U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

81–150 PDF 2013

SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS: FREEZING THE 

FEDERAL REAL ESTATE FOOTPRINT 

(113–18) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 22, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Dorothy Robyn, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration .............................................................................................. 5 

E.J. Holland, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services ........................................................................... 5 

Jeffery Orner, Chief Readiness Support Officer and Agency Senior Real Property Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ....................................... 5 

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Dorothy Robyn: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia ............................................................ 46 

Hon. John L. Mica, of Florida .................................................................. 48 

E.J. Holland, Jr.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia ............................................................ 57 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland ..................................................... 58 

Jeffery Orner: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to questions from Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland .............. 64 

R. William Borchardt: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia ............................................................ 73 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland ..................................................... 74 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81150.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81150.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81150.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81150.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81150.005
(1) 

SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS: FREEZING THE 

FEDERAL REAL ESTATE FOOTPRINT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Before we begin the hearing today, I would like 

to take a moment to say our thoughts and prayers are with the 

people and communities devastated by the recent tornadoes. In 

Moore, Oklahoma, the tornado left destruction of a mile wide and 

20 miles long. Schools and homes were flattened, communities destroyed, incredible and unimaginable devastation. But much more 

devastating and heartwrenching than that is that many more people lost their lives, including many children. Having walked 

through and spoken with survivors of previous disasters, including 

those in my home district in Pennsylvania following Irene and Lee, 

the pain the residents are enduring is incredible and often unbearable. Losing loved ones, losing their homes, and possessions, heirlooms, memories. 

As the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees FEMA, we 

will do our part in monitoring the Federal response and ultimately 

the rebuilding as families try and put their lives back together. 

FEMA has declared a major disaster for Oklahoma and Federal, 

State and local first responders continue to work around the clock. 

And we will work with Representative Mullin of our subcommittee 

and our Members representing districts in Oklahoma. Obviously 

we know some things are irreplaceable. But what we can do is support those communities devastated and help communities rebuild. 

If any Members need to be linked to the FEMA update or have 

questions regarding this and other recent disasters, please let the 

committee staff know. 

The committee will come to order. Before we begin today’s hearing I would like to personally offer my congratulations to former 

Acting Commissioner Dan Tangherlini who has now been named 

the real full Administrator, Commissioner, and we wish him well. 

With that being said, hopefully we can get this problem resolved 

and get off on the right foot. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the administration’s 

efforts to freeze the footprint of Federal office space and to explore 

2 

how Congress can help save billions of taxpayer dollars on Federal 

real estate. The President’s efforts began to take shape in 2010. 

The administration issued a Presidential memorandum to save billions of dollars in real estate activities. 

In March 2013, OMB issued another directive requiring agencies 

to freeze their real estate footprints and offset any increases with 

decreases in their inventory. Over the last several years, the committee has made an aggressive effort to cut GSA’s lease cost as 

well. The committee shrunk the size of lease renewals, required 

more Federal workers and less space and froze rental rates. 

The committee’s actions have been bipartisan and together we 

have saved almost a billion taxpayer dollars on prospectus level 

leases in the last 21⁄2 years. It has been difficult and somewhat 

painful to achieve these savings for three basic reasons; one, most 

of the lease requests before the committee in 2010 were based on 

workforce projections and utilization standards that predated the 

financial crisis. In other words, they were not worth the paper they 

were written on. Two, many agencies don’t want to adopt the President’s new real estate standards. Three, GSA took far too long to 

provide the committee with updated information the committee 

needed to authorize them. As a result, it took time to negotiate reductions with agencies. Fortunately, the committee reached an 

agreement with all the agencies except one, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. I am pleased a few agencies such as the Homeland 

Security Department and the Health and Human Services Department are proposing to cut their real estate footprint and adopt 

stricter utilization rates on their own initiative. 

As I see it, we have a unique chance to save billions of dollars 

in Federal leasings and here is why: First, both the President and 

Congress want to put more people in less space and save taxpayer 

money. We all know that doesn’t happen too often. When Democrats, Republicans and the President all agree and the American 

people want to see that. Republicans and Democrats actually agree 

on spending cuts. How often does that happen? 

Second, huge numbers of GSA leases are expiring in the next 3 

years, which creates an easy opportunity to shrink our footprint. In 

the National Capital region alone, there are 24 million square feet 

of leases expiring and most of them have terrible utilization rates. 

Third, we are still in a buyers market, rental rates are low and 

good deals can be made for long-term leases. We don’t want to miss 

this opportunity. We need GSA to more actively carry out the committee’s and the President’s goal to shrink our real estate footprint 

and save taxpayers money. I know most agencies don’t want to give 

up office space. It can be hard for GSA to tell them no. The committee will continue telling agencies that they have to cut their office space, but GSA must also deliver that message when agencies 

come to them with new requests. 

