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

90–240 PDF 2004

S. Hrg. 108–270

DETERIORATING BUILDINGS AND WASTED OPPORTUNITIES: THE NEED FOR FEDERAL REAL

PROPERTY REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 1, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JAMES R. MCKAY, Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

DONNY R. WILLIAMS, Minority Professional Staff Member 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 16

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 25

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 26

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 31

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2003

Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller, U.S. General Accounting Office ................ 3

Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel, Committee on Governmental Affairs ......... 9

James R. McKay, Counsel, Committee on Governmental Affairs ....................... 10

William C. Stamper, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facilities Management 

and Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .......................... 17

Martha B. Knisley, Director, Department of Mental Health, Government of 

the District of Columbia, accompanied by David Norman, Acting General 

Counsel, Department of Mental Health ............................................................. 20

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Hardy, Johanna L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 64

Knisley, Martha B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 77

McKay, James R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 65

Stamper, William C.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 67

Walker, Hon. David H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX

Letter from William C. Stamper, dated Novermber 12, 2003, in response 

to an article in The Washington Post ................................................................. 82

Powerpoint presentation by Mr. McKay and Ms. Hardy consisting of photographs of the West Campus ................................................................................ 83

(1)

DETERIORATING BUILDINGS AND WASTED 

OPPORTUNITIES: THE NEED FOR FEDERAL 

REAL PROPERTY REFORM 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Bennett, Coleman, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

Good morning. Today the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

will examine the challenges the Federal Government faces in managing its real property. The government’s real property assets are 

worth an estimated $328 billion and include more than 3 billion 

square feet of building space. 

Some of the government’s assets are historically significant and 

valuable yet deteriorating and rundown. In January of this year, 

the General Accounting Office added Federal real property to its 

High-Risk List. The High-Risk List is reserved for programs that 

are particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. 

The GAO’s work in this area has shown that the Federal portfolio is in an alarming state of deterioration, in large part because 

of the Federal Government’s ineffective management of these assets. 

The Federal Government also has considerable property that it 

no longer needs. Just weeks ago, the General Accounting Office released a report identifying 600 vacant properties and 327 underutilized properties owned by just three agencies—the General Services 

Administration, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

These 927 properties represent more than 2,000 acres and 32.1 

million square feet of vacant or underutilized space. By way of comparison, the Pentagon consists of approximately 3.7 million square 

feet of office space. This means that the GSA alone currently possesses the equivalent of almost five Pentagons’ worth of vacant or 

underutilized space, which is costly to maintain and could be put 

to better use. We can and must do better. 

2

To see an example of underutilized Federal property, the Committee staff visited the L. Mendel Rivers Federal Building in South 

Carolina. It has sat vacant since it was damaged in a hurricane in 

1999, despite the fact that it is located on valuable property on the 

edge of downtown Charleston. 

Another example of underutilized Federal property is right down 

Pennsylvania Avenue. Due to government inaction, the Old Post 

Office Pavilion Annex has been empty for more than 10 years. 

Adding insult to injury, the Federal Government spends considerable money to maintain this empty space. This is government 

waste, plain and simple. 

Today I have asked David Walker, the Comptroller General of 

the General Accounting Office, to report to this Committee on the 

longstanding challenges facing the Federal Government in this 

area. Federal property is, after all, the property of the American 

people. 

A disturbing example of the mismanagement of taxpayers’ property can be found right in the Capitol’s backyard. St. Elizabeths 

Hospital was founded in 1855 to provide for the treatment of individuals suffering from mental illness. This hospital served as the 

first and only national Federal mental health facility. At its height 

in the early to mid-1960’s, St. Elizabeths had almost 4,000 employees who cared for approximately 7,000 patients. 

The deterioration of the West Campus of St. Elizabeths is a 

particularly tragic example of how the Federal Government’s mismanagement of its real property can result in massive waste of taxpayer dollars. 

This hearing will examine how this once elegant, thriving Federal property has deteriorated to the point that it could cost nearly 

$500 million to rehabilitate its buildings. 

Many people mistakenly believe that St. Elizabeths is owned by 

the District of Columbia. In fact, that is only half right. St. Elizabeths is fairly equally divided between an East and West Campus, 

the former of which was given to the District of Columbia by an 

act of Congress in 1984. The 182-acre West Campus is still owned 

by the Department of Health and Human Services but is currently 

occupied by the D.C. Department of Mental Health under a use 

permit signed in 1987. As a result, HHS and the D.C. Government 

share responsibility for its deplorable condition. 

Although the D.C. Government by agreement was responsible for 

the upkeep of St. Elizabeths, HHS as owner and landlord should 

never have allowed St. Elizabeths to reach such a deteriorated 

state. 

The poor oversight of St. Elizabeths by both HHS and the D.C. 

Government is inexcusable. What was a valuable asset in the mid1980’s today is a massive liability. 

I have visited this historic property, and its condition is truly deplorable. The Committee staff have documented the extent of damage resulting from the neglect of this property and will be presenting the results of that investigation at our hearing today. I 

have also asked witnesses from the Department of Health and 

Human Services and the D.C. Government to testify today about 

the management of St. Elizabeths. 

3

1The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

Although St. Elizabeths Hospital may be an extreme example of 

mismanagement of federally-owned property, it is not an isolated 

case. If a 182-acre historic landmark just 2 miles away from the 

Capitol can be so mismanaged, what confidence can we have that 

thousands of other Federal buildings scattered across the country 

are being managed effectively, efficiently, and properly to preserve 

their value and to ensure their best use. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of all our witnesses today 

as we tackle this issue. 

As our first witness, I am very pleased to welcome back to the 

Committee the Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 

General Accounting Office. Since assuming this responsibility on 

November 9, 1998, Mr. Walker has done an outstanding job as the 

Nation’s chief accountability officer. He has been a leader in improving the performance of the Federal Government on behalf of 

the American taxpayer. This Committee works very closely with 

Mr. Walker and with the GAO on a wide variety of projects. 

When Federal real property management was added to the 

GAO’s High-Risk List, I talked with Mr. Walker about working 

with the Committee so that we do not keep adding programs and 

agencies to the High-Risk List but actually try to identify the problems that land them on the list and the steps that could be taken 

to get them off the list. 

So it is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Walker here today. You may 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,1 COMPTROLLER 

GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to 

be back before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. 

I would ask that my entire statement be included in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. I will now move to summarize it. 

As you pointed out, Madam Chairman, the GAO added the area 

of real property management to our High-Risk List in January 

2003. This is a major challenge that crosses a number of organizational boundaries within the Federal Government. It is also a 

major multidimensional challenge involving billions of dollars, with 

significant budget, safety, security, environmental, and economic 

development implications. 

Much of the government’s current infrastructure is based upon a 

1950’s environment and business model. The world has changed 

significantly since then, yet our approach to infrastructure has not 

kept pace. The result—billions in excess property that is inadequately maintained and not properly secured. Taxpayer dollars 

are being wasted on maintaining excess properties, and asset recoveries are not being achieved for the benefit of taxpayers. In addition, there are significant opportunity costs associated with the 

failure to act. 

The excess property challenge spans numerous Federal agencies, 

including DOD, the Postal Service, VA, GSA, the DOE, and the 

State Department, just to name a few. Given current and projected 

4

Federal budget deficits, we cannot afford to maintain the status 

quo in this area. 

We have boards just to illustrate four particular properties, and 

I know that this Committee is going to have a number of witnesses 

after me dealing with this first property, which is St. Elizabeths 

here in the District of Columbia. But these four examples are illustrative of a much larger problem. 

The first one is St. Elizabeths Hospital, which is largely a vacant 

property in the District of Columbia which, as you noted, a portion 

of which is owned by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

The next one is a vacated postal facility in Chicago, Illinois. It 

is downtown Chicago, Illinois, and yes, that is the Sears Tower 

right down the street, so I would say that property is worth a fair 

amount of money. 

The next one represents an IRS Service Center in Andover, Massachusetts up on the left. There is also a significant amount of valuable real estate that is underutilized in that area. 

And the last one on the bottom right is a property in Portland, 

Oregon. 

These are just four examples of either vacant or underutilized 

properties where we are spending money and we are not recovering 

asset values in circumstances that could be of benefit to the taxpayer. 

What are some of the steps that need to be taken in order to address this challenge? 

First and foremost, we have to ask the question, who is in 

charge? Who is responsible and accountable for making sure that 

the billions and billions of dollars of vacant and underutilized property that the taxpayers own is accounted for and managed effectively and for the benefit of the taxpayer? It is not clear right now 

who is in charge. We have individuals within the various departments and agencies, but who has been charged on a governmentwide basis on this issue? It demands that somebody be in charge, 

responsible and accountable on a government-wide basis. 

Second, how big is the problem? We need timely, accurate, useful 

information to understand how many vacant and underutilized 

properties we have. We do not have that right now. There is no 

consolidated, government-wide list, it is my understanding, and we 

need additional transparency over that list to try to spur people to 

action. 

Third, we need a plan to rationalize any excess infrastructure. 

We also need additional authorities and incentives for people to 

act. In some cases, there is going to have to be legislation to give 

people additional authorities or incentives to act, and in some 

cases, we are going to have to look at our scoring rules and who 

benefits from the savings in order to make sure that actions are 

taken. 

