeding with the 2011 and 2012 budgets. I do want to note that your submission involving $1.7 billion capital program, while it’s modest in keeping with the President’s intention to submit only what he regards as necessary, that it does 

represent a 16,000 private-sector construction and related jobs. 

Particularly in the absence of any jobs legislation from the present 

majority, we should welcome this small infrastructure contribution 

at a time when jobs are—when unemployment is still so high, and 

the Congress is doing absolutely nothing to respond to that. 

I note that H.R. 1 would totally eliminate the 2011 capital program. And I want to just say for the record what that will do. That 

would bring to a standstill, stop in its tracks, priority construction 

projects of the United States, including the consolidation of the 22 

agencies of the Department of Homeland Security. This, of course, 

is the highest priority secured facilities program in the budget. 

Moreover, GSA has said to us in prior hearings that delaying the 

DHS headquarters and other construction related to the Department of Homeland Security would cause GSA to extend leases for 

short terms, which is, of course, the most costly way to lease for 

the Federal Government. In other words, we are adding to the 

costs of the Department of Homeland Security. 

If we proceeded, however, and this project is on time, what hap- pens when the project is done is $180 million annually then goes 

to the Federal building fund. The Federal building fund is much 

depleted now, so that there is every reason that this project, which 

was a priority of the last administration and remains a priority of 

this administration, will not be stopped in its tracks, but proceed 

apace. 

If you can imagine what—the cost of stopping a project that is 

going full guns, you will have an understanding of why it would be 

counterproductive for us to wipe out the 2011 capital program. And 

I don’t believe that the Senate or—and certainly that the President 

will allow that to happen. There is lots of negotiations that’s going 

to have to go on before we get even close to an agreement on 2011, 

much less 2012. 

The collocation of a number of agencies on the DHS campus also 

avoids leasing in the highest commercial cost leasing area in the 

United States. So there are multiple reasons to not be penny wise 

and pound foolish. 

I want to say how much I appreciate the President’s work—his 

proposal to create a BRAC-type commission for Federal real estate. 

He is way out in front of the Congress in this regard. But there 

is great concern in this subcommittee and committee, and in a 

number of other committees, about surplus property that the Federal Government has not been able, until now, to dispose of. So his 

idea, it seems to me, is one that should be embraced by us all. 

And finally, I want to say to Mr. Peck, the delineated area and 

procurements remains a concern for the subcommittee. We are— 

the lease—I’m sorry, what is the lease? Parklawn lease continues 

22 

to be troubling. We expect procurements to be done by the book, 

carrying out congressional resolutions. 

Mr. Chairman, again you have my apologies. I am pleased that 

you proceeded. This is an important hearing, and you are right to 

go now, early, before the appropriators get down to work on this 

mission. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you very much. At this time do you have 

questions for Mr. Peck? 

Ms. NORTON. I would ask only about the status of the Parklawn 

delineated area issue, which has caused GSA so much heartache. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Ms. Norton. That would be a good characterization of the lease for HHS, which is currently at Parklawn. 

Could I just say I share your concern about the way delineated 

areas are drawn? 

And I think, in part, because of the concerns that this subcommittee has brought to us, we are taking a look at it, particularly in the national capital region, to make sure that we draw delineated areas that maximize competition to get the agencies’ functions done, and then, when we actually carry out our lease solicitations—which is what these are mostly about—that we follow the 

delineated areas. 

As you know, we have scrupulous layers of—we have multiple 

layers—— 

Ms. NORTON. That procurement has been going on for three 

years. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. And you know what the issue is, Mr. Peck. The 

issue is the Agency deciding where it wants to go, rather than GSA 

deciding what’s the best deal for the taxpayers. Why is it going on 

for three years, and when is it going to be settled? 

Mr. PECK. Correct. I can’t account for all of the three years, I 

have only been here for a year-and-a-half. An announcement on 

that lease is imminent, is all I can tell you. I can’t say more, because it’s—we’re in the—we’re in that period called procurement 

sensitivity. But the announcement will come very, very soon. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Peck, here is a sensitive procurement issue for 

this committee. On February 9th—perhaps you remember that, it 

was when you were tortured, along with the entire subcommittee, 

at a hearing in the Old Post Office Annex. And you are aware that 

I would have done that a little differently. I would have had you 

there, and we would have been here, because we have been doing 

the right thing all along. So I don’t know why we had to be subjected to that. 

But under torture, you said—you committed to either have the 

RFP out on the street for the Old Post Office, or provide an explanation of why it is not out. So this is your chance. Or you may 

want to go back to the Old Post Office Annex. 

Mr. PECK. I will provide a written explanation this afternoon. 

But—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, no. You can give an oral explanation right now. 

