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

45–061 CC 1997

H.R. 404, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY

AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 404

TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 

ACT OF 1949 TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER TO STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS OF CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPTERTY FOR USE FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES

JUNE 3, 1997

Serial No. 105–56

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Counsel 

MARK BRASHER, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN HYNES, Professional Staff Member 

ANDREA MILLER, Clerk 

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 3, 1997 ................................................................................. 1

Text of H.R. 404 ................................................................................................ 6

Statement of: 

Bono, Hon. Sonny, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 19

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 8

Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Public Building Service, 

General Services Administration ................................................................. 22

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California .......... 13

Torres, Ascension (Sam), chairman, Joint Powers Authority; Larry Smith, 

sheriff, Riverside County, accompanied by Erick Schertell, sergeant 

and legal counsel, Riverside County ........................................................... 35

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Bono, Hon. Sonny, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 20

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 10

Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Public Building Service, 

General Services Administration, prepared statement of ......................... 24

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 14

Guthrie, Debbi Huffman, Monday Morning Group, prepared statement 

of ..................................................................................................................... 59

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

International Association of Fire Chiefs, prepared statement of ................. 73

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 5

Mullen, Tom, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement 

of ..................................................................................................................... 53

Smith, Larry, sheriff, Riverside County, prepared statement of .................. 43

Torres, Ascension (Sam), chairman, Joint Powers Authority, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 37

(1)

H.R. 404, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT 

OF 1949

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Horn, Davis of Virginia, Sununu, 

Maloney, and Davis of Illinois. 

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and counsel; Mark 

Brasher and John Hynes, professional staff members; Andrea Miller, clerk; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member; 

and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. 

Mr. HORN. A quorum being the present, the Subcommittee on 

Government Management, Information, and Technology will come 

to order. 

In 1949, the Commission on the Organization of the executive 

branch of the Government, known as the first Hoover Commission, 

recommended the creation of an agency, the General Services Administration, to coordinate purchases, utilization, and disposal of 

real and personal property. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 set forth the rules for the disposal of surplus Federal real estate. 

The Federal Property Act created a series of public benefit discounts whereby local government could obtain surplus Federal real 

estate. Today, we are reviewing a proposal to create a new public 

benefit. The current categories of public benefits for real property 

include public health, education, recreation, national service activities, historic monuments, correctional facilities, and shipping ports 

only in the case of base closure facilities. 

H.R. 404, which has been introduced by our colleague, Representative Ken Calvert, would expand the public benefit discount for 

‘‘correctional facilities’’ to cover ‘‘other law enforcement’’ and ‘‘public 

safety’’ activities. 

H.R. 404 has resulted from the following: Officials in Riverside 

County, CA, wanted to place a coroner’s office and a law enforcement and fire training academy on surplus Federal property at the 

March Air Force Base. That surplus property had become available 

2

through the actions of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission. The county would like the land and the buildings for 

these functions to be made available through one, not two, Federal 

agencies. Representative Calvert has drafted H.R. 404 to address 

this and similar situations. 

The subcommittee will hear from a number of witnesses who are 

involved in the administration of public benefit discount programs 

at some level, including a top official from the General Services Administration. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, 

will join us to discuss this important issue. She has introduced S. 

203, a companion bill to H.R. 404, in the Senate. Representative 

Calvert, author of H.R. 404, is here today. So is Representative 

Sonny Bono. 

From the administration, we are joined by Gordon Creed. He is 

Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Property Disposal in the Public 

Building Service of the General Services Administration. 

Also testifying today are two officials from California: Larry 

Smith, sheriff of Riverside County, CA; and Ascension (Sam) 

Torres, the chairman of the Joint Powers Authority, a local redevelopment agency set up by the State of California. 

Welcome to each of you. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Stephen Horn and Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, and the text of H.R. 404 follow:]

3


g:\graphics\45061.001
4


g:\graphics\45061.002
5


g:\graphics\45061.003
6


g:\graphics\45061.004
7


g:\graphics\45061.005
8

Mr. HORN. We now call on Representative Calvert to outline the 

fine piece of legislation he has drafted. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your kind 

introduction, and I appreciate assistance in putting this hearing together today. 

First, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein in advance—I understand she will also be here—for helping me introduce the Senate version of this important legislation, and she will be describing 

that shortly. 

I also would like to thank my good friend, Sonny Bono, who I understand will also be here shortly. We share Riverside County together. I represent the west end of Riverside County, and Representative Bono the east end. He is also a member of the House 

National Security Committee, and he has a special insight, being 

a former mayor of Palm Springs, as to what it is like to work with 

Federal levels on the local level, Federal agencies. 

The area we share, along with Representative George Brown and 

Representative Jerry Lewis, is known as the Inland Empire. This 

part of California has felt the impact of base closures at Norton 

and George Air Force Bases and the realignment of March to an 

Air Force Reserve base. 

I would like to thank Mr. Gordon Creed from GSA for taking the 

time to be here and testify in front of the committee. I would like 

to thank and welcome my close associates from Riverside, CA: 

Sheriff Larry Smith; Mr. Sam Torres, chairman of the March Joint 

Powers Commission at March Air Force Base; Debbi Guthrie, a 

member of the Riverside County Monday Morning Group; and Sergeant Eric Schertell of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. 

Finally, again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 404 and allowing the opportunity to have this 

hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, this issue first came to my attention as a result 

of a meeting which took place last year between some of our local 

community leaders and Mr. Dick Ward, deputy director of operations for the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

I was informed the Department of Justice is prohibited by statute from sponsoring excess Federal property for the purpose of law 

enforcement and/or public safety training facilities. The agency can 

only convey surplus Federal properties for prisons. H.R. 404 and its 

Senate companion, which is authored by our friend, Senator Feinstein—thank you—S. 203, will correct this restrictive language and 

allow the Department of Justice to apply its considerable expertise 

to sponsoring the use of excess Federal property for training of law 

enforcement and public safety officials. 

To date, there are over 25 bipartisan cosponsors of the measure 

in the Congress. As it is currently written, H.R. 404 authorizes the 

transfer to State and local governments of certain surplus property 

for use for law enforcement or public safety purposes. 

However, I understand that the General Services Administration 

has some concerns with the vagueness of the term ‘‘public safety.’’