We also need to make sure that there are accountability mechanisms in place if people do not act; so incentives to do the right 

thing and accountability mechanisms if they do not do the right 

thing. 

And furthermore, given past history, competing stakeholder 

claims and interests, and a variety of other considerations, we may 

5

have to employ a government-wide task force or even a BRAC-type 

approach in order to rationalize this excess infrastructure, because 

there are a variety of stakeholder interests, and we need to look 

at this on a consolidated basis rather than a piecemeal basis in 

order to try to achieve timely action. 

Now, what type of action is it going to take in order to get this 

area off the High-Risk List? There are four general factors. 

First, there has to be an overall transformation strategy for Federal real property. There needs to be demonstrated leadership, attention, and commitment to the strategy and meaningful progress 

toward its implementation. 

Second, there needs to be enactment of real property reform legislation to give real property-holding agencies the tools that they 

need to achieve better outcomes, to foster a more businesslike real 

property environment, and to provide for greater accountability for 

real property stewardship. 

Third, there needs to be a successful implementation effort of ongoing agency initiatives and adoption of key open GAO recommendations, critical ones in the real property area. 

And last but certainly not least, we need to use a set of performance measures to assess results and demonstrate sustained 

progress toward solving the larger problem over a reasonable period of time—the larger problem meaning the excess property, the 

repair backlogs, poor data, security challenges, and over-reliance on 

leasing. Many times, what is happening is we have this excess 

property or underutilized property, yet we are still adding, and 

sometimes we are entering into operating leases because of the 

budget-scoring rules. Specifically, currently you may get better 

treatment under budget-scoring rules and yet it may not be in the 

best economic interest of the taxpayers, because there are other 

methods that clearly would be less costly for the taxpayers; yet the 

way we keep score sometimes causes people to either take actions 

they should not take or not take actions that they should take. 

In closing, this subject—real property management—is illustrative of one of many transformation challenges the Federal Government faces. It is illustrative of a horizontal challenge that 

crosses the various silos or stovepipes in government, traditionally 

known as departments and agencies. The base of government programs, policies, processes, functions, and operations represents an 

amalgamation of past actions that have taken place over decades. 

They may have made sense and hopefully did make sense initially. 

However, given the profound changes that have occurred in the 

world, and our position in the world, and business practices and 

technological advances, etc., just to name a few, the status quo is 

clearly unacceptable. We have to fundamentally review, reassess, 

re-engineer, reprioritize and in some cases eliminate things that 

have accumulated over the years because they may have made 

sense in the past, but they may not make sense today, and they 

may make even less sense in the future. 

We are talking about asking fundamental questions like what 

the Federal Government should do, how it should do business, and 

in some cases, who should do its business. The base is unacceptable, the base is unsustainable. The clock is working against us. 

We need to start acting now. 

6

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker, for your 

excellent overview of this problem. 

The Federal Government clearly owns many more properties 

than it needs. In a report that was released in August, the GAO 

found that there were three agencies—the GSA, the VA, and the 

Postal Service—that together held almost 1,000 vacant or underutilized properties. Obviously, it is expensive to maintain those properties. And as you point out, in some cases, we have agencies with 

vacant buildings leasing space in other buildings, so the taxpayer 

in essence is paying twice. 

Can you explain why there are so many unused properties in the 

Federal inventory? Is it just lack of proper management, or is it 

that the system for disposing of those properties is too cumbersome? 

Mr. WALKER. I think it is a multidimensional challenge. First, 

there is not adequate accountability. We do not have a person or 

persons who are put on the line, where their responsibility is to 

deal with these issues and they are held accountable for achieving 

results. 

Second, we do not have a current inventory of how many of these 

we have on a government-wide basis. 

Third, in some cases, agencies do not have the authority to enter 

into out-leasing arrangements or to enter into public-private partnerships. 

Fourth, there are circumstances in which the current budget 

scoring rules discourage people from taking certain actions that 

they otherwise should take, or encourage them to take actions such 

as leasing rather than lease-purchase or purchase decisions that 

might make more sense for the taxpayers. 

So we do not have the right kinds of incentives and in some cases 

the right kinds of authorities. We do not have adequate transparency, and we do not have enough accountability mechanisms for 

the failure to act. So I think we need to take steps in all those 

three dimensions and along the lines of what I articulated in my 

opening statement. 

Chairman COLLINS. Since the GAO added real property management to the High-Risk List, have you seen any improvement in the 

management of Federal property? The reason I am asking this 

question is that as you and I have discussed before, there are certain agencies and programs that are on the High-Risk List every 

2 years when it is released—some have been on for as long as a 

decade. And what I want to get into as Chairman of this Committee is helping programs and agencies get off the list. 

Now that you have identified this area, are you seeing any 

progress or any response to your findings? 

Mr. WALKER. The answer is yes, and it is from two dimensions. 

The first dimension is a government-wide dimension. As I mentioned, this is a government-wide challenge. It is more acute in 

some departments and agencies than others, but it is a government-wide challenge. I have had conversations with the Director of 

OMB and the Deputy Director of OMB for Management as well as 

other parties. They are taking this very seriously. 

7

As you know, when we add something to the High-Risk List, that 

is intended to bring light to an issue; with light, you get heat, and 

with heat, hopefully, you get action. OMB is looking at whether or 

not they are going to add this item to the President’s Management 

Agenda. They are taking it seriously, and that is encouraging. 

There are a number of other departments and agencies who are 

starting to take additional actions in this area. But I think we cannot underestimate the degree of difficulty and the significance of 

this issue. It is going to take action by both the Congress as well 

as the Executive Branch. It is going to take the sustained attention 

of a variety of parties over an extended period of time to get to 

where we need to be, but we need to get started now. 

Chairman COLLINS. One aspect that surprised me as our Committee has been investigating this issue is the lack of information 

that many agencies seem to have about their own property. If you 

survey Federal agencies, you will find that it is very difficult to get 

basic information about what they own, what they occupy, what 

the condition is. 

GAO has found that many agencies do not even have current 

data about the property that they own, and even when they do, 

that their inventories often lack key information needed to make 

budgetary and other strategic decisions. 

It seems basic to me that if agencies do not even know what 

properties they own, they are not going to be doing an effective job 

managing it. 

Would you comment on that problem and how you see that being 

addressed? 

Mr. WALKER. I think you put your finger on a key issue. You 

manage what you measure, and if you do not have adequate measurements here, you are not going to be able to effectively manage 

it. We do not have adequate information with regard to the nature 

and scope of this challenge in certain agencies, and we clearly do 

not have it on a government-wide basis. We need that. We need to 

have a currant inventory. We need to have adequate information. 

We need to have transparency so the Congress and other parties 

can monitor what is going on. So that is one of the fundamental 

steps that I think we need to take. 

Chairman COLLINS. Today, as you know, we are looking at St. 

Elizabeths Hospital as a case study of some of the problems, and 

as you know from GAO’s own extensive review of St. Elizabeths, 

the West Campus has deteriorated significantly during the 16 

years that it has been used by the District of Columbia. 

There have been disagreements between the Federal Department 

of Health and Human Services and the D.C. Government as to who 

is responsible for the deterioration of St. Elizabeths and who is responsible for many of the costs to remedy the years of neglect and 

deterioration. 

What can we do to make sure that when the Federal Government is leasing a building to a non-Federal entity that it is still 

being effectively managed, and how would you assess responsibility 

for the deplorable state of St. Elizabeths? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, the fact of the matter is as you have pointed 

out, the Department of Health and Human Services owns about 

half the property, the West portion of that property. Even if you 

8

enter into leasing arrangements or use arrangements with a third 

party, whether that be a governmental party or a private sector 

party, you still own it. You still have stewardship responsibility 

and accountability. So part of it comes back to making sure that 

we have the people responsible and accountable for making sure 

that the right thing is done, the right types of contractual arrangements are entered into, that these issues are addressed up front as 

to who is responsible for what. 

I do think, however, that St. Elizabeths is an example of why we 

are debating all these questions about who is responsible and how 

much it is going to cost, but also the question is what are we going 

to do with the property. In the time that we are debating all of 

this, we are incurring additional cost, there is additional deterioration, and we are not recovering asset values. 

One thing that I would like to raise, Madam Chairman—and I 

do not know if they have considered this or not, but it is something 

that we did at GAO, and it may make sense here—as you know, 

the GAO building is a national historic property. The GAO building 

had an asbestos problem. And we entered into an arrangement—

a public-public partnership, but it could easily have been a publicprivate partnership. Specifically, in our case, we entered an arrangement with the Army Corps of Engineers where they agreed 

to work on remediation of our asbestos problem. We then ended up 

leasing space to them and we gave them rent concessions to pay 

for the remediation effort. Some of these same factors exist for St. 

Elizabeths—so what if anything is being done to try to work out 

either a public-public or a public-private partnership to restore and 

redevelop this area such that the parties who might want to use 

it and who might benefit economically might end up incurring some 

of the cost to deal with the remediation, to deal with the restoration, and in a way that we can actually make some progress. I am 

not so sure that has been considered, but I think it is something 

that needs to be done. 

Chairman COLLINS. When I toured St. Elizabeths, I was struck 

by the lack of common sense maintenance of roofs, of steam tunnels, for example, that would have prevented at least a substantial 

part of the deterioration. How good a job does the Federal Government do in maintaining its properties? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, it obviously varies by agency and by location. 