Mr. PECK. OK. Of course. But I believe I owe the committee a— 

if you like, I will do a written response. 

Ms. Norton, I am just going to say this. I suspect you’re—frustrated would be probably an understatement—about the Old Post 

23 

Office RFP. And that would accurately describe the way I feel, as 

well. I did not have an RFP on the street today. I am—— 

Ms. NORTON. And what’s the explanation for that, Mr. Peck? 

Mr. PECK. You know, the explanation is, despite many meetings 

with the people in the government who have to review this, including my own personal participation in it, we have not been given a 

go-ahead to put the RFP on the street. 

Ms. NORTON. You mean OMB is in this again? We have got— 

wait a minute. This RFP was very different from any other RFP 

since I’ve been on this committee, because it was mandated by a 

statute. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the last I read, OMB cannot override a statutory mandate of the United States Congress. 

Mr. PECK. A point which we have made several times, I can assure you. 

Ms. NORTON. So—no, I want to know why it is at OMB at all. 

This is not a matter—— 

Mr. PECK. Ms.—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is—Congress said, ‘‘You will, in fact, gain revenue for the taxpayers, as you did with the tariff building, if this 

building is remodeled.’’ And because OMB got in the way then, the 

Congress said, ‘‘We know what to do. We will pass a statute that 

instructs the administration what it is to do.’’ 

So, the OMB excuse has run out, because it is overwhelmed now 

by a statutory mandate. And we need to know from you what 

OMB’s issue is with the Old Post Office RFP. 

Mr. PECK. As near as—I can give you two general concerns. One 

is the details of the RFP itself, and the various provisions in it, 

which I think at this point we have fully discussed, and I believe 

we are over. As you know, I have drafted these kinds of things in 

my private sector as well as public sector lives, and I can assure 

you that we have drafted a request for proposals that is tight, protects the government interests, and I believe gives private sector 

interests a full opportunity to show what they could do with the 

building. 

The second concern has been a concern about the cost benefit of 

maintaining the building as federally occupied space, and putting 

it out on the market. And—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, no. That can’t—— 

Mr. PECK. And I can tell you that—I have a hunch you’re going 

to say what we have been saying, which is that the legislation fully 

anticipates that that analysis will be submitted to the Congress, 

along with a negotiated lease from a private sector interest. That 

is what the legislation says. 

So, that analysis, in my opinion—— 

Ms. NORTON. You know that there is abundant room to put that 

two cents’ worth of agencies in many places, and that was the excuse before. 

Mr. PECK. Well—— 

Ms. NORTON. Look, this building is losing the Federal Govern- ment $6 million annually. And you are telling us OMB is the problem? $6 million each year we lose because of what you have to put 

into the building, just to keep it going. 

24 

Mr. PECK. But what I’m suggest is that I think the legislation 

was responsible, as it should have been, and said, ‘‘We will take a 

look at what the cost and benefits are when we have a private sector offerer who says, ’Here is how much money I will pay you for 

letting us use the building,’ versus what it costs us to have—to continue Federal occupancy in the building.’’ And that is an analysis 

which we have done in the past, we will do again when we get an 

offer. 

I am well aware of the opportunity to move the agencies in the 

building someplace else. We have talked to the agencies about that. 

And I am just telling you I am frustrated, I am working as diligently as I know how to get this RFP out. 

Ms. NORTON. I think you should say to OMB that the committee 

expects the RFP on the street within 2 weeks, 14 days from today. 

Mr. PECK. We will be happy to carry that message back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Norton. The chair yields five minutes to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And also thank you to 

the ranking member. I think every day on this subcommittee we 

recognize that the ranking member probably, you know, is forgotten more than many of us will know in our service on this committee. 

Mr. Peck, I know that you will be heartbroken to know that I 

was almost delayed in another hearing. But I am glad to make it 

here. 

I want to ask you first, to follow up on the Parklawn situation— 

and I know that we’re in that critical area where you really can’t 

talk about things, but I guess I want to hear from you that you 

have some assurances that the processes in which you have engaged, and particularly of late with respect to that lease, will not 

result in litigation that will extend this process even further than 

it has gone on already. 

Mr. PECK. I—the assurance I can give you is that this thing has 

been vetted every which way until Monday inside the GSA in an 

attempt to make sure that we are abiding by what we said to the 

real estate and official and private—for that matter, the whole public—in this region about how we were going to make the selection 

on this procurement. 

I can’t give you an assurance that someone won’t litigate. Unfortunately, my experience in this is that on very large lease acquisitions like this one, there is almost always someone who is willing 

to take exception to what happened, if only because they are disappointed and think they may be able to change the decision. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. PECK. But I hope that doesn’t happen. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I mean people—I understand, you know, obviously, you know, many of the participants, or some of them, somebody is going to be disappointed because they’re not going to get 

the procurement. I think I just worry that this particular procurement has been so fraught with problems that it may result in a 

deep perception that there is a great unfairness, and that that unfairness has to be litigated. And I fear that we are going to sit here 

a year from now discussing the same thing. But I am going to go 

on. 