To address their concerns, I have agreed to and intend to support 

9

an amendment that would change the language to state that the 

bill authorizes the transfer to State and local governments of surplus property for use for law enforcement or fire or rescue or life 

safety purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not solely intended for Riverside and 

March Air Force Base in California. This measure is applicable to 

all those military bases which are in the process of being closed or 

realigned. Actually, this change in law would apply to all excess 

real property, Federal excess real property. Thus, any community 

in the country could benefit from this improvement in the law. 

With the possible enactment of a new round of base closures, this 

bill becomes even more imperative. 

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce again Sheriff 

Larry Smith, who will be testifying soon, and my friend and colleague, Sonny Bono, who joined us, for his help in putting together 

this important legislation, as I mentioned earlier, in an area that 

we both represent. 

Sheriff Smith is the elected Sheriff of Riverside County and the 

chief law enforcement authority of the county. He commands California’s fourth largest sheriff’s department, supervising more than 

2,300 personnel. He entered the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in 1966 and started his career as a deputy sheriff in the 

Blythe, CA, jail and patrol station and has since held each successive rank in assignments across the county. 

Sheriff Smith was promoted to chief deputy in 1987 by then 

Sheriff Cois Byrd and was elected as Riverside County’s elected 

sheriff, winning the office in the June 1993 primary. He holds a 

bachelor’s degree in public management from the University of 

Pepperdine and has completed graduate work at the University of 

Southern California. We are proud to have him here today. 

Also with us is Sam Torres, my good friend from Perris, CA, who 

is chairman of the March Joint Powers Commission at March Air 

Force Reserve Base in California. Mr. Torres was selected chairman in January 1997. In 1991, Mr. Torres was elected to the City 

Council of Perris, an incorporated city of 31,000 in central Riverside County, which Mr. Bono and I both share as far as representing the city. 

As a member of the Perris City Council, Mr. Torres has accepted 

a number of related responsibilities. He is currently a member of 

the board of directors of the League of California Cities and held 

that position since 1996. He is also a member of the Latino Elected 

Officials Caucus of the League of California Cities and served as 

president of that caucus in 1993 and 1994. Councilman Torres resides in Perris with his wife of 18 years, Susan, and their children, 

Jessica and Sammy. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues and 

the committee for agreeing to hold this important hearing and look 

forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ken Calvert follows:]

10


g:\graphics\45061.006
11


g:\graphics\45061.007
12


g:\graphics\45061.008
13

Mr. HORN. We thank the gentleman very much for appearing. 

I am delighted now to welcome the senior Senator from California, one of the hardest working Senators I have known over 50 

years and the person who gets our legislation through on the Senate side. 

Thank you very much for coming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is 

good to see you again. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to support House 

Resolution 404. I would like to thank the two distinguished Members on my left and thank you for doing this. 

Obviously, we first learned about this from Riverside, from the 

Sheriff’s Office and from the Reuse Committee. This is rather 

straightforward legislation. Essentially, what it does for the first 

time, is really allow local jurisdictions and local law enforcement 

and fire fighting to obtain land on closed bases for the purpose of 

training. 

As I understand the law now, they cannot receive this land; they 

have leases. It is my understanding that what the Riverside Sheriff’s Department has done is engaged in five 1-year leases for about 

350 acres, including a noncommissioned officers academy. They use 

this for training purposes. 

They would like to participate in some private-public partnerships with respect to these training exercises but really cannot do 

so with any degree of certainty. As you well know, today the Department of Justice can only engage in a land conveyance if it is 

for a prison facility. Therefore, the Sheriff’s Department has to go 

through a bureaucratic maze with HHS and other departments if 

they wish to accomplish this. 

Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman—and I would hope my colleagues on my left would agree—that a major priority of Government is public safety. Law enforcement training and fire-fighting 

training not only saves the lives of the individuals in the forces, it 

also saves the lives of the civilian sector. So well trained fire fighters, well trained police officers, well trained deputy sheriffs, are extraordinarily important as a matter of public policy. 

I think this conveyance bill would essentially say to local government that you have an opportunity to obtain land on these closed 

bases. I can tell you, as a former mayor of San Francisco, that 

many of our law enforcement training programs are in less than 

suitable circumstances. Three hundred acres is a good chunk of 

San Francisco. We don’t have anything like that. This would mean 

that land could be conveyed at Alameda Naval Air Station, at 

Treasure Island, at various closed bases really throughout the 

United States, to provide for good and positive law enforcement 

training. 

So I am very happy to support this bill. I am introducing a similar bill in the Senate. I am hopeful that you will take the lead and 

pass it expeditiously, and I will do my best on the other side. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein follows:]

14


g:\graphics\45061.009
15


g:\graphics\45061.010
16


g:\graphics\45061.011
17


g:\graphics\45061.012
18


g:\graphics\45061.013
19

Mr. HORN. Good. We thank you for coming over, and we appreciate the time, and we thank you for that excellent staff you have. 

I see Menda sitting in the front row over there. We are very 

lucky people when we have staff people like you have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That is very much appreciated. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. 

I am now delighted to call on my colleague who represents one 

part of Riverside County, CA, Representative Sonny Bono, who will 

make his supporting statement on behalf of this bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this hearing 

today. I appreciate it. 

I want to thank Ken Calvert for writing this legislation and Senator Feinstein for similar legislation and for taking the time to go 

and observe this and understand it clearly and to explain it the 

way she has. She has really said it all. 

I guess to reiterate somewhat, I think her point was that if we 

turn these kind of things over to bureaucracy, having the opportunity to have a training center like this, where we can focus so 

directly on law prevention and fire safety and do it so well, and 

have a pilot program that could go across the Nation like this and 

not be interfered with by bureaucracy, because we all know that a 

bureaucracy would get involved, start dictating the terms, and the 

whole thing would fall apart and become a frustrating, unfortunate 

circumstance. 

However, I was fortunate enough to visit this site. It is running 

so efficiently, so effectively, and doing so well, that now Los Angeles Police Force wants to become part of it. It is a pilot program 

that can go across the Nation and be a winner for us all. 

So I wholeheartedly support this legislation. I wish you could all 

see how effectively it runs and how it is not interfered with by complicated bureaucracy, and it leaves it up to the local government 

and the local areas to handle it and work an area that they know 

well and works best. 

So I hope you see fit to approve this legislation. Again, I want 

to thank Ken Calvert for being so active in writing this and Senator Feinstein. I support it wholeheartedly. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sonny Bono follows:]

20


g:\graphics\45061.014
21


g:\graphics\45061.015
22

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much for coming. 