The ‘‘bottom line’’ answer is ‘‘Not good enough,’’ and we need to do 

a better job. But in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, we have 

got a new dimension that we need to be concerned about. For so 

many years, we had extra money that we were paying on maintenance, we had deferred maintenance because of deteriorating properties, and we had asset recovery values that we were not achieving because we were not taking the right steps. 

I would respectfully suggest that we have a new dimension now. 

We need to rationalize our excess infrastructure. We need to 

streamline it down to absolutely the minimum amount that we 

need, because what we have to do is not only make sure that we 

deal with the budgetary aspects; we have to deal with the security 

aspects. We need to minimize our footprint. We need to have as few 

Federal properties and facilities as possible in order to save money 

and gain asset recovery values, so we can properly secure those faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Jan 22, 2004 Jkt 090240 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\90240.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
9

1The powerpoint presentation by Mr. McKay and Ms. Hardy consisting of photographs of the 

West Campus appears in the Appendix on page 83. 1The prepared statement of Ms. Hardy appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

cilities. This is not just an issue in the United States; it is also an 

overseas issue in connection with our embassies. This is a real 

issue for the State Department. We need to be rationalizing our 

presence overseas, which many countries have already started to 

do, like the United Kingdom and others, in light of recent world 

events and changing circumstances. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I want to thank you very much 

for your testimony this morning. It has given us a very helpful 

overview of this problem as we proceed. 

We are looking at both legislative and other reforms, and if GAO 

as your work continues, has some specific suggestions for the Committee, we would very much welcome them. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

For our next panel, I would like to welcome two members of the 

Committee staff, Johanna Hardy, and James McKay. They are both 

members of the Committee’s legal and investigative staff. They 

have conducted an extensive investigation of the property at St. 

Elizabeths Hospital. They have also prepared a powerpoint presentation consisting of photographs of the West Campus that detail 

much of its deterioration.1

I want to thank the staff for its investigation. I think they did 

a terrific job. 

I will ask Ms. Hardy to proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHANNA L. HARDY,1 SENIOR COUNSEL, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE 

Ms. HARDY. Madam Chairman, my name is Johanna Hardy, sitting to my left is James McKay. We are part of the Governmental 

Affairs Committee’s legal and investigative staff. 

Over the last 8 months, the Committee has been conducting an 

investigation into the management of Federal real property. As 

part of the investigation, we looked at several Federal buildings 

that were underutilized, vacant, or deteriorating. 

St. Elizabeths Hospital was the most striking. The West Campus 

of St. Elizabeths is owned by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. St. Elizabeths, of course, is right here in the Capitol’s back yard. In fact, we are the same distance from St. Elizabeths as we are from the Lincoln Memorial. Yet, despite the proximity, what we found during our five visits to St. Elizabeths could 

not contrast more from the well-maintained Capitol complex. 

The St. Elizabeths property includes over 300 acres of land, 182 

of which compose the federally-owned West Campus. The television 

monitor shows an overhead picture of St. Elizabeths which is 

bounded by the red. There are 61 buildings with approximately 1.1 

million square feet on the West Campus alone. 

In addition, the campus contains a Civil War cemetery, sweeping 

views of the downtown and monumental core of the city, as well 

as a park-like landscape. In addition, the West Campus of St. Elizabeths is designated as a National Historic Landmark. 

10

1The prepared statement of Mr. McKay appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

In 1987, pursuant to an act of Congress, the hospital’s East Campus was transferred to the District. Shortly thereafter, HHS entered into various agreements with the District to allow the District to use the federally-owned West Campus. 

St. Elizabeths Hospital, the first and only national Federal mental health facility, began its operations in 1855. For more than a 

century, the hospital was a world premier mental health and research facility. Since the District assumed responsibility for the 

D.C. mental health functions, St. Elizabeths’ patient population 

has significantly decreased, as has the District’s need for the facilities. 

During the 1990’s, the District began moving personnel and property from the Federal West Campus to the East Campus. While all 

personnel have been relocated to the East Campus, considerable 

District property still remains in vacant West Campus buildings 

owned by HHS. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. McKay. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. McKAY,1 COUNSEL, COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE 

Mr. MCKAY. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

I would now like to explain the current situation at St. Elizabeths 

and then begin a slide presentation. 

Although the District’s personnel have vacated the West Campus, a substantial amount of District property remains including 

patient records, employment files, billing records, personal items, 

and furniture. 

Subsequent to the start of our investigation, the District, GSA, 

and HHS signed an agreement to provide for the removal of the 

District’s remaining items. After the removal of all District items 

from the West Campus is complete, HHS and GSA plan to begin 

mothballing the buildings in compliance with standards set by the 

Secretary of the Interior. ‘‘Mothballing’’ is the process by which a 

building is deactivated and temporarily sealed to protect it from 

the elements and to secure it from vandalism. It is not returning 

a building to productive use. 

Estimates of the cost to complete the mothballing of the entire 

West Campus vary, but according to a February 2003 estimate provided to GSA, the cost will be at least $18 million, or approximately double an estimate found in a GAO report from just 2 years 

earlier. 

We would now like to begin a slide presentation that shows the 

conditions in which we found St. Elizabeths during our five visits 

to the West Campus. We have also provided a color copy of the 

slide presentation to each Member of the Committee. 

[Powerpoint presentation.] 

The following slides were taken in and around the Center Building, the most historic building on the West Campus. 

Ms. HARDY. As we go through these slides, it is important to 

highlight the Stabilization and Mothballing Study completed this 

year by consultants hired by GSA, which highlighted the problems 

that needed to be rectified on other buildings on the West Campus 

11

prior to them being mothballed. It is interesting to note that many 

of those problems, including furnishings and debris still in the 

buildings, exist in the Center Building even though it has supposedly already been mothballed. 

Mr. MCKAY. The slides that we are looking at are photos of various rooms in the Center Building. You will notice ceilings and 

floors collapsing as well as furnishings and debris remaining in the 

building. 

Here is the room in which the poet Ezra Pound was confined between 1946 and 1958. This further illustrates the historic significance of the property. 

Here are some good examples of how many of the floors in the 

Center Building are collapsing. In many cases, the floor below can 

clearly be seen through the collapsing floor. 

In the Center Building’s basement, many of the wooden supports 

have rotted and have been replaced by these temporary metal 

poles. 

This picture and the next are of the last rooms the District occupied in the Center Building. Besides the obvious poor condition of 

the room, what this picture does not fully capture is the sagging 

floor. An engineering firm that examined this floor described it as 

having ‘‘failed.’’ As late as 1997, District employees occupied this 

room, which was used for photocopying. We understand that they 

complained to the District about the floor to no avail, then to HHS. 

HHS did write a letter to the District supporting the employees, 

but nothing was done. We were told that eventually, the District 

employees took matters into their own hands and moved from one 

side of the room to the other. 

This further highlights the deterioration of St. Elizabeths, the 

District’s lack of maintaining the buildings it was occupying, and 

HHS’s failure to preserve and protect its own property. 

The following two slides were taken in the gymnasium located on 

the top floor of the Center Building. As you can see, a portion of 

the roof has collapsed, and there has been extensive water damage. 

Here is a bathroom located off the gymnasium. Again, the roof 

is collapsing, and there is water damage. On one visit to the site, 

the water was actively streaming into the room. 

In this slide and the next, you see an open door and a tunnel 

leading directly into the Center Building. 

The next several slides show some of the refuse that has accumulated behind the Center Building. This slide shows several barrels, 

some marked as containing chemicals. 

Ms. HARDY. The next couple of slides not only show the amount 

of trash and debris left outside the buildings, but on one visit, we 

captured pictures of an individual who, according to District representatives, engages in informal salvage work. This person was allowed to enter the site in what is supposedly the secure West Campus. 

Mr. MCKAY. The bakery is another historic building. On one 

visit, we could not even enter the bakery because the floor was 

flooded with water. 

And despite the fact that this picture was taken several days 

after the last rainstorm, water damage is still clearly visible, and 

in fact, standing water can still be seen on the floor of this room. 

12

Ms. HARDY. This is important to highlight because of the potential consequences of standing water. In the study completed by the 

GSA consultant that I referenced earlier, the study highlighted a 

sprinkler accident in another building that was never contained or 

mopped up. This caused rotting and rusting of interior structural 

elements and resulted in a massive infestation of termites that 

badly damaged that building. 

Mr. MCKAY. The remaining slides are taken of the Administration Building, which was vacated by District personnel in January. 

Many of you will recognize this building from the movie ‘‘A Few 

Good Men.’’

According to GSA’s Mothballing and Stabilization Report from earlier this year, it will cost around $270,000 to mothball this 

building. 

The following slides are taken of the Administration Building’s 

interior. Notice paint peeling, mildew, open windows that expose 

the interior of the building to the elements, and items left by the 

District. It is our understanding that HHS has repeatedly asked 

the District to remove their items. 

Ms. HARDY. This slide shows damage to items left in the building, including papers and records. We obtained this binder from the 

Administration Building as an example of the condition of many of 

the records left on the campus. The binder contains travel and expense records, including names and Social Security numbers of 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services employees. There 

appears to be some sort of growth on the binder; the binder and 

its contents are clearly warped and damaged, and even through the 

plastic bag storing it, there is an odor emanating from this object. 