The committee will do its job, and we need you to do yours. The 

committee needs prospectuses in a timely fashion. Even though 

millions of square feet of leases are expiring soon, GSA has submitted zero lease prospectuses. The committee needs information to 

authorize projects. For example, none of the 39 Government-owned 

project requests the committee received with the budget include 

housing plans. How is the committee supposed to know if a project 

3 

will result in a good or bad utilization rate if we don’t have a housing plan? We can’t do our job without this kind of information. 

Also, GSA’s own building database fails to include the number of 

people that work in each building. How is GSA ever going to improve building utilization rates if it doesn’t collect actual building 

utilization data? If agencies have multiple facilities in a location 

GSA needs to show the committee how a single leased request fits 

into that agency’s plan for consolidating its footprint in that region. 

For example, the current prospectus to renew the NRC’s expiring 

lease at its Maryland headquarters is very misleading. The housing 

plan clearly states the same number of people will occupy the 

building after the lease renewal, yet we know that is not true, because the NRC has just taken possession of an even larger leased 

building across the street. 

As a result, the NRC is going in exactly the opposite direction 

that the administration mandates. In this budget climate, smart 

agencies realize they have to choose between employee salaries and 

rent. So they are cutting off office space. However, NRC doesn’t 

seem to have gotten that memo. 

I hope today we can hear from our witnesses on the steps that 

they are taking to improve their space utilization and save taxpayer dollars. I hope we can finally get answers to resolve the 

issues related to the NRC’s space. I look forward to our witnesses’ 

testimony. 

I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Norton, for a brief opening statement. 

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

I want to strongly associate myself with your remarks on the Oklahoma disaster. We have not had occasion to have hearings this 

year or this Congress, but you remind the subcommittee that it is 

this subcommittee that has the primary FEMA jurisdiction, because we have the jurisdiction over natural disasters and those 

occur all the time, whereas Homeland Security has jurisdiction, of 

course, over terrorist disasters. 

So I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that we can have a subcommittee 

hearing soon on Oklahoma and what FEMA is doing and what 

needs to be done, especially what needs to be done to prepare and 

prevent. It does seem like Oklahoma has moved ahead of perhaps 

some other jurisdictions because it is in tornado alley, as it is 

called. But I am reminded that we have had hearings in the last 

several years, not since you have been chairman, Mr. Chairman, 

but on predisaster mitigation where the Government saves $4 for 

every dollar invested, it is one of the best programs of the Federal 

Government and it has now expired. So I think Oklahoma will 

make us want to think again of predisaster mitigation. 

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself as well with your critiques of 

where GSA is now. For example, you cleaned up the backlog that 

had been bequeathed to you, we now have no 2014 leases? And 

today, we are going to hear in a hearing that has been titled 

‘‘Freezing the Federal Real Estate Footprint,’’ just how much freezing has been done, and hear from several agencies what the best 

practices are now for utilization rates, and whether they reflect the 

changes that both this committee and the administration have 

been pressing now for several years. 

4 

In 2010, as far back as July 2010, the administration released a 

memo stating that many of the properties necessary for the Government’s work are not being operated efficiently, and that they 

needed to reduce operating costs. Subsequent to that, in May 2012, 

another memorandum was issued essentially saying that the agency should not increase the size of their real estate inventory unless 

offset through consolidation, collocation or disposal of space. The 

procedures for complying with the administration memorandum 

were clarified later in March 2013 in a memorandum that directed 

OMB and the GSA to annually monitor the continuing implementation of this policy. 

As part of this process, each agency was to develop and submit 

a revised real property cost savings and innovation plan, and in future years, the annual agency evaluation to describe the agency’s 

overall approach in managing its real estate usage and spending. 

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the better approach is the one 

we began and has not been completed and that is to remove these 

properties from these agencies in the first place. They don’t know 

anything about property management and we are creating a bureaucratic mechanism to ensure that they who are ignorant in this 

field do what they are supposed to do. 

This committee has, last Congress passed a bill and another committee on which I serve, Oversight and Government Reform, 

passed a bill, I think its bill is on its way—at least it is passed out 

of committee. I would hope that our committee would meet with 

that committee to see if between the two of us we can get a bill 

on the floor that would give this mission to, perhaps, OMB and 

GSA. I doubt that we are going to create a whole new agency the 

way we had initially thought, it wouldn’t have been very large, but 

it doesn’t look like that is in the cards. Meanwhile we are back to 

the kind of monitoring we have been doing all along and the kind 

of criticisms that we have had all along. 