If there are not other comments from the two Representatives, 

we will move to panel two, which will be the Honorable Gordon 

Creed, deputy assistant commissioner, Public Building Service, 

General Services Administration. 

Mr. Creed, I think you know the routine with the Government 

Reform and Oversight Committee. If you will, Mr. Creed, just stand 

and take the oath. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that the gentleman confirmed the 

oath. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON CREED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. CREED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members. 

I am Gordon Creed, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Office of Property Disposal in the Public Building Service of the General Services Administration. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss House Resolution 404, a bill which would amend the 

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to authorize the 

transfer to State and local governments of certain surplus property 

if used for law enforcement and public safety purposes. 

I note that Congressman Calvert’s comment made earlier is a 

step in the right direction with regard to the public safety issue 

that I had raised in the testimony I had submitted for the committee. 

I would like to continue with my testimony, because there is a 

lot of misunderstanding as to the descent and distribution of property owned by the public both through the Government and as it 

becomes available for reuse by State and local communities. 

The Federal Property Administrative Services Act, which we generally refer to as the Federal Property Act, is the governing authority for the disposal of most Federal real property. Under the Federal Property Act, GSA is invested with the responsibility for administering an economic and efficient system for the orderly disposition of real property which the Government no longer needs. 

Under normal procedures, real property which is no longer needed by a Federal agency is reported to GSA as excess real property. 

GSA first notifies other landholding Federal agencies that such 

property is available for further Federal utilization. If we receive 

a properly justified request for further use of the property for further Federal purposes, it is then transferred to the requesting 

agency. Such transfers among Federal agencies fulfills the congressional objective stated in the Federal Property Act which is to minimize executive agencies’ expenditures for the acquisition of property through the efficient and effective utilization of excess property. 

If there is no further Federal requirement for a property, it then 

becomes available for disposal as surplus real property. Under existing provisions of law, eligible State and local government units 

and certain nonprofit institutions may acquire surplus real propVerDate 0ct 02 2002 11:25 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45061 45061
23

erty for restricted public purposes at monetary discounts of up to 

100 percent where such purposes reflect the highest and best use 

of the property. 

Eligible public uses include public parks and recreation, historic 

monuments, public airports, public health, public education, port 

use, correctional facilities, highways, and wildlife conservation. 

In accordance with the requirements of the Stewart B. McKinney 

Homeless Assistance Act, property—Federal properties determined 

suitable by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

are also made available for homeless assistance on a priority basis 

by GSA in coordination with the Department of Health and Human 

Resources. State and local public bodies may purchase surplus real 

property by negotiated sale at fair market value for unrestricted 

use. 

Property which is not transferred for public purposes to non-Federal public bodies is generally offered for sale to the public by GSA 

through competitive bid offerings and public auctions. Such sales 

benefit the locality by placing the property in productive use, returning it to the tax rolls, and providing the taxpayer a measure 

of cost recovery. Proceeds from the sale of surplus real property are 

generally placed in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 

is administered by the Department of the Interior, and in turn provides grants for local park and recreational projects. 

In every decision involving the disposal of excess property, we 

are required by law to consider the environmental and cultural impacts resulting from proposed dispositions in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, and other relevant statutes. 

Hence, the GSA real property disposition process involves the full 

participation of the public, the State and local government, and 

Federal agencies. 

GSA has not taken a formal position on H.R. 404 which seeks to 

amend section 203(p) of the Federal Property Act by expanding the 

qualifying public purpose from correctional facilities purposes to 

law enforcement and public safety purposes. My comments therefore are technical in nature. 

The Federal Property Act was amended in 1984 to add section 

203(p) in response to a recommendation made by the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime. The task force concluded at 

that time that State and local governments were in need of additional resources to reduce prison overcrowding, and the conveyance 

of surplus real property for this purpose was seen as a means to 

help correct this problem. 

The rest of my testimony with regard to the correctional facility 

purposes and to the public safety purposes I think was addressed 

earlier by Congressman Calvert, where he suggests that the term 

‘‘law enforcement and public safety’’ would now read ‘‘law enforcement and/or fire and rescue purposes.’’ I think that is more clear 

of an intent by Congress for purposes of administering this amendment to the Federal Property Act. 

Mr. Chairman, this would conclude my statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you and the other members of 

the subcommittee may wish to ask. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Creed follows:]

24


g:\graphics\45061.016
25


g:\graphics\45061.017
26


g:\graphics\45061.018
27


g:\graphics\45061.019
28


g:\graphics\45061.020
29

Mr. HORN. Well, I thank you very much for that very thorough 

background as to the role—the extent of surplus property and 

GSA’s role in it. Your testimony did raise a number of general 

questions. 

The program agencies sponsor land conveyances for these public 

benefit discounts. What sort of oversight is performed by these various program agencies to ensure that the property transferred was 

not put into another unapproved use or sold? Does GSA have any 

role in this oversight and whether from a survey standpoint, coordination, providing guidance—how do you work that process? 

Mr. CREED. Within Title II of the Federal Property Act, different 

executive agencies have the right to dispose of surplus real property for a particular public use, and those agencies are also required to monitor the use of the property for its compliance of the 

public purpose. 

With regard to the General Services Administration, we are 

charged by statute to monitor and comply the conveyance of properties for correctional facility use and for fish and wildlife use. 

We have a compliance program that goes region to region and 

identifies on a regular basis properties to be visited, surveys the intended use or the actual use of the property, and ensures that the 

property is not being appropriated to a nonapproved use in violation with the terms and conditions in the deed. 

Where the property has been found to be in noncompliance, generally the agency—in this instance, the GSA—would request for 

the property to be reverted. 

The Department of Education has a compliance program. The 

Department of Health and Human Services has also a compliance 

program, as does the Department of Interior. 

GSA generally meets with the other executive agencies and coordinates to find and apply best practices where, for example, if 

there is one State that may have several different properties, it 

might be best practices today to have one surveyor to go and review all public benefit conveyances rather than have five agencies 

go for five different times for five different purposes. We are looking to try to re-engineer our approach to meet the best practices 

of the industry as if we were a corporation. 

Mr. HORN. Is there a certain timetable GSA has on which they 

try to see what has happened to this disposed property that became 

surplus? 

Mr. CREED. We have a regular 5-year plan where, in 5 years, all 

properties will have been completely surveyed. So it would not be 

once; it would probably be 20 percent per year for 5 years, to have 

a total review for compliance purposes, and then the sixth year we 

start over. 

Mr. HORN. Is that a GSA-paid official, or consultant, or appraiser, or however one might contract? 