This is indicative of the state in which we found a number of 

records and items left in the building. 

Mr. MCKAY. In this area of the Administration Building, there 

was a strong odor of mildew, humidity from the steam tunnels, and 

leaking water. 

In this slide, you will notice extensive growth of mold on the 

wall. 

And this appears to be some sort of animal print, probably from 

a raccoon, that we found on the stairway leading from the main 

floor to the second floor of the Administration Building. 

The following slides were taken in the basement of the Administration Building. This slide shows water actively streaming into the 

basement, and as you can see, items left in the basement have suffered extensive damage from the water and moisture and are now 

totally ruined. 

Ms. HARDY. The last set of slides demonstrates the types of files 

and records we found left in the Administration Building. 

I am holding up an example of those files. According to District 

officials, they are in the process of removing these items and maintain that the building is secure and that there is controlled access 

to the campus. However, on one visit, the front door of this building 

was unlocked and, as mentioned previously, on all of our visits, a 

number of windows were left open. 

Mr. MCKAY. This slide was taken in the basement of the Administration Building. As you can see, due to the water damage, the 

filing cabinets are warped and rotting. The filing cabinets and sevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Jan 22, 2004 Jkt 090240 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\90240.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
13

eral open shelves in this room contain what appeared to be thousands of patient records going back decades to when HHS still occupied the West Campus. 

The types of records we found included a file with a corporate 

credit card; boxes of documents labeled ‘‘Confidential—Please 

Shred’’; lab results containing patient personal information. In one 

room of the Administration Building, we found folders of patient 

records strewn on the floor, and sitting on top of these records was 

medical information for a 13-year-old girl. Here, we have redacted 

any identifying information, but the information included her Social Security number, her parents’ names, her address and birth 

date. We saw literally hundreds of records like this. This information was found right next to this open window. 

More information was found in the computer room, including 

computer tapes containing Medicaid outpatient claims, some of 

which were also strewn on the floor. 

Moving the West Campus from a mothballed state to productive 

use is likely to be extraordinarily expensive. As discussed earlier, 

this property is a National Historic Landmark, and most of the 

buildings have to be preserved. 

The 1985 physical plant audit of St. Elizabeths estimated the cost of renovating both campuses at between $66 and $69 million, 

plus the cost of hazardous materials removal. Later, a 1993 estimate, which assumed that 52 percent of the West Campus would 

continue to be used for the District’s mental health services with 

the remainder adapted for other institutional-type uses, assessed 

this cost to be as high as between $116 and $128 million. 

The current cost to renovate the West Campus is likely to run 

much higher due to its accelerated deterioration. Nearly every 

building on the West Campus has severely deteriorated, and almost 

all of the buildings will require remediation of lead and asbestos. 

They will also need to have their heating and air conditioning systems completely replaced. As a result, GSA has estimated that it will cost between $400 

and $450 per square foot to bring St. Elizabeths to normal occupancy levels and in a manner that complies with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standard for Historic Properties. If this estimate 

proves to be consistent across the West Campus’ 1.1 million square 

feet, restoring it can be expected to cost between $440 and $495 

million. 

Ms. HARDY. Earlier this year, GSA hired a consultant to conduct 

a Stabilization and Mothballing Study of St. Elizabeths West Campus. The report concluded, and I quote: ‘‘The current deteriorating 

state of the West Campus is the unfortunate result of the discontinuation of maintenance and repair,’’ and ‘‘minor maintenance 

problems have gone unrepaired long enough to have had a major 

impact on the structural integrity of the buildings.’’

The bottom line is that this is not simply one or two buildings 

that were lost in the bureaucracy of a large agency. St. Elizabeths 

is 182 acres of Federal land, 61 buildings, and 1.1 million square 

feet of space with the highest historic designation. The sad demise 

of this once stunning landmark institution raises a real question of 

how other Federal properties are being managed and maintained. 

Thank you. This concludes the staff testimony. 

14

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much for your excellent 

presentation. 

When I joined you at one point in visiting the West Campus, I 

believe you told me that there were some 61 buildings; is that correct? 

Ms. HARDY. That is correct. 

Chairman COLLINS. And I went into two of the major buildings 

that we have featured today, but could you give us an overview of 

the condition of the other buildings as well? 

Ms. HARDY. The two other buildings that we went into included 

the bakery, as you saw in the pictures, as well as the firehouse. All 

of the buildings seemed to have some level of decay and deterioration. As you saw with the bakery, there was standing water and 

clearly a lot of water damage on the walls and on the floors. 

Chairman COLLINS. It is very troubling to see the deterioration 

of these buildings in an area of the city with beautiful views. This 

was once a spectacular campus. Many of the buildings from the 

outside look beautiful as well as being historically significant. But 

in addition to the deterioration of the buildings, what I found most 

astounding and your presentation amply documents was the number of personal documents, psychiatric records, and other confidential materials that had been left unattended. 

Could you elaborate on the security of those materials? Were 

they easily available to you? Were they open, or was there any security evident? 

Ms. HARDY. The documents inside the building were very accessible. In terms of the security, we were told by District officials 

that they believed that the West Campus was secure, there was 

controlled access, and that the buildings remained secure. But as 

we indicated in our presentation, on at least one occasion when we 

visited the Administration Building where most of the records were 

found, the front door was unlocked, and as you noticed in a number 

of the slides, a number of windows open. On at least one occasion, 

there was an individual who did gain access to that side of the 

campus. 

Chairman COLLINS. Did you inform District officials of the personal records, the medical records in particular, that you found 

during your tours of these buildings? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes, we did. 

Chairman COLLINS. And what was the reaction of the District officials? Were they concerned? 

Ms. HARDY. I think that they felt pretty confident that there was 

controlled access and that the building was secure, but there was 

some level of concern that we were able to gain access to these 

files. 

Chairman COLLINS. In your subsequent visits to these buildings, 

did you still find personal files after you had notified the District 

officials? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes, we did. 

Chairman COLLINS. So no one went in and cleaned out all of 

those files in between your visits to the campus? 

Ms. HARDY. No. While we did see some cleanup work that apparently had occurred between visits, there was still a significant 

15

amount of patient records and confidential records still left in the 

building. 

Chairman COLLINS. Did some of those records seem beyond repair as you looked at them, because of water damage, mold, or 

other problems? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes, they did. 

Chairman COLLINS. And again I want to emphasize for the 

record that the records that you found had identifying information 

about some of the patients who had been treated at St. Elizabeths; 

is that correct? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes. 

Chairman COLLINS. Such as names, addresses, Social Security 

numbers, and diagnoses. 

Ms. HARDY. Exactly, including, as one slide showed, lab results. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. McKay, clearly the failure to maintain 

St. Elizabeths has added to the cost of ultimately renovating these 

buildings so that they can be returned to productive use. Do you 

have any idea how much of the current estimate of rehabilitating 

the West Campus, which you have estimated based on GSA and 

other reports to be approximately half a billion dollars, can be attributed to the poor maintenance of the West Campus over the past 

15 years? 

Mr. MCKAY. While no definitive study has been done, it is the 

case that in many of the buildings, there were some very simple 

maintenance tasks that could have been done that would have prevented more serious problems down the line. In many cases—for 

example, in the Administration Building—there was a tremendous 

amount of humidity as a result of steam still being pumped into 

the building. In fact, we heard dripping water. The damage was 

clearly extremely intense, and this was something that would not 

necessarily have cost a lot of money to fix at the beginning, but as 

things escalated, it became more and more expensive. 

Chairman COLLINS. Was the deterioration of St. Elizabeths due 

to a lack of funds to do basic, essential maintenance? 

Ms. MCKAY. Well, while more money always helps, much of the 

damage that was done appears to be the result of unnecessary neglect. As we said, during our visits to the campus, we discovered 

wide open windows exposing the interior of the building to the elements. In addition, there was still a large amount of trash and personal property that was left in the buildings. This is going to be 

expensive to remove, and it is going to add to the overall price of 

mothballing. As you saw in the Center Building, many of the floors 

that were collapsing still had items on them, which is obviously 

going to increase the likelihood that the floors will actually collapse. 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Hardy, it is obvious that District officials 

knew of the poor condition and the continuing deterioration of 

these buildings, because after all, the D.C. Government was essentially the tenant. In your review of documents, did you come across 

any evidence that indicated that the Federal owners, the Department of Health and Human Services, were aware of the deterioration of conditions at St. Elizabeths? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes, we did. In fact, documents supplied to the Committee by HHS which included correspondence from HHS to the 

16

District dating back to 1992 clearly indicate that HHS was fully 

aware of the deteriorated state of the property. The letters are apparent attempts by HHS to notify the District of these problems, 

but again, all we have is evidence of the letters and no evidence 

of further action taken by HHS. 

Chairman COLLINS. And did the General Accounting Office also 

do a review of the condition of St. Elizabeths that would have put 

the Federal Government on notice if there were a lack of understanding of what was going on? 

Ms. HARDY. Yes. In fact, a couple of years ago, there was a GAO 

study done specifically on St. Elizabeths Hospital, and in fact that 

report highlighted the deteriorated state of the property. So again, 

HHS was fully aware of the problems with St. Elizabeths. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Bennett. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I do not have a lot of questions because you have been very thorough in your analysis of this. 