GSA, of course, has a responsibility to guide these agencies into 

making good decisions on what the administration and the Congress wants done. With the advent—we have long had issues with 

how GSA guides these agencies, and I think part of the problem 

is the agencies don’t pay any attention to GSA, they are all peer 

agencies so without some legislation that sets who has responsibility, we are probably still going to have that problem as well. 

We are seeing increasingly the advent of hoteling, alternative 

work schedules, and teleworking, so it is far more possible today 

for agencies to have even a smaller footprint given these technological advances that decrease the need for workers to be in the office all the time. Correspondingly, the committee has increasingly 

authorized less space than agencies have requested with a special 

focus on space requests that were received before the 2012 OMB 

memorandum. We have watched private industry in the wake of 

the great recession downsized and become more efficient in utilizing space as a result of economic pressure. And there is an expectation surely that Federal agencies would likewise meet the 

challenge of utilizing office space more efficiently. 

Today we are going to hear from a number of agencies besides 

GSA since they now are all still involved in this process, as they 

discuss how they have approached the administration and congresVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
5 

sional mandate to alter their utilization rates and dispose of 

unneeded Federal space. The committee has made no secret of its 

concern about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular. 

And so we will be most interested in how a procurement that was 

authorized before the mandate can be reconciled with both a modified narrower mission for the agency, and a requirement that space 

utilization be improved. I looked forward to it the hearing and today’s witnesses. I thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. On our 

panel today, we have Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Commissioner, Public 

Buildings Service, General Services Administration; Mr. E.J. Holland, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of 

Health and Human Services; Mr. Jeffrey Orner, chief readiness 

support officer, Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. William Borchardt, executive director for operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record, without objection so ordered. Since your 

written testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 

minutes. 

Dr. Robyn you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF DOROTHY ROBYN, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC 

BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; E.J. HOLLAND, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES; JEFFERY ORNER, CHIEF READINESS SUPPORT 

OFFICER AND AGENCY SENIOR REAL PROPERTY OFFICER, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND R. WILLIAM BORCHARDT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, 

Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate being invited here today to talk about a topic near and dear 

to GSA’s heart reducing the Federal Government’s real estate footprint. I want to briefly address three topics: First, the administration’s ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ initiative; second, GSA’s action to help 

Federal agencies shrink their footprint; and third, GSA’s role in 

disposing of unneeded properties and the critical need for a civilian 

BRAC process. 

Your opening statements clearly indicate that you are very familiar with the administration’s 2012 ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy. 

And you will hear more about what my colleagues are doing to 

achieve that. So I am going to skip over the description of that, and 

just say that GSA has been given a central role in helping to monitor an agency’s compliance with that, and to help them meet that. 

The information on how agencies are going to achieve it and how 

they are doing will, in time, be available on OMB’s Web site, 

www.performance.gov, so it can be the aggregate numbers information on specific projects, so it will be directly trackable. 

Although GSA directly manages only about 375 million of the 

nearly 3 billion square feet of space under the Federal GovernVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
6 

ment’s control we do have the statutory authority to acquire, manage, utilize, and dispose of real property for most Federal agencies, 

thus, we are well positioned to drive change in this area. And in 

fact, we have been actively working to do so, and as one illustration 

in our prospectus level lease program in fiscal year 2013, we and 

our partner Federal agencies reduce our space needs from a proposed requirement of 3.4 million square feet to about 3.1 million 

square feet, so a reduction of 10 percent in line with the numbers 

that you were citing, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, as you will hear from my colleagues, a major focus of our 

efforts is on transforming the physical design and the layout of the 

workplace in line with what is going on in the private sector. Many 

of today’s Federal work spaces were designed for a time when the 

Government processed and stored large amounts of paper and completed daily tasks in very regimented and predictable ways. With 

today’s increasingly mobile and flexible employees, agencies can get 

by with far less space, if that space is appropriately configured. Toward that end, we are working with agencies to implement innovative workplace strategies including rightsizing of individual spaces, 

hoteling, open floor plan design, and desk sharing. At the same 

time, we are supporting telework policy and training while providing the technology support to encourage mobility. Over the long 

term, these practices hold great promise for enabling the Federal 

Government to carry out its functions with much less office space 

per Federal employee. This is a very, very promising development. 

One obstacle, a major obstacle to us achieving this vision more 

quickly is the need for upfront funding to reconfigure space. We 

have doubled the number of people occupying GSA’s headquarters 

at 1800 F, and in fact, we will triple it when we get to phase 2 of 

our renovation. But we have been able to do that because we had 

ARRA funding to renovate the space and to reconfigure it for an 

open office plan design. The President’s 2014 budget includes $100 million specifically for 

us to work with other agencies to reconfigure and renovate GSAowned space in support of that kind of improved utilization. We are 

also, of course, requesting funding for a number of individual specific projects that are large repair and alteration projects that are 

designed to renovate buildings so as to allow Federal agencies to 

consolidate their space needs and collocate with other Federal 

agencies and to move out of costly leases and into federally owned 

space. In addition to shrinking our footprint in leased space, we 

want to get agencies out of leased space all together and into federally owned space. 