Mr. CREED. Generally, the Office of Property Disposal will try to 

identify properties within an area when a real estate specialist is 

going into an area to review property that is being reported excess 

by an executive agency, to also use the trip as a two-fer, meaning 

they will not only visit a particular military base or Coast Guard 

facility, but if there is also additional property in the area, to use 

that occasion, those costs incurred for that trip, to try to get extra 

30

mileage by going and also checking on compliance of other properties. 

In essence, they will try to find the shortest path here for purposes of compliance. 

Mr. HORN. Do you have an estimate of how many properties GSA 

has that they would have to look at 20 percent a year, let’s say, 

over a 5-year period, to cover the number, and you would have 

even more at the end of that 5-year period? 

Mr. CREED. Well, for the General Services Administration, we 

would be reviewing only two categories of conveyances, for fish and 

wildlife and for correctional facility. We have those numbers, and 

I would be happy to provide those to the committee. 

Mr. HORN. If you have them with you right now; do you? 

Mr. CREED. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. HORN. We will put them in the record then at this point. 

How many reversions of property have you had because it didn’t 

meet the intended use for which the property was given to a nonprofit or local government or whatever? 

Mr. CREED. I do not have the actual numbers, but I do know of 

instances where the Government has conveyed property and the 

property has not been placed in or maintained for the intended use, 

and therefore there was a requirement that the Government revert 

the property, bring the property back for further redeployment. I 

do know of instances where that has occurred. I will be happy to 

provide that additional information to the committee. 

Mr. HORN. Sure. Without objection, it will be included at this 

point in the record. 

As I understand it, some of the public benefit discounts are to be 

used in perpetuity, recreation as one example. So that wouldn’t be 

just a 5-year matter. You are saying you would—we are looking at 

the fish and wildlife to see proper usage there, and you are also 

looking at correctional facilities. 

Mr. CREED. Yes. 

Mr. HORN. Now, is that because they are primarily in your jurisdiction? Correctional comes under Justice, doesn’t it? 

Mr. CREED. That is correct. But under the Property Act, the deed 

is executed by the administrator. The Department of Justice’s role 

is to review the application of use, and then GSA’s role is to continue for the compliance. 

Mr. HORN. If the Department of Education gives a public benefit 

for education, is the Department of Education supposed to go out 

and look to see that that school or whatever happened on that 

property is still there every 5 years, or is GSA supposed to do that? 

Mr. CREED. It would be the Department of Education. 

Mr. HORN. See, I guess part of me says why doesn’t GSA run this 

whole surplus property operation, get the advice of the relevant 

Cabinet Department, but where you have a conflict between two 

Departments or a nervousness that they are not carrying out the 

law—let’s say Education is arguing over, is law enforcement training really an education kind of thing? 

Now, I happen to be an educator. I have spent 18 years of my 

life as a university president and 18 years of my life as one of the 

founders and later as chairman of the board of the National InstiVerDate 0ct 02 2002 11:25 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45061 45061
31

tute of Corrections. So I spent a lot of time on correctional problems. 

The fact is that the law enforcement training, or the deputy sheriffs or police in an area, and the role of correctional training, there 

is a lot of overlap, there is a lot of educational content in these 

courses, and I don’t know why we can’t have the agencies give you 

advice and, if there is some difference, GSA has the final say on 

behalf of the Federal Government. 

It seems to me that was the vision of GSA, was to get one group 

that you could hold accountable for the stewardship of Federal surplus property. I would just ask, what do you think about that? 

Mr. CREED. In the spirit of re-engineering, we always find that 

there are economies of scale to be recognized where activities are 

combined. So as to whether this might be a more efficient way, it 

very well may be, yes. 

Mr. HORN. It just seems to me you are the specialists in property 

usage. It seems to me if somebody is going to be an objective source 

as to whether this property has been used in accord with the actual 

benefit given to it, that GSA could imply some consistency across 

the board and would also be able to handle the reuse of that property if it has been misused, both the reversion, the advertising, and 

going around maybe the same priority system. You would have to 

go around when you were giving a public benefit the second time. 

But I would think in terms of the administration, with the President’s goal to have 100,000 police and/or deputies on the streets to 

help reduce the level of violence and improve law enforcement in 

this country, that the application of this area for law enforcement 

training would be right in line with what the administration is trying to encourage. 

Do you feel that way? 

Mr. CREED. I believe that the property could lend itself toward 

the potential reuse being sought here by the Riverside County, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. HORN. They are also running into a problem in terms of the 

coroner function. I happened to head a university that had a very 

distinguished criminal justice program and forensic program in the 

chemistry department working for criminal justice, and I can assure you, in training of police and in training of deputy sheriffs, if 

they are to be properly trained, there is a role for what the coroner 

does. And if it is right there, handy, young, or newly sworn-in recruits can see what a coroner does and understand that. 

A lot of court cases, as we know recently, have been lost by the 

inability of either the law enforcement personnel or the coroner’s 

staff to be able to state the case in simple English to a jury. I 

would think that this shouldn’t be something that we say, gee, 

sorry, we can’t do it. And you are not saying it, it is another agency 

that conceivably is saying it, but we have got to look at these in 

a broader context, because they are related, they are not something 

180 degrees apart. They are something that any progressive training program ought to utilize. At least as I read this file, that is 

what struck me. 

What is wrong with the coroner using the facilities and also having law enforcement training and still correctional facility, whatever? 

32

Mr. CREED. What GSA has attempted to do over the last few 

years is to be more flexible with the local communities. Where a 

local community has applied for property for public education use 

and found that, due to circumstances beyond their control, it is not 

feasible to continue to use the property, in the past GSA would require that the property revert back to the Government. 

We found this was frustrating much of the local community, 

when the community would come and say, ‘‘We could have applied 

for it as a historic monument, but we selected public education. We 

are very sorry we made the wrong choice.’’ Our policy today is to allow the transfer of restrictive covenants 

from a particular property to another qualifying public benefit discount conveyance. Therefore, we would allow the grantee, generally 

the city, to remain the owner of the property. They would retain 

possession of the property. Rather than the property being restricted for one particular use, we would allow it to be changed, 

and therefore not upset the intent and the spirit of the community 

to redeploy for its true purposes, which were not clear at the application process. 

Yes, you are absolutely correct, forensic science, it could be public 

health type purposes very clearly, but then again it is also combined with educational purposes, public education. In fact, there 

might even be a hybrid. This is one of the areas that does cause 

some frustration for a local community to select between option A 

or option B. These are the available options. Sometimes A doesn’t 

fit. 