The thing that stuns me as I go through this material is that I 

find photographs of dates—1999, 2000, and 2001. This is very recent if the building was being used. To look through these photographs, you would think this thing was abandoned in the 1980’s, 

and nothing had been done for 20 years. 

To have it being used to the point where you have computer 

printouts that are dated 2001 left on the floor indicates on the face 

of it a very rapid and sudden abandonment and decline. 

Is that accurate? That is my impression from looking at this, but 

I could very easily be wrong. 

Ms. HARDY. That is accurate. In fact, our understanding is that 

the Administration Building was used as recently as January of 

this year. The deterioration, as you can see, is accelerated deterioration, and we are told it is from a number of causes—water leaks, 

steam leaks, etc.—that clearly were not dealt with when they occurred. 

Senator BENNETT. Well, I thank you for holding the hearing, 

Madam Chairman, and going after this. My own experience would 

dictate at this point, from a financial point of view, just bulldoze 

the whole thing and start over. You could build new buildings with 

better facilities than you could rehabilitate this at this point. 

I know the preservationists will not like that because they love 

these old buildings, and certainly there are cases where we have 

spent money on old buildings—the Library of Congress Jefferson 

Building, Union Station—and we have gotten our money’s worth 

even though we could have created the same amount of square 

footage for less money than we put into rehabilitation. But I would 

view this one very carefully before I would say let us go back and 

rehabilitate those buildings, because the deterioration is so severe 

that it looks like you could call out the Seabees and get their bulldozers and go to work. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Bennett. 

It is extraordinary the state of these buildings. The fact that the 

Federal Government owns 61 buildings on a beautiful campus so 

17

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stamper appears in the Appendix on page 67. 

close to the Capitol, that is clearly very valuable real estate, and 

as the Comptroller General said in his testimony, one of the problems that they found is that Federal agencies are not even clear 

about what they own in some cases, and it is pretty hard to manage effectively what you do not realize that you own. 

So there is a lot of work to be done in this area. 

I want to thank our witnesses for an excellent presentation and 

for all of your hard work as we explore this important area. 

I would now like to welcome our third panel of witnesses to the 

hearing. 

William C. Stamper is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facilities 

at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He began 

his current position on July 1, 2002. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of Facilities for the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and as Director of the Air National Guard Facility 

Requirements Branch. 

Martha Knisley is Director of the District of Columbia’s Department of Mental Health which operates the East Campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital. She began serving in her position last November. 

Prior to that, she spent three decades as a mental health clinician 

and administrator. 

I want to thank you both for appearing today. I also want to say 

for the record that both the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the D.C. Government have been fully cooperative with 

the Committee in its investigation of St. Elizabeths as a case study 

of the Federal Government’s management of its real property. 

Mr. Stamper, we are going to begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. STAMPER,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND POLICY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. STAMPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Committee 

Members. Good morning. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary Thompson 

sends his thanks to the Committee for addressing an issue that 

many executive agencies are experiencing. 

As stated in the GAO report on real property, many Federal assets are no longer effectively aligned with or responsive to agencies’ 

changing missions and are therefore no longer needed. 

I have been asked to speak about one such asset owned by the 

Department of Health and Human Services. The West Campus of 

St. Elizabeths Hospital in Southeast Washington, DC has been excess to the Department’s needs for many years. However, due to a 

unique set of circumstances, we have been unable to dispose of the 

property. 

As testified to before, there are 61 buildings on the West Campus, approximately 1.1 million square feet. In addition to the historic buildings, the West Campus is the site of a Civil War cemetery reported to be the only public cemetery containing the remains 

of both Union and Confederate and black and white soldiers. 

18

In December 1990, St. Elizabeths was designated a National Historic Landmark. 

Congress adopted the St. Elizabeths Hospital and District of Columbia Mental Health Services Act, otherwise known as the Transfer Act, in 1984. The Act provided for the transition of the District’s 

mental health system to local control and gave the District two opportunities to take title to the St. Elizabeths Hospital grounds and 

buildings. 

On October 1, 1987, those buildings identified by the District as 

necessary for its mental health system were transferred, including 

the entire East Campus except for one building, five buildings on 

the West Campus, and approximately $27 million to pay for repairs. 

The Transfer Act also provided the District a right of first refusal 

on the remaining property, which included most of the West Campus. Although the District occupied about 34 buildings on the West 

Campus, the second transfer did not take place. 

In 1987, then Mayor Marion Barry signed a Use Permit with 

HHS that specifically required the District to preserve, maintain 

and repair the West Campus. The Use Permit was extended indefinitely in 1997. Although HHS oversight was minimal, our records 

show that we notified the city of various violations throughout the 

years but took no action beyond the notification. 

The buildings have deteriorated significantly, as you have seen. 

To prevent further damage to the large Center Building, HHS 

spent $1 million on a new roof and gutter system in 1991 and 

spent another million dollars on mothballing and stabilization projections in the year 2000. One million dollars requested from Congress in 1998 was not appropriated. 

Once we were notified by District officials in 2000 of their intent 

to vacate personnel from the campus the following year, we immediately began to take the steps necessary to protect and dispose of 

the property. GSA instructed HHS on the steps necessary to declare the property excess, and in September 2000, we completed 

Phase I of the required Environmental Assessment. In January 

2001, HHS officially notified GSA of its intent to declare the property as excess. 

In April 2001, the GAO on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations verified the need for funds associated with property disposal, including fulfilling the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Later in 2001, Congress provided $6.5 million to begin the disposal 

process and mothballing. 

In 2002, HHS awarded a contract for a building-by-building 

mothballing assessment of Federal buildings on the West Campus 

and completed the Phase II Environmental Survey. In May 2002, 

the Urban Land Institute conducted a study to develop suggestions 

on potential land use for the entire St. Elizabeths campus, both 

East and West. 

In late 2002, the District hired an architectural firm to develop 

a framework plan for the campus, to identify appropriate uses, and 

to establish implementation strategies. 

To start off 2003, in January, Mayor Williams held a public 

meeting to inform the community about the planning process for 

19

St. Elizabeths. Also, at the beginning of this year, the District vacated its last employees from the campus, and HHS received a report on the building-by-building assessment. 

GSA has arranged for bids on the mothballing and stabilization, 

but it was immediately apparent that the project was going to cost 

far more than the $6 million appropriated. 

We plan to complete the project in three or more phases depending on available funding. HHS recently contracted with GSA to 

award the first phase, which will involve roofing, boarding up windows, securing entrances, and pest control. That should begin within the next 2 months. 

Most of the buildings on the West Campus were constructed from 

1855 to the early 1900’s. Nearly every building suffers severe deterioration due to age and lack of maintenance. Our estimate to finish the mothballing and stabilization is approximately $20 million. 

This figure continues to rise with natural events such as our recent 

Hurricane Isabel and last year’s severe winter. 

The District is still removing furniture, files, and other articles 

from the buildings and is required by the Use Permit to give us 

written, 180-day notice that the property is no longer needed. HHS 

will be responsible for security and maintenance after the turnover 

by the District until GSA assumes responsibility. 

St. Elizabeths’ West Campus is one of the largest developable 

tracts in the District of Columbia and therefore an extremely valuable asset to the Federal Government, the community, and the future of Southeast Washington. Redevelopment will have a positive 

impact on the city and will promote economic growth in the area 

around St. Elizabeths. The government can and should make every 

effort to ensure that the property is redeveloped in such a way to 

preserve the historic buildings and site. 

With its rich heritage, St. Elizabeths Hospital offers a wonderful 

look at an important aspect of our Nation’s history. Creativity must 

be a part of a negotiation process between the Federal Government, 

the District and, if needed, private entities to preserve this important cultural asset. 

GSA has informed HHS that there may be other Federal uses for 

the property. If a Federal transfer occurs, we believe it will greatly 

benefit the immediate community and the city as a whole. The continued mothballing and maintenance of the property is costly, and 

decisions need to be made as soon as possible. 

At Secretary Thompson’s initiative, HHS is redoubling our efforts 

to work with GSA, the District, and the community to make certain 

that the potential for St. Elizabeths Hospital is realized. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today, and I will 

try to answer any questions you might have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Knisley, could you also introduce the person with you as you 

begin your statement? 

20

1The prepared statement of Ms. Knisley appears in the Appendix on page 77. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTHA B. KNISLEY,1 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID NORMAN, 

ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL 

HEALTH 

Ms. KNISLEY. Yes. Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, with me 

today is David Norman, who is our Acting General Counsel for the 

Department of Mental Health. He worked on the St. Elizabeths 

Campus for the Public Defender’s Office in the District for 17 years 

and has been a source of informal information as we try to piece 

together these individual issues and is going to assist me today. 

Chairman Collins, Senator Coleman, my name is Martha 

Knisley. I am Director of the District of Columbia Department of 

Mental Health, and I thank you for inviting me to testify before 

you on a subject of great importance to myself, my Department, 

and the citizens of our Nation’s Capital—the past, the present, and 

the future of the West Campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital. 

Before I begin, I would like to divert from the text for a moment 

and talk to you as a mental health professional who has worked 

in over 40 States, including the State of Maine, working at the 

Machias Campus and also in Bangor at that campus in my career. 