25 

I want to ask you about an area that has been of great concern 

to me in my time on this committee, and it has to do with the lease 

rate disparities from Maryland to Northern Virginia to the District 

of Columbia, when it comes to leasing. I think many of us who live 

and work here think of this as a region, and we don’t understand 

why these disparities exist that seem to favor one jurisdiction over 

another jurisdiction that has actually, I think, resulted, and in my 

view, as a lay person, a lot of, you know, concern about fairness 

of process when it comes to those sort of—the higher quality leases. 

So, I wonder if you can explain for the record what the reason 

is for the rent disparity. And then I would like you to go down several jurisdictions. Is there a rental rate disparity in Denver or New 

York City or Philadelphia or St. Louis or Los Angeles or San Diego 

or San Francisco or even Baltimore, in my own state, that is like 

the disparity that exists here in this region? 

Mr. PECK. There are not. We do not pre-set what we call program 

rates for any of those other metropolitan areas. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Only for this metropolitan area. And do you have 

any idea, historically or otherwise, what the reason is for that disparity? 

Mr. PECK. I have—I don’t know why the program rates were set 

in the first place. I have been—I don’t know for sure. I have been 

told that there was—obviously, in this area the Federal Government is a large lessee. And I believe there was—may have been a 

sense at some point that the Federal Government, by setting rates 

which were presumably market rates in advance, or perhaps just 

below-market rates in advance, we could save taxpayer dollars by 

announcing to the real estate community that this is as high as we 

are prepared to go on rent, and no higher. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I don’t really get that, when there is a disparity in the region, when you set the high mark. But there is a 

disparity from Maryland to Virginia to the District of Columbia. It 

would seem to me that, especially for people who believe in the 

value of the marketplace, that, indeed, you have actually scripted 

and constrained the marketplace, in terms of competition. And I 

am concerned about that. 

I—you know, I know I’m just, you know, your average consumer. 

And so I live in Prince George’s County, but sometimes I shop in 

Montgomery County. And other times I drive over to get a book in 

Northern Virginia. And I know my car doesn’t make a distinction 

about where it is in the metropolitan area. And so I don’t understand why GSA does. And if you can’t explain why it does, and you 

can’t find anything in your history that explains why it does, then 

we need to get rid of the disparity, don’t you think? 

Mr. PECK. Let me make one point to clarify. But, in general, I 

think there are—one, I have to say you’re no longer a lay person; 

I think you know as much about the real estate market as anyone, 

given what you’ve learned—the way you’ve delved into this. 

There are clearly different rental rates in different parts of the 

metropolitan area. In fact, I mean, one of the ironies of the program rates is one could argue there should be 50 program rates, 

because there are probably that many real estate sub-markets. Not 

every place in Washington is at $49, which is our program rate. 

There are different parts of town, different parts of Prince George’s, 

26 

that have different rates. Closer to a Metro station will probably 

pay—you will pay a higher rate than you will someplace else. So, 

that reflects the market. 

However, you accurately describe what are concerns about setting these rates in advance, which is that you can constrain competition. I believe in some cases one can make the argument that, 

while the intention was to keep us from paying a higher rate, in 

some cases, the fact that we advertise in advance what we’re prepared to pay, in some cases may even raise the rates. And then 

there are instances in which, as you and I have discussed, if we 

actually have to go out, and someone has to construct a new building to meet our requirements, there are times, such as now, in 

which the program rate may not give a landlord enough rent to be 

able to finance new construction. 

And so, there are a lot of problems with this. We are taking a 

look at—and I am hoping we can have some success in—reforming 

this, so it either better does—so that it better reflects what a good 

market-based real estate strategy would do. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, the people of Prince George’s and Montgomery County want to know, ‘‘When is it our turn?’’ And so, I 

know you have been looking at this for some time. These are questions that we have raised, and I have raised, the ranking member 

has raised repeatedly. And I think it’s time to stop looking and to 

clear it up. If it doesn’t exist for New York City, it doesn’t exist for 

Los Angeles or Denver or St. Louis, then it shouldn’t exist for the 

Washington Metropolitan Region. 

Thank you very much, and I yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Just a couple of followup questions. 

I certainly want the information about the DoT. That is something that came as a surprise to this committee. I certainly want 

to know whether we’re using transportation funds, highway trust 

funds for buildings, instead of roads. 

As well, it came to our attention last night, when we got the prospectus, there is new leases in there. Could you explain and justify 

the lease request for DHS? 