Mr. HORN. I think you are absolutely right. Does your statue, according to your general counsel, need a liberalization so you can 

cross over these categories and not have to feel that it is either/or, 

but it is both/and? 

Mr. CREED. I could obtain an opinion of counsel and provide that 

for the committee if that would help. 

Mr. HORN. If it isn’t too much trouble, I would like to clarify 

that. We will put it in the record at this point without objection. 

I think that would be very helpful, not that we like to reopen a lot 

of statutes, but you have a lot of experience now since the Hoover 

Commission dealing with surplus Federal property. It seems to me 

if it would give you the flexibility you need to be carrying out the 

spirit of the law and to turn it over to public entities which are 

higher on the running than just putting it up for auction, unless 

they are going to turn it into a parking lot or a mall or something. 

But it just seems to me you need that flexibility. So if there is a 

problem here, I think we ought to know about it and try to make 

a change, as suggested by GSA. 

Mr. CREED. We will prepare that. 

Mr. HORN. Very good. 

Mr. CREED. Request to the counsel’s office and have them 

promptly respond back to the committee. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. I now yield time to the gentleman from 

Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say, first of all, you certainly have a way of attracting Californians. I thought for a moment that I was out West and everybody from California was here. 

33

Mr. HORN. Let me say to the gentleman, on voting day we wish 

we were in Chicago. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Creed, is this 

legislation necessary, or could the purpose be served under the existing base realignment and closure laws? 

Mr. CREED. That is a very good question. Under the Base Closure 

and Realignment Act, the Administrator of General Services was 

required to delegate his authority to the Secretary of Defense. 

There is no present provision that provides for the conveyance of 

surplus real property for law enforcement purposes. 

There is one additional authority that under BRAC, Base Closure 

and Realignment Act, that was given by Congress to the Secretary 

of the Department of Defense, and that is the authority to convey 

property for economic development purposes. I think they are 

called EDC, economic development conveyances. 

Generally, as I understand the EDC process, the properties that 

are available for such conveyances must be for job creation and to 

stimulate the local economic development because of the economic 

conditions created by the military closure of an installation. 

I don’t know whether the Department of Defense would view the 

intended activities at this subject property to qualify for economic 

development purposes. So there may be a big question mark there 

as to whether the properties could be conveyed under DOD’s authority. Therefore, it comes back to is there another provision to 

provide for the conveyance of property for law enforcement. No, 

there is not, not in the Property Act. There is for public education, 

there is for public health, but, no, there is not for law enforcement 

purposes. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. How much property are we talking about 

now? How big? 

Mr. CREED. At March Air Force Base? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes. 

Mr. CREED. I have some facts, but I think probably Sheriff Smith 

may have more accurate facts than me. I believe it may be 300 

acres for one parcel and another parcel with a hospital complex is 

25 acres approximately. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And is all of it being proposed to be used? 

Mr. CREED. I am not certain with regard to the proposal for 

reuse. The legislation as drafted is generic legislation, it is not sitespecific, so what portion would be eligible for conveyance under 

this authority, that decision has not been made. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. OK. In sub-paragraph 4, there is an unusual retroactive provision which suggests that a property previously transferred for use as a correctional facility could, with the 

approval of the Attorney General, be transferred to a different public entity for use in a law enforcement or public safety purpose. 

Would you have any opinion about this provision? 

Mr. CREED. Not at this time. 

Mr. DAVIS. So actually it is just simply suggesting that as long 

as it is for law enforcement use, it does not really matter which entity has it, or if it is found that a different entity could use it for 

the same or similar purposes, then the act would still be in force. 

Is that sort of the understanding? 

34

Mr. CREED. We have not looked at that provision as to the scope 

of its implementation. It appears to provide some flexibility for 

properties that had previously been conveyed for a correctional facility, may now be conveyed or by reformation made to allow for 

law enforcement purposes. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The center has already been established. 

That is, the training center has already been established at the 

base and plans are being made now, I understand, for police and 

fire stations and a coroner’s office. Do you know what this does to 

the value of the land or the value of the facility itself? 

Mr. CREED. I am sorry, could I ask you to repeat the question? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The training center has already been established and I understand that plans are being made to police and 

fire stations and a coroner’s office. I guess my question was just 

simply, do you have an idea of what this does for the value of the 

property? 

Mr. CREED. No. 1, I don’t know what the value is of the subject 

property at March Air Force Base. If we were to obtain an appraisal, I think those matters would be addressed by the appraiser 

as to any in-place use for such purposes as to how the property 

would be valued with these types of improvements and activities in 

place. But I wouldn’t know at this time. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think it is a tremendous use actually 

of the property. I think it is a creative way of making use of property which otherwise in all likelihood may very well be fallow. So 

I certainly commend the authors of the legislation and wish I had 

been a cosponsor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. We certainly can add you to the bill. I am sure the 

gentleman from part of Riverside County will be delighted to file 

the appropriate form, as soon as we are in session. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. I agree with you on that. I thought for a while you 

were going to say there goes the neighborhood. I mean, is it the 

coroner or what, in terms of having any residential housing out 

there? But, I don’t know. It just seems to me that this makes a lot 

of sense. 

Does the gentleman from New Hampshire have any questions? 

Mr. SUNUNU. No. 

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much for coming. Mr. Creed, can 

you stay with us for a while as we have the third panel? Just keep 

your seat there. We will have the third panel up, and if questions 

come up, it is an easy way to resolve things. 

Panel three, Mr. Torres, Mr. Smith, accompanied by Mr. 

Schertell. I will introduce you individually once you have started 

testifying. 

Gentleman, we have a tradition on this committee of taking the 

oath for all witnesses except Members of Congress. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that all three witnesses have affirmed. We will just follow the agenda we have laid out here, where 

we will have first Ascension Sam Torres, the chairman of the Joint 

Powers Authority. You might explain to us, Mr. Torres, how that 

works in relation to this surplus property. 

35

STATEMENTS OF ASCENSION (SAM) TORRES, CHAIRMAN, 

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY; LARRY SMITH, SHERIFF, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ACCOMPANIED BY ERICK SCHERTELL, SERGEANT AND LEGAL COUNSEL, RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

Mr. TORRES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, members of the committee, for allowing us to come here and 

testify on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department and explain a little bit 

about March Joint Powers Commission and its support of H.R. 404. 