I have worked in, as I said, 41 States. I have worked in 77 State 

psychiatric hospitals during my career. 

I have found personally and tragically, both as a young woman 

in undergraduate school when I did work in a deteriorating campus—it was hard to say ‘‘a deteriorating campus’’ when it had 

never been very functional to begin with—in Huntington, West Virginia, that as a Nation—and this goes beyond the scope of today’s 

discussion—but as a Nation, what I found with our buildings, 

where we have placed our most vulnerable citizens, is that what 

we have done as a Nation to those people, to the people who work 

there, parallels the history of this campus. 

It is an unspeakable tragedy. 

I came to the District of Columbia at the request of a transitional 

receiver in the Dixon case that began in 1974. This case was 

brought against the HHS at that time, which was running St. Elizabeths, and the District of Columbia, which was operating a few 

small community clinics. 

That case was brought with the expressed purpose to develop a 

system of care for people with mental illness in the District. It is 

2003, and that case has not been settled. 

It just so happens that the transfer of this hospital came at the 

time that the Federal Government wanted to exit the case. The 

point in fact is that the deterioration of St. Elizabeths Hospital 

began probably several decades before the case was even brought. 

These buildings have been rotting away for many decades. And as 

testified to earlier this morning by your staff, who have done an 

excellent job, Senator Collins, I found the same situation when I 

arrived that they found at St. Elizabeths. 

The situation got so bad with the city’s operation—again, all the 

time with HHS and the city operating not just for the buildings but 

for the people—that Federal Judge Aubrey Robinson in the Dixon 

21

case placed the mental health system in the District in receivership 

in 1997. Mayor Williams aggressively argued to bring this system 

out of court receivership so that the city could begin to manage this 

system—partly because of this valuable property, the people who 

worked there, but the citizens in the District who need mental 

health care. 

We did that in April 2001. One of the first actions that I had to 

take as director was to stop the renovation of the William A. White 

Building, where the renovation had begun before they had removed 

asbestos. They had not even removed the asbestos. And today, we 

heard about the conditions continuing this year. 

There are two issues I would like to raise about those. One is 

that while in receivership, the Commission on Mental Health 

transferred all of the operations of their recordkeeping and those 

files you saw to a private firm without sufficient guarantees in that 

contract to manage those records that you saw. We have had to discontinue that contract. But the recordkeeping, Madam Chairman, 

was just as horrendous in terms of the billing for the services, so 

we had a double problem there. And we are rapidly trying to reconstruct what even went on with the patients during that period of 

time. 

So those were billing records that you saw in the pictures. But 

even the other medical records, when we wanted to move them to 

buildings on the East Campus, our medical records building that 

we were using, where we wanted to use things, and that was under 

our control was in just as bad shape, so we had to shore up that 

building so we could move out of the other deteriorated buildings 

over onto the East Campus where we operate. 

We are also aggressively moving to build a new hospital on that 

campus on the southwest corner of the East Campus so that we 

can meet the basic safety and health concerns of our patients 

whom you did not see on the East Campus but who are living in 

some of the same conditions. 

When I arrived, Madam Chairman, the Centers for Medicaid and 

Medicare Services had placed this system on the endangered species list, if you will, for just its care. In August, they gave us a 

clean bill of health on active treatment at the hospital, brought us 

out of the conditions that we were in and said that at least our care 

for patients was on the upswing. Madam Chairman, as you can see, 

we still have a lot of catching up to do on the buildings themselves. 

So I just wanted to give you that background, because we need 

to develop a fully functioning community mental health system 

here in the District. Mayor Williams is adamant that we do that. 

We have exited the receivership, and we should be able to exit that 

case in 2 years. 

You have asked me to comment specifically on how the West 

Campus arrived at its current state of deterioration, and let me say 

that I have only secondhand knowledge of those events, and I have 

been trying to patch them together as you have, prior to my appointment. 

It appears that there was very little institutional memory, and 

I do believe that HHS has captured it very well, as have your staff, 

so that we could begin to piece together who was responsible for 

what and when. But beyond that, what are we going to do next? 

22

The Transfer Act that was initiated in 1987, as well as basically 

the original version of that Transfer Act, was charged with the responsibility for repairing and renovating those buildings and support systems that the District indicated it would need to use in its 

final system implementation plan, which was a part of the delivery 

of mental health services. 

Pursuant to that Act, HHS contracted for a physical plant audit 

which was conducted by an architectural and engineering firm, and 

this audit concluded that it would cost $55.8 million to bring up to 

code those portions of the campus that the District intended to use. 

Of that amount, $25.8 million was attributed to renovation of the 

West Campus. 

Unfortunately, this story, as you have heard this morning, only 

goes downhill from there. I would have to say, knowing what I 

have been going through, for example, just in the cleanup that we 

had to do after the storm last week, that probably every administrator in my seat before I became the director—and by the way, as 

we came out of receivership, it was the first time we actually created a Department of Mental Health; I report directly to the 

Mayor, and that did not occur before, either—but every year, they 

would have had to make the decision on cleaning up a building or 

making it safe for people living there today. And I myself personally have had to make that decision at least two or three dozen 

times in my short tenure—where am I going to place the resources 

that I have—in this deteriorating building or in a location where 

patients are actually living. 

So in summary, yes, not enough money, promises probably not 

kept, and when HHS did come to the District and request that activity occur, that did not happen. And the challenges, as I said, 

exist both for the care of the patients and with respect to the care 

of the campus. 

I can only say to you now, Senator Collins and Senator Coleman, 

that we are moving rapidly out of the buildings on the West Campus so that the mothballing can go ahead, and it has been a challenge for us to even do that this year, as has been evidenced here 

today, and we have been continuing even after the time that your 

staff were on the campus. 

I am available to answer questions, and I would like to ask that 

my statement that I was going to read be put into the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection, your statement will be entered in full. 

Ms. Knisley, you have obviously spent your entire life dedicated 

to serving those with mental illness, and I salute you for that commitment. Since you have been a mental health clinician for many 

years, I would like to get your reaction to the fact that we found 

during our investigation patients’ medical records—not just billing 

records; I am talking about actual patient files with full identifying 

information, with diagnosis information—and not just one or two 

files, but hundreds of files on each of five different visits to the 

West Campus. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Madam Chairman, the A Building, where I believe 

that—again, from the pictures of where most of the files were 

found—in that particular building during my tenure, there were no 

staff offices or medical records offices. Those were the offices of the 

23

firm that had been contracted with that was located in that building, and it does appear, both from what we have been trying to 

construct just for the billing as well as for cleaning up the files and 

moving them, that many of the files migrated over to this billing 

operation. So the medical records—that is, the recordkeeping facility or division for the hospital that is used by the clinicians is actually located in a different building on the East Campus where we 

were operating. So it is somewhat of a mystery how the volume 

and those types of records found their way into the offices of these 

staff. 

Chairman COLLINS. Please understand—this is in a vacant building with no staff, with virtually no security, with the roof caving 

in, with water dripping on these confidential medical records. And 

we informed your department the first time we found these 

records, because we were so alarmed at what we were seeing. We 

expected by our next visit that individuals from your department 

would have come and immediately moved the records or taken 

some steps to secure them. But that did not occur. 

Moreover, there were members of your department who actually 

accompanied my staff on one of the visits and saw it for themselves. 

I assume the District of Columbia has patient confidentiality 

laws, and I am just wondering why no action. It is bad enough that 

the records were left there in the first place, but after we informed 

your department, nothing was done. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to say that those 

records have been removed. The length of time to remove them—

and this is not an excuse—but the length of time to remove them 

is in part related to the fact that the place where we were moving 

them, we were also cleaning up that building and shoring up the 

wall there, so we were doing both activities at the same time. 

I might also add that the condition with the water coming in was 

going on while people were working in those buildings. I am not 

sure you were even aware—you went when they were vacant, but 

I do not know if they had taken the tarp down or not. They put 

a tarp up over the records and the computer equipment instead of 

repairing the building. 

So you are absolutely right. It has been a challenge for us to remove those records, and they are removed now, and again, we are 

doubly challenged by getting them into a place that would be safe. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Stamper, in October 1996, the D.C. Preservation League, which is an organization of District historic preservationists, named St. Elizabeths Hospital to its list of eight most 

endangered properties, and a story in The Washington Post described the league as arguing that, ‘‘A lack of proper maintenance 

by the District Government has created a desperate need for repair 

and has made the structure’s long-term fate uncertain.’’

That was 7 years ago. What actions did HHS take when alerted 

by outside groups to the deterioration of these buildings? 

Mr. STAMPER. Madam Chairman, I am not familiar with that 

particular report. I think I can go back to the advent of this administration at least and say that we have been trying to be much 

more proactive about dealing with the St. Elizabeths problem. We 

are certainly aware of it. 

24

1Letter from Mr. Stamper, dated November 12, 2003, in response to the question of an article 

in The Washington Post appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

There is some kind of a trail of correspondence that took place 

in the nineties between the Department and the District. I have 

not read up on the specific one that you are referencing. I could get 

back to you with a written answer on that.1

Chairman COLLINS. In your testimony and just now, you referred 

to correspondence back and forth between HHS and the District, 

but you also conceded that HHS oversight was minimal and that 

HHS did nothing other than notify the District of its violations. 