Mr. PECK. Can I take a moment here? 

Mr. DENHAM. Sure. 

Mr. PECK. Is that a new lease request that we had not—you 

weren’t aware of before? Do you know where that—what location? 

Mr. DENHAM. We stayed up all night going through it. Arizona, 

New York, and Texas in the new leases. 

Mr. PECK. Well, new to me, too. So I will—I understand it’s part 

of an ICE collocation initiative, but I will have to provide you information for the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And, as well, we have had several discussions now—in greater detail today—on GSA’s jurisdiction, the 

1,500 properties that you oversee out of the 1.2 million. As we are 

going through not only leases, which you have a greater percentage 

of, but also building investments, it seems like there is more that 

you don’t know than what you know and control, which obviously 

provides some issues with this committee, as we are not only trying 

to provide valuable oversight in all of our procurement, but more 

27 

importantly, in a time of crisis, we want to work to get rid of those 

surplus properties. 

If we are only looking at the 1,500, obviously, that is a very limited window. I understand the President’s BRAC proposal will be 

coming out soon. As you know, we have also prepared our own 

BRAC bill. We look forward to working with you on both. But the 

concern that I have is that we don’t have the oversight over all 

properties currently today, which leaves a huge area for mistake. 

Mr. PECK. Well, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with 

you on the legislation, too. And the intent of the legislation is to 

make—is to have jurisdiction over all of the properties in the 

United States for the purpose of making sure that they are still 

needed, and—or are available for excessing or surplusing out of the 

inventory. 

Mr. DENHAM. And it was at one time GSA’s authority over all 

properties, wasn’t it? 

Mr. PECK. Well, we still—I want to be clear. We still are the government’s disposal agent. And so we do have something of a fishing 

license to go to other agencies and ask if their space is excess. 

With the President’s memorandum last summer—and I think it 

would be only strengthened by legislation—we could go with a little 

bit more of a—a couple more arrows in our quiver, to make sure 

that we actually get good results. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. PECK. Probably not fair to say. I shouldn’t—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, we are committed to working with you on 

this, as well as the administration, on their proposal. I will be providing you the legislation that I did on the state level. Our BRAC 

commission never moved forward in California, but we did consolidate all of our buyer power under GSA, which gave us a tremendous amount of oversight. There were a lot of departments that 

came kicking and screaming, and still would love to get out from 

under GSA, but it creates greater accountability, from everything 

from our vehicles, which we found thousands that were off the 

books, as well as properties. 

So that would be the same type of system. I would like to see 

either under a BRAC commission or separate from, but one way or 

another, we have got to get some greater accountability over what 

we own, what it’s worth, the justification when we purchase a new 

property, and I think, most importantly, understanding the utilization rate, how many people are in each people, and can we do a 

better job. 

There are some—we understand there are some properties that 

are historic properties. The GSA building we may never get to a— 

it’s one of those properties that has huge corridors and high ceilings, and you may never get to a current utilization rate. But we 

ought to have some type of formula for understanding that. And we 

look forward to moving forward with you on that. 

And before I close, I just want to reiterate. Over a month ago we 

did discuss a number of different issues which we still don’t have 

clarified today. One of those, the project that Ms. Norton was just 

talking about, the Old Post Office, the RFP for that. We had expected to have that done by today. As well, a list of properties losing money on an annual basis in the national capital region. We 

28 

did get your list of properties, but in that only had operating costs 

and not revenues. 

So, we would either like you to—have you present us a list of losing properties with an analysis behind those, or, at a minimum 

provide this committee with the revenue numbers so that we can 

figure it out ourselves. 

And then, finally, something that we talked about a great deal 

today, which you and I have both talked about in the past, is 

streamlining the process. We want to see a list of recommendations 

that, you know—obviously, we will work with our staff on recommendations on streamlining the process. 

And again, I would let you know that we do not plan on approving any leases. That will be the next thing that we are going to be 

working on. But we want to have this information first. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, sir. We will get it to you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Well, in conclusion, I would just like 

to thank you for your testimony today. Especially after yesterday’s 

meetings, you know, I think that we are going to have a greater 

communication and openness. I am hopeful that all of the other departments that we have been having challenges with will not only 

work with you, but work with this committee, as well. We need 

some fast answers. 

I know the Administration is looking for that, as well. We want 

to work together and make sure that those answers are available 

for the public at large. 

And with that, if there are no further questions, I would ask 

unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open 

until such time as our witness has provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them 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 the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank 

our witness again for testimony today. And if no other Members 

have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

29 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65449.005
30 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65449.006
31 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65449.007
32 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65449.008
33 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65449.009
34 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65449.010
35 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65449.011
36 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65449.012
37 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65449.013
38 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65449.014
39 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65449.015