As was already stated, the March Air Force Base was closed as 

a result of a 1993 BRAC action. When it was announced in 1993, 

the JPA was formed through the agencies, the surrounding political 

entities of the county of Riverside, the city of Riverside, the city of 

Moreno Valley, and the city of Perris. We formed, agreed, there 

were equal voting shares on this commission. Unlike some of our 

local fellow redevelopment agencies, we agreed, we formed, and we 

moved forward. 

The planning process included a screening of the surplus properties, as I stated earlier, for the priority use by other DOD agencies, Federal departments and homes assistance providers. When 

this was completed, the land and buildings that were not claimed 

by any of these eligible entities were then analyzed for community 

reuse, and at the March Air Force Base, the March Joint Powers 

Commission approved a master reuse plan that has become the 

guiding policy for the conveyance of the surplus policies. 

During this planning process, the 1994 Riverside County Sheriff’s Department presented a proposal to the JPC to use the existing noncommissioned officers academy as a public safety training 

center. This proposal was embraced by the community and by the 

JPC, and subsequently we approved and supported the 365-acre 

site which was identified. This, I believe, was the site of the training facility, and doesn’t include the hospital itself, which I believe 

was pretty actively stated was approximately 20 acres. That is now 

the Ben Clark public training facility, which promises to be a 

model for training of fire and safety and police officers. 

In regards to the property conveyance, disposition of surplus Federal property can be accomplished via a number of different conveyance methods. When public use of the property is planned, the 

most expedient and cost-effective method for transferring ownership is through a public benefit conveyance process. 

The proposed new owner applies either to the current owner of 

the surplus Federal property, in this case the Air Force, or through 

some sponsoring Federal agency. Although the creation of the public training center is a unique opportunity, there is currently no 

sponsoring Federal agency that has been given the authority to 

convey the property for the specific use. 

The March Joint Power Commission supports the Riverside 

County Sheriff’s Department for receiving a PBC transfer of the 

proposed site for permanent use as a public safety training center. 

As a solution, we support H.R. 404 as that method of conveyance 

that would allow the sheriffs to take over the property. The Sheriff’s Department now does occupy a portion of the site and the 

training of fire fighters and police officers is occurring at March Air 

Force Base. The Joint Powers Authority needs your help to make 

this a permanent asset to law enforcement in southern California. 

36

In the process, the training center becomes a fine example of the 

local community taking advantage of an unfortunate base closure. 

The result is a win-win situation that should be supported in any 

way possible. We urge your adoption of H.R. 404. 

Again, for us as a local reuse authority that has been charged 

over the last 4 years to find a suitable use for this property, it is 

for us a model to demonstrate not only to the local communities, 

but I think nationally an effective way of reuse of disposed property. We wholeheartedly support the Sheriff’s application and will 

continue to be here to answer any questions or any specific questions to March Air Force Base, the Joint Powers Commission and 

its role in this process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Torres follows:]

37


g:\graphics\45061.021
38


g:\graphics\45061.022
39


g:\graphics\45061.023
40

Mr. HORN. We thank you. Before I ask Sheriff Smith to speak, 

I would like to clarify the exact acreage. In your testimony you say 

by 1996, the buildings plus a 365-acre site was identified, and you 

said for fire, safety, police. So that is where that training and pistol 

range, whatever else is needed, would be, on that acreage; is that 

correct? 

Mr. TORRES. Yes. 

Mr. HORN. Sheriff, you are free to get in here. We wanted to get 

the numbers right to start with. Then you are saying 20 acres besides that would be the coroner facility? 

Mr. TORRES. They are noncontiguous prompt properties. The hospital, which would be the coroner’s office, is separate from the contiguous 365 acres which does contain all of the old NCO training 

facility. 

Mr. HORN. How far away is the coroner’s area? 

Mr. TORRES. My estimation would probably be perhaps a mile. 

Mr. HORN. A mile. So these are not contiguous properties. These 

are two different properties on a vast base of thousands of acres, 

I assume. What is the total acreage of March? 

Mr. SMITH. Approximately 7,000. 

Mr. HORN. 7,000 acres. It is a strategic air command base, so the 

runways are pretty long. OK. I think we have got that straight. 

Now, Sheriff Larry Smith of Riverside County, he is accompanied 

by Eric Schertell, sergeant and legal counsel for Riverside County. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Horn. Honorable Members, I 

am Larry Smith, sheriff of Riverside County. My agency, along 

with a host of partners, is currently operating the Clark Park 

training center at March Base in southern California. 

A quick point of clarification for Congressman Davis, I was born 

in Illinois and lived there in my youth, and Mr. Schertell was born 

and raised in Rhode Island. So we do have some other diversity, 

other than all being from California. 

But I am here today to present testimony on H.R. 404 authored 

by Congressman Calvert and urge that it be approved by, moved 

by this committee. 

H.R. 404 and its companion bill, S. 203 authored by Senator 

Feinstein, and I appreciate her appearance here today, will provide 

the means for the Department of Justice to sponsor the transfer of 

surplus Federal real property to local agencies for public safety use. 

For purposes of my testimony today, public safety is intended to 

refer to emergency first responders, fire, emergency medical personnel, and law enforcement officers. 

The Riverside County’s Sheriff’s Department would directly benefit by this bill, as we will seek the transfer of certain land at 

March Air Force Base in Riverside County, CA. Traditionally, public safety and law enforcement training has been accomplished separately by individual agencies throughout the State of California, 

and, frankly, throughout this Nation. However, we believe that we 

have a better way. We seek to provide a consolidated training and 

education program available to all public safety agencies at a central location. 

We believe that if you train together, you are going to work more 

effectively together in emergency scenes, where every second 

counts and where the loss of time may well mean the loss of life. 

41

At the scene of emergencies, those who respond first must work 

quickly and efficiently. However, law enforcement officers, fire department personnel, and emergency medical technicians, must also 

work cooperatively. Each agency has its independent responsibility, 

but they are also clearly interdependent. Each must know the responsibilities of the other in order to work effectively. Rather than 

wait for years of experience to buildup to fill in the gaps, we propose to include this as part of the basic training. That is why the 

Sheriff’s Department and fire department have established a consolidated training center at March Air Force Base. 

The project includes a consolidated public safety training center 

and resources, also an emergency operations center for law enforcement and fire operations, and also the ability to provide temporary 

housing to support emergency workers. 

We are also master planning the site for a Sheriff’s patrol station 

and a fire station, which would provide basic service to the surrounding community while connected to our training curriculum. 