Why didn’t the Department take stronger actions to safeguard 

the taxpayers’ investment in these properties? 

Mr. STAMPER. I wish I knew the answer. I really—it is difficult 

for me to speculate back that far as to what recourse there was. 

There were certain things that probably could have been done 

short of an eviction notice or something, I guess. 

I would also like to add, though, that there is a context here of 

a drawdown in the Department headquarters facilities staff in 

HHS, and in the mid-90’s, it was drawn down to, I think, two people to oversee departmental facilities activities in total, which is 

virtually nothing. 

Secretary Thompson, when he came in, recognized that we had 

a severe shortfall in the facilities function at Headquarters and 

took action to establish a new office that I am in charge of to establish an oversight presence at headquarters to try to avoid these 

kinds of problems. 

Chairman COLLINS. Well, before I turn to my colleague, Senator 

Coleman, let me say in response to that that if HHS only had two 

people at headquarters in charge of overseeing all of the property—

is that what you are saying——

Mr. STAMPER. That is my understanding. 

Chairman COLLINS [continuing]. I cannot think of a more pennywise and pound-foolish decision than to cut back on the staff that 

is responsible for ensuring the quality of the taxpayers’ investment 

in real estate property that is valued in the multiple millions—just 

this one property alone, not to mention all the other HHS property. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Madam Chairman, if I might, it is possible, knowing the individuals involved at the time, that if HHS attempted to 

pursue that with the District, the District officials could have said, 

‘‘Well, this is our operating money; it would take away from patient 

care.’’ Again, that is not to say that HHS should not have done 

more, but I think that the responsibility for that maintenance during that period of time, the District did need to step up to the 

plate, and I would suspect that there was some hope that during 

that receivership period, the District would in fact have done that. 

So I am not trying to say that HHS should not have done more, 

but it was very evident to individuals whom I have interviewed 

that, because the city was taking the repair money out of their operating budget, what people could see was that that was taking 

away from the patients. So that may have been going on. And 

again, that is not to at all say——

Chairman COLLINS. I would argue that it is not good care——

Ms. KNISLEY. No, it is not good. 

25

Chairman COLLINS [continuing]. Of patients or fair treatment of 

the staff——

Ms. KNISLEY. It was not, no. 

Chairman COLLINS [continuing]. To allow this kind of deterioration. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, first let me thank you for your leadership on 

this issue. This is important. You are always doing a public service, 

but this is a public service. This is a public service, and I appreciate it. I always and quite often, as you know, reflect upon my experience as a mayor. I will have to tell you that in my city, when 

we went through our list of problem properties, the leading landlord of problem properties was the Federal Government. So I think 

that what we are exploring here in a very dramatic and almost beyond comprehension way is perhaps symptomatic of a range of 

other issues that deserve further exploration. Again, I saw that in 

my city. We did not take this kind of action to deal with it; we 

dealt with it one-on-one. But I hope that down the road, we can 

kind of get our arms around this. 

I am not even sure what question I want to ask here, but I will 

tell you that I always have an appreciation for folks who dedicate 

their lives to public service and what you have done, Ms. Knisley, 

but as I listened and reading your testimony—I am still, by the 

way, trying to figure out how files migrate over; I am not sure 

what that means—but I would say that particularly in regard to 

the issue of patient confidentiality, that issue is one that folks are 

not being cared for if those records are made available. I am trying 

to sort out what happened here, and I think you are faced with 

what folks around cities always face when you have ‘‘x’’ number of 

dollars, and do you put them into patient care, or do you put them 

into fixing something up. And the problem is that there is a delicate balance, and when the balance is somehow not dealt with appropriately, you have problems, and there are clearly dramatic 

problems here. 

In your testimony, you note that ‘‘You asked me to address the 

responsibility for this state of affairs,’’ and you then say ‘‘The responsibility ultimately rests with HHS as a holding agency of the 

property.’’ I think I would have much preferred both of you coming 

up here and saying, ‘‘Do you know something—we really messed 

up. We did not do what should have been done, and we will do everything in our power from this day forth to address that.’’

From the HHS perspective, I hope that you are looking over your 

list of 10 worst properties and taking a very close look at what you 

are doing and not doing rather than waiting for the Chairman to 

show up on the doorstep and figure out what has not been done. 

I would hope that has been done already. 

Mr. STAMPER. Well, in fact, I think we had started the process 

to look and fix this problem prior to the Committee’s interest. 

Maybe we could be criticized for the speed, but we have been working on this very diligently. 

Senator COLEMAN. My concern about working on it is that as I 

am listening to the testimony, I hear a lot of discussion about longVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Jan 22, 2004 Jkt 090240 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\90240.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
26

term plans, grand vision, land institute, future use, but there is the 

more immediate need of did you get a broom in there to pick up 

the garbage. I mean, I worry that sometimes we are not seeing the 

forest for the trees here. And the first step says we are going to 

make this safe. This is a safety issue. I do not know if there are 

kids in the area, Madam Chairman, but God forbid that there are, 

with these kinds of conditions. 

So, rather than ask a question, I would say that I hope the Department is not getting caught up in what the long-term vision is, 

but first saying ‘‘We will make sure that these properties are 

cleaned up. We will make sure that they are secure.’’ And then we 

can go beyond that. 

And I would hope, Ms. Knisley, that you would go back and figure out why it took so long for files that were sitting around not 

to be picked up and have somebody responsible to act on that. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Yes, I totally agree, Senator Coleman. And let me 

just say that even with the ultimate responsibility as the landlord, 

we have the responsibility of the care of the patients and the security of the records, absolutely. 

The first is no longer working for us in part because of this, and 

our staff have had to go in behind them and clean up these records. 

And I cannot fathom, either, this migration of that information to 

a company that was going to be doing billing. I cannot fathom that, 

either. 

I have the responsibility now, this is the shape I found it in, but 

I totally agree that it is my responsibility to get it cleaned up, and 

we are doing that as quickly as we can. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate that, but I will tell you that it is 

hard for me to fathom when a Member of the U.S. Senate or Congress raises an issue about something, and files are lying around, 

that someone is going to come back and see them still there ‘‘x’’ 

number of days later. I cannot fathom that the next day, I do not 

have somebody there, figuring out what is being done and taking 

care of it—and if it is not done, figuring out who did not do it and 

deal with that, because if you do not, the problem will still exist. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Right. And Senator Coleman, yes, we did both. We 

dealt with the people who were supposed to have done it, and now 

we have dealt with the conditions themselves—or, I should say 

with the files. The conditions themselves are along way from being 

complete. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Coleman. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and to our witnesses, thank you for joining us today. 

I apologize for not being here during the time that you were testifying, and what I am going to ask you to do is, if you will, just 

take a minute or two apiece and, as we approach the end of this 

hearing, just share with me what you would hope the Members of 

this Committee would take from this hearing, what we and our 

staff would take from this hearing as we go forward. 

27

Ms. KNISLEY. Senator Carper, and to the Members of the Committee, if I could summarize for me personally, I would go back and 

redo as much as we possibly can do. That is obviously not going 

to happen, and I apologize to the Members of the Committee and 

particularly, Madam Chairman, to you for the amount of time that 

it has taken us to fulfill our responsibilities to clean out these 

buildings. 

The matter of St. Elizabeths Hospital, as I said in my opening 

statement, is a very large and very personal concern. It was the 

crown jewel of psychiatric hospitals in the United States at one 

point in time, and since the 1960’s, it has become the worst example of our treatment and care of persons with mental illness that 

I can imagine or that I have ever seen. And the lack of follow-up 

and follow-through by the D.C. Government during the last 20 

years has been a tragedy. 

Mayor Williams, who fought valiantly to get this Department 

back under his control, has given us a very strong mandate to 

clean up the mental health system and to make good use of the 

hospital and to build a new hospital on this campus for the care 

of our patients, and we are proceeding as vigorously as we can to 

see that that occurs. 

Again, in a way, this is about Federal property today in the hearing, and it is a very important hearing, and we understand our responsibilities as part of that and our responsibilities to the care 

and treatment of the patients. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Stamper. 

Mr. STAMPER. Thank you, Senator. 

Several points—the Department of Health and Human Services 

has declared the property excess to our needs. Factually, we have 

not needed it since mental health care was transferred to the District in 1987. We are working with GSA to release the property and 

are following the Federal process that we have to follow to do that. 

The District has been responsible for maintenance and repair 

since the Use Agreement was signed in 1987. Our oversight, admittedly, of that Use Agreement was not what it should have been. 

The property is in bad shape, and we believe it has a high potential 

for redevelopment in the right hands. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. Madam Chairman, thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. Stamper, you testified that it would take approximately $20 

million just to mothball the buildings. Is that the route that HHS 

is now pursuing? Would it make sense since, as you pointed out, 

this is one of the largest developmental tracts, buildable tracts, left 

in the city to instead partner with the private sector to try to develop this property instead of investing $20 million just in 

mothballing it—or are the buildings so far gone at this point that 

you have to mothball them first before you can go on to try to find 

a developer who might be interested? 