Our role in freezing the Federal Government’s footprint starts 

with the space we occupy ourselves. We will not only meet but exceed the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ requirement by shrinking the 

amount of office and warehouse inventory that GSA itself occupies 

by 15 percent by 2015. And a lot of that is a result of the transformation of our headquarters and our ability to move several thousand GSA employees out of leased space and into our headquarters 

building. 

Finally, let me touch on property disposal which is key to any effort to shrink the Federal footprint. We are the primary real estate 

disposal agent for the Federal Government, we have long worked 

7 

aggressively to identify and target unneeded assets for disposal. We 

just, last week, sold a 427-acre portion of the former Twin Cities 

ordinance plant in Arden Hills, Minnesota, on behalf of the Department of the Army. This negotiated sale was worth $28 million in 

direct benefits to the Federal Government. It eliminated 110 buildings and 1.7 million square feet of space from the Federal inventory which would allow the Army to avoid significant future operations and maintenance costs. 

Despite these and other success stories at property disposal, Federal agencies face major challenges in doing this. As GAO has repeatedly pointed out in reports that this committee has commissioned, these challenges include the high upfront costs to prepare 

property for disposal, various legal requirements which contribute 

to these costs, and perhaps most important, resistance from various 

stakeholder groups to be the disposal of individual properties. 

Mr. Chairman, we need a civilian BRAC process to help us address these challenges. The Department of Defense’s BRAC process 

has helped DOD overcome these barriers resulting in enormous 

savings to DOD in the Federal Government. The first four rounds 

of BRAC 1988 to 1995 are producing $8 billion in annual recurring 

savings. The comparable figure for BRAC 2005 in a couple of years 

will be $4 billion, that is a total of $100 billion in savings to date 

to the Department of Defense and every year DOD avoids $12 billion in annual costs, every year, as far as, you know, looking out 

to the future, they will avoid those costs every year. That is equivalent to what the Department would spend to buy 300 Apache attack helicopters, or 4 Virginia class submarines. 

We need that tool on the civilian side as well. President Obama 

proposed a civilian BRAC mechanism in 2011, the administration 

reiterated its support for the proposal in the 2014 budget. We want 

to work with Congress to develop this or a similar proposal that 

addresses these ongoing challenges. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

And Representative Denham actually has a civilian property realignment bill and we would certainly appreciate your support as 

we move that bill forward. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Holland you may proceed. 

Mr. HOLLAND. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Ranking 

Member Norton. My name is E.J. Holland, Jr., most people call me 

Ned, and I am the Assistant Secretary for Administration at the 

Department of Health and Human Services. Under the leadership 

of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, HHS is committed to saving taxpayer dollars through effective management of our real property 

assets, improving our utilization through reduced space requirements, and pursuing alternative workplace strategies that increase 

our utilization rates and reduce our costs. 

HHS currently has over 4,100 real property assets, fewer than 

1,000 of which are leased. The majority of our leased assets are acquired through the General Services Administration, and we work 

with GSA closely in acquiring leases to ensure that we deliver the 

most efficient and cost efficient space to meet our mission requirements. 

Most of our real property portfolio falls into three major categories: offices are about 36 percent, laboratories are about 33 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
8 

cent and hospitals and clinics are about 15 percent. Over 15 million 

gross square feet, or about 71 percent of our leased inventory is, 

in fact, office space. 

After President Obama issued his June 2010 memorandum ‘‘Disposing of Unneeded Real Estate,’’ we accelerated our records to improve utilization of our existing assets. That resulted in identified 

savings and cost avoidance of over $23 million between fiscal year 

2010 and fiscal year 2012 through energy savings, disposals, consolidations and improved utilization. In the fall of 2010, we initiated working sessions among our operating divisions to develop 

strategies to improve office utilization. In addition, working with 

GSA we identified prospectus lease requirements anticipated 

through 2014 and projected their impacts on our real property portfolio. 

In May 2011, I issued an office utilization rate policy that reduced authorized usable square feet per person to an average of 

170, including office and office support space, and pro rata share 

of any joint use space. This policy replaced the previous situation 

of over 215 usable square feet per person. Even before we formally 

issued our 170-square-foot utilization policy, we began looking at 

opportunities within existing projects to improve space utilization. 

One specific opportunity we explored in early fiscal