At the site of the current hospital, the second item, the plan is 

to install the Office of the Coroner in that facility on two floors, to 

use an additional two floors in partnership with a local university 

to provide forensic science training, as well as emergency medical 

training for personnel and use the remaining balance for administrative support functions and our technical and forensic services, 

such as CAL–ID, which is our automated fingerprint system in 

California. 

We recognize that there is a great potential for this type of 

project to be replicated nationwide at military bases that may be 

closed or otherwise considered for alternative uses, and we believe 

that other programs that are responsive to the public’s need will 

be created by local agencies if they are given access to surplus Federal property. 

In terms of Federal agency sponsorship of general law enforcement project, there is no single agency or collection of agencies that 

can fully sponsor our current project or the others I would anticipate seeing in the future. I clearly appreciate the efforts of Mr. 

Creed of the General Services Agency, who we met with to assist 

us in identifying the issues here. 

The Department of Education can only handle the training aspect and the Department of Health and Human Services can handle the coroner function, and maybe some of the emergency medical 

training issues. But the result is you have a split-up of the project 

and you are accountable already to two different agencies, and we 

believe that that will not fully cover our project, and also will multiply our administrative coordination and reporting problems. 

We have met and discussed the matter with the Department of 

Education. They confirmed that they can’t handle the entire 

project, as well as meeting with representatives of Health and 

Human Services, who also confirmed they cannot handle the entire 

project. So the Department of Justice is the natural sponsor, I 

think, for a law enforcement related project. 

We seek their participation as a sponsor, and we think that this 

is critical to our success. If you think about it, it seems a reasonable adjustment to consider in the current transfer authorization 

bill. We all agree, I think, that public safety and law enforcement 

42

activities are a high priority to all citizens and public safety is 

everybody’s business. 

H.R. 404 would open the base reuse process to law enforcement 

and public safety agencies nationwide. It doesn’t seek a higher priority for public safety projects; it just simply creates access where 

no access has been available. The Department of Justice, GSA, 

would hold us to the same standards for review and approval of applications, and the necessary processes and controls of these applications could remain in place. 

Public safety agencies would still be required to meet the appropriate test of activity and program services or lose those resources. 

Clearly by this bill, we are asking for access, but to also be held 

to the standards that everybody else must be held to, no more, no 

less. We believe through the passage of the bill, we will be able to 

implement a project that will have positive effects on public safety 

services and simultaneously demonstrate a benefit that may arise 

from these base closures. 

We believe that given access to the surplus property, we will 

have a project that will also save taxpayers money, because we will 

have a more efficient and effective delivery of training services, and 

that is something I think that every taxpayer can support. 

I appreciate the time you have provided me to present these comments. I stand ready to answer any questions that the committee 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

43


g:\graphics\45061.024
44


g:\graphics\45061.025
45


g:\graphics\45061.026
46


g:\graphics\45061.027
47


g:\graphics\45061.028
48


g:\graphics\45061.029
49


g:\graphics\45061.030
50


g:\graphics\45061.031
51


g:\graphics\45061.032
52

Mr. HORN. I thank the Sheriff for his testimony. It has been very 

helpful. 

We have in our books here the testimony of Tom Mullen, Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Without objection, that testimony will be put in the record at this point as if read. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mullen follows:]

53


g:\graphics\45061.033
54


g:\graphics\45061.034
55


g:\graphics\45061.035
56


g:\graphics\45061.036
57


g:\graphics\45061.037
58

Mr. HORN. Were there any other statements? Here is the testimony of Debbi Huffman Guthrie, representing the Monday Morning Group, in favor of H.R. 404. Without objection, that will be put 

in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Guthrie follows:]

59


g:\graphics\45061.038
60


g:\graphics\45061.039
61


g:\graphics\45061.040
62


g:\graphics\45061.041
63


g:\graphics\45061.042
64


g:\graphics\45061.043
65


g:\graphics\45061.044
66


g:\graphics\45061.045
67


g:\graphics\45061.046
68


g:\graphics\45061.047
69


g:\graphics\45061.048
70


g:\graphics\45061.049
71


g:\graphics\45061.050
72

Mr. HORN. Let’s just see if we have some others here. 

That is it. There will be a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, who enthusiastically endorses this proposal. 

That will be put in the record. 

[The letter referred to follows:]

73


g:\graphics\45061.051
74

Mr. HORN. Now, are there any questions you would like to ask 

of GSA and any questions Mr. Creed would like to ask of you? I 

think this would be a good chance to get all the facts out on the 

table in just what we are talking about. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Creed and I have personally met and talked over 

the phone, and I think his testimony accurately reflects the state 

of where we are today. 

Mr. HORN. Does the gentleman from Riverside County, Mr. Calvert, wish to comment on anything else? Do you see any loose ends 

here? We want a complete record. 

Mr. CALVERT. I, again, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to have this hearing. As you heard from Senator Feinstein and Congressman Bono, this isn’t just important to California, I think this is a program that Sheriff Smith correctly outlined 

that can be very important to the entire country for law enforcement purposes and public safety purposes. It makes good sense. 

Unfortunately, GSA doesn’t have the ability to work within the 

existing law, so this is necessary to move forward where we can get 

this project moving forward. 

Sheriff Smith is certainly proud of what he has accomplished 

there to this date, and I think we look forward to many of the public safety agencies, both Federal, State and local, participating on 

this property for joint training for public safety purposes, whether 

it is earthquakes in California or floods or wherever else we have. 

So I think this is great legislation, with all due modesty. 

I look forward to your support. 

Mr. HORN. I think it is an excellent piece of legislation. But let 

me ask Mr. Creed, in terms of public benefits, if that 300 acres was 

used for a law enforcement training benefit, nothing else would 

really occur on that 300 acres, I take it. Is that the way the various 

benefits work? They are exclusionary once the mission is fulfilled 

there? 

Mr. CREED. Under the Federal Property Act, when surplus real 

property is made available for public health purposes, the Secretary of HHS promulgates regulations to describe what qualifies 

as public health. Presently, there are about eight different activities. The latest activi- ty is for the homeless, to make that a public 

health-type activ- ity. Similarly, the new section 204(p) could conceivably be defined 

through implementing regulations as to exactly what type of activities would encompass law enforcement. So, therefore, conceivably 

training or some other activities could further be developed 

through the Department of Justice. But while those types of activities could be probably changed and modified, the property would 

remain restricted for those types of public purposes on the redeployment of the property. So, therefore, no, the property could not 

be used for some other public benefit, discount conveyance. 