Mr. STAMPER. It is a difficult question to answer because timing 

becomes important, and the rate of deterioration is so rapid because of where we are now. What I can say, though, is that, working through the Federal process, GSA has to determine if there is 

a Federal need for the property, and it is really going to be in their 

28

hands as the government’s property manager. The Department of 

Health and Human Services does not have the legal authority to 

negotiate those kinds of partnerships. 

Chairman COLLINS. GSA would take over that responsibility? 

Mr. STAMPER. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. Another question that I want to ask you 

comes from a comment that was made by Ms. Knisley, and that is 

when she said that there was a concern about taking from patient 

care. And your written statement makes a similar comment. Didn’t 

the Use Permit between the Department and the District of Columbia call upon the District to be fully responsible for all the maintenance, repairs, and operations of the West Campus? 

Mr. STAMPER. Yes, it did. 

Chairman COLLINS. So presumably, when the District agreed to 

the Use Permit, it agreed to take over the maintenance of the 

buildings in a way that should have been separate from the money 

for patient care; is that not accurate? 

Mr. STAMPER. I do not know how the District would normally run 

their budget, but certainly the Use Agreement requires them to 

maintain and preserve the facilities. 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Knisley, would you like to comment on 

that? My point is that when the District agreed to these conditions, 

it presumably knew what it was agreeing to. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Madam Chairman, I think that is part of the problem, and as a matter of fact, we are in litigation because in the due 

diligence phase of turning over the land and, again, an audit—and 

again, I was not here at the time—but an audit revealed that there 

was a certain amount of money that was required—I believe it was 

$55 million—but only $25 million was forthcoming as part of that 

transfer at that time. 

So the District took on this responsibility and agreed to certain 

responsibilities without fully appreciating the repair costs—not 

capital costs, but repair costs—that come out of the operating budget. Since I have been director, I have asked for—and Mayor Williams has granted and it is before Congress as we speak—additional capital funds so that we are not dipping into the operating 

funds, because in operating, you are moving between the day-today maintenance and your staffing in an operating budget. And 

what was happening was that they were sucking up these daily operating funds, because they did not have capital funds to do the 

kinds of repairs. 

We had two dozen water main breaks this winter that cost us 

about $2.7 million. I took that out of patient care. And I believe 

that is what happened over this period of time, that because there 

was not a capitalization of these repairs, it then fell naturally to 

the operating budget. 

Chairman COLLINS. Of course, one of the obvious problems here 

is that very small maintenance problems were not attended to 

which would have been inexpensive, relatively speaking, had they 

been dealt with at the time that they occurred, and because they 

did not, there is, for example, extensive water damage, which produced a host of other problems. 

It is just very troubling to see these buildings, this extraordinary 

asset that the Federal Government owns, and today the best estiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Jan 22, 2004 Jkt 090240 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\90240.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
29

mate is that it will take $450 million to rehabilitate these buildings. 

Ms. KNISLEY. I would not like to have to buy the bottled water—

even though we get very good Poland water, Madam Chair—I 

would not like to have to buy bottled water for our patients. I 

would like to be able to use the water there. That is just an example. 

I have employees who have never had hot water in their entire 

careers—or patients—30 years, because we made a difference between hot water and fixing something else. 

Chairman COLLINS. I just want to end my questioning with one 

clarification. As I indicated to you, in each of the five visits that 

my staff made to the buildings, we still found confidential patient 

records, lab results, and during my visit, a corporate credit card, 

an American Express card, all sorts of materials that should not 

have been left there. 

Are you testifying today that the District has now removed and 

safeguarded all of those personnel and patient records that we 

saw? 

Ms. KNISLEY. Yes, Madam Chairman. There are two sets of items 

in the Administration Building, and I believe we are still removing 

material out of the basement and some items, but the patient 

records have been removed. 

The corporate credit card, by the way, was the firm that is no 

longer working for us. Our agency has no credit cards. And again, 

that just illustrates the fact that this whole operation had been 

turned over to a private company with no oversight of that company. The contract had no oversight even written into the contract 

over the company. 

Chairman COLLINS. That is also inexcusable but outside the 

scope of this particular hearing. 

Ms. KNISLEY. Absolutely. I understand, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. I would like to ask my two colleagues if they 

have any further comments or questions. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, just one. Actually, in reference or in follow-up to the question you asked Mr. Stamper about 

the possibility of some kind of public-private partnership for further development, those things do take time. I would certainly urge 

the Department to get in there and clean it up. Do that, and at the 

same time, you can be involved in some long-term planning. But 

development takes a while—it is great to have a long-term vision, 

but I think there are some immediate needs. And whether it is this 

property, St. Elizabeths, or others, I do hope the Department is 

looking to say, OK, what are we going to get done today to make 

sure that facilities are safe. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 

participation. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I would simply say to you, Madam Chairman, 

that I look forward to taking a minute or so at the conclusion of 

this hearing just to talk about what other steps we might need to 

contemplate; if we could do that, I would appreciate it. 

Chairman COLLINS. Absolutely. Thank you. 

30

I want to thank our witnesses today. As I said when I began this 

hearing, St. Elizabeths was the most egregious example of a deteriorated Federal real property asset that our Committee has looked 

at, but there are many others that we found as part of our review. 

As the GAO testified, the number of vacant and underutilized Federal buildings or federally-owned buildings is truly astonishing. We 

have a lot of work to do in this area to make sure that the investment of Federal taxpayers in real property is safeguarded. So we 

look forward to continuing this investigation. 

We will be keeping the record open for 15 days for the submission of any additional statements or questions. 

I thank our witnesses for their cooperation. We look forward to 

working with you to ultimately produce a happy outcome for the 

reuse of the West Campus of St. Elizabeths. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(31)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Madam Chairman, this is an important hearing. The Federal Government owns 

or leases 3.3 billion square feet of building floor area and has real property assets 

worth nearly 330 billion dollars. That’s a lot of property and a lot of money. 

I doubt anyone would argue that the Federal Government needs every square foot 

of that space. Clearly, the Federal Government could get rid of some of this property. 

There are ‘‘opportunity costs’’ when the Federal Government holds onto excess 

property: Taxpayers pay higher taxes to maintain the property and it’s not being 

put to a more beneficial use. Moreover, the money used to maintain property we 

don’t use isn’t available to refurbish the property we do use. According to the General Accounting Office, the General Services Administration has a maintenance and 

repair backlog of somewhere between 4.0 and 5.7 billion dollars. 

Clearly, the time is ripe for real property reform. 

There is another subject which I hope will be addressed to some extent today: Terrorism and its impact on government buildings and other property. 

We have been told that we are winning the war against terrorism. It sure doesn’t 

look like it to me. Just drive down Constitution Avenue or Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Barricades everywhere. Streets blocked off. It looks like a war zone. As best as I 

can tell, there are concrete barriers surrounding every government building in town 

except—interestingly—the Internal Revenue Service! Putting flowers in these things 

isn’t a big improvement! 

I realize much of this was done hastily, and is meant to be temporary. Let’s hope 

so. One of the important characteristics of our democracy is openness. We have lost 

that since 9-11. 

I don’t mean to trivialize the very real threat that modern terrorism poses but 

I would like to think that we have the creativity and skill to protect our buildings 

and other property without making Washington look like Berlin during the Cold 

War. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman.

32


90240.001
33


90240.002
34


90240.003
35


90240.004
36


90240.005
37


90240.006
38


90240.007
39


90240.008
40


90240.009
41


90240.010
42


90240.011
43


90240.012
44


90240.013
45


90240.014
46


90240.015
47


90240.016
48


90240.017
49


90240.018
50


90240.019
51


90240.020
52


90240.021
53


90240.022
54


90240.023
55


90240.024
56


90240.025
57


90240.026
58


90240.027
59


90240.028
60


90240.029
61


90240.030
62


90240.031
63


90240.032
64


90240.033
65


90240.034
66


90240.035
67


90240.036
68


90240.037
69


90240.038
70


90240.039
71


90240.040
72


90240.041
73


90240.042
74


90240.043
75


90240.044
76


90240.045
77


90240.046
78


90240.047
79


90240.048
80


90240.049
81


90240.050
82


90240.051
83


90240.052
84


90240.053
85


90240.054
86


90240.055
87


90240.056
88


90240.057
89


90240.058
90


90240.059
91


90240.060
92


90240.061
93


90240.062
94


90240.063
95


90240.064
96


90240.065
97


90240.066
98


90240.067
99


90240.068
100


90240.069
101


90240.070
102


90240.071
103


90240.072
104


90240.073
105


90240.074
106


90240.075
107


90240.076
108


90240.077
109


90240.078
110


90240.079
111


90240.080
112


90240.081
113


90240.082
114


90240.083
115


90240.084
116


90240.085
117


90240.086
118


90240.087
119


90240.088
120


90240.089
121


90240.090
122


90240.091
123


90240.092
124


90240.093
125


90240.094
126


90240.095
127


90240.096
128


90240.097
129


90240.098
130


90240.099
131


90240.100
132


90240.101
133


90240.102
134


90240.103
135


90240.104
136


90240.105
137


90240.106
138


90240.107
139


90240.108
140


90240.109
141


90240.110
142


90240.111
143


90240.112
144


90240.113
145


90240.114
146


90240.115
147


90240.116
148


90240.117
149


90240.118
150


90240.119
151


90240.120
152


90240.121
153


90240.122
154

Æ


90240.123