Mr. HORN. Let me ask the representatives from Riverside County, is all 300 acres needed? Essentially, have you scoped out what 

your needs are? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, the existing property that we currently have 

under sublease is being used pretty much as classroom training 

sites, as well as support area. The proposed uses in our program 

of the open space currently in the process would be to develop a

75

canine and equestrian process, a computer training center, a correctional training complex, a driver’s training course for skills driving, an emergency staging area, fire and life safety complex. 

Currently, there is no development of that. An example would be 

fire towers and those kinds of issues, a physical training complex 

and the scenario training village. Because we are trying to develop 

a skills-based training site, and we now have in terms of the actual 

buildings and property, we have the classroom setting. 

What we basically need now is to develop the ability to go out 

and do applied training. And that is the essential part of the issue 

of the additional land in the complex. 

Mr. HORN. Let me ask you, Mr. Creed, have you ever been faced 

in GSA with a situation where two agencies were needed to sponsor a public benefit discount? Have you had that situation arise before? Which is really this situation. 

Mr. CREED. Generally, the situation is you will have two communities, you will have a municipality——

Mr. HORN. Could you get that microphone a little closer? It is a 

little hard to hear. 

Mr. CREED. Generally, what we will encounter is a municipality 

or a county or a State each applying for a public use which is dissimilar from the others. We may have public education competing 

against a public health type of use, but never have we had the situation where there would be two public benefit sponsors for the 

same property. 

Mr. HORN. I see. They might be contiguous, but they haven’t 

been overlapping? 

Mr. CREED. Correct. 

Mr. HORN. And so you haven’t really had to bring the forces together. We just haven’t had that factual situation you are telling 

me? 

Mr. CREED. No, we have not. 

Mr. HORN. So even if we gave you the power based on that 

memorandum you are going to get from legal counsel as to liberalizing the law so GSA can act and solve these prob- lems. The problem just hasn’t arisen before, so you would have a problem like 

this. What do you think is the common sense thing to do? 

Mr. CREED. In GSA’s role as being the Government’s property 

manager and disposal agent, we try to serve as a facilitator to 

bring the different sponsoring agencies together. On May 5th, we 

met with Sheriff Smith and people from Riverside to get an initial 

grasp of the facts surrounding these particular 300 acres of the 

base. 

Yesterday, GSA conferred with the Departments of Health and 

Human Services and with the Department of Education to try to 

see if there is some flexibility by combined efforts as a single team. 

So is this new territory for GSA? Yes. It it is one that we continue to remake available and seek to assist the county of Riverside 

in its efforts to redeploy the property for these purposes. 

Mr. HORN. Was your feeling after meeting with the other agencies that as they interpret the law, there was no way to solve the 

problem? 

76

Mr. CREED. It was my understanding that they couldn’t pull the 

elephant through the door, meaning—— Mr. CREED. Meaning all, both the 300 acres and the 20 acres as 

dedicated for public health purposes, nor could the Department of 

Education pull both parcels through for public education. But there 

may be an approach whereby one parcel could be for public education and perhaps the other parcel could be for public health-type 

use, and there might be some flexibility with these two departments to try to attain a success here. 

Mr. HORN. I think GSA would be a good arbiter on behalf of the 

executive branch to solve the problem. If you need the authority, 

we certainly ought to try to amend the bill to get that authority 

and bring it before the House and ship it to the Senate. I think we 

could solve problems all over America, because there has got to be 

similar situations like this that will grow as we face up to what are 

we going to do with the huge lands that have been turned over as 

surplus Federal property. That gives the community and the Government flexibility to do the right thing, which I think is important. 

Are there any other questions? We are delighted to have the 

ranking minority member here, Mrs. Maloney of New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just really would 

like to ask Mr. Calvert, why you are using this approach as opposed to just a land conveyance that happens all the time in Congress, that is narrowly tailored just for this specific purpose and 

this particular situation? 

Mr. CALVERT. Under the existing laws, as was pointed out earlier, GSA cannot convey the property other than for a corrections 

facility or for education uses or public health. So for law enforcement purposes and public safety purposes, we need this legislation 

in order for the Department of Justice to be able to be the sponsoring agency and to convey the property. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But oftentimes in Congress they will put in just 

a special conveyance bill for a particular piece of property. 

Mr. CALVERT. We believe that besides just March Air Force Base, 

California, as Senator Feinstein pointed out earlier, we have experienced a number of base closures, and law enforcement throughout 

the State of California and certainly throughout the United States 

may also find it necessary to find excess Federal property for this 

type of use. So it would give the flexibility to GSA throughout the 

country by changing language to allow for law enforcement and 

public safety activities to be conveyed without further legislation. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you consider trying to arrange the transfer 

of this property under the base realignment and closure laws? Did 

you try to convey it through those laws, and, if not, why didn’t you? 

Mr. CALVERT. Again, this is certainly for the public use and for 

the local communities, so it doesn’t really define as economic development, because it is not going to be developed into an industrial 

park or a shopping center. It is to be used for public use. So it really doesn’t define as economic development under the base realignment laws as they exist today. 

So really we certainly attempted to find a way to do this without 

having to pass this legislation. There has been a lot of other Members, both Republicans and Democrats, by the way, who have also 

tried to find some ways to do this and have found that this legislaVerDate 0ct 02 2002 11:25 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45061 45061
77

bers, both Republicans and Democrats, by the way, who have also 

tried to find some ways to do this and have found that this legislation is necessary in order to make sure that we can have this take 

place, not only in Riverside, but throughout the United States. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank you for your testimony, and I have no 

further questions. It merely expands it to law enforcement. It already covers correctional. I have no objection to it. I would request 

that my opening statement be put in the record as read. 

Mr. HORN. It will be put in the record at the beginning of opening statements as read. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Well, any further comments, Mr. Creed, you would 

like to make? Gentlemen? Mr. Calvert, would you like to make any 

comment? 

If not, we thank you very much for coming. We know that is a 

long trip. We hope you enjoy the sights of Washington, DC, and 

you are always a welcome guest here. With that, we adjourn this 

hearing. 

Let me note for the record, to our friend recording this, the list 

of staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and counsel; Mark 

Brasher, professional staff member; John Hynes, professional staff 

member; Andrea Miller, clerk; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Bob Cochran, court reporter; and the GMIT Interns, Melissa Holder, Grant 

Neuman and Michael Presicci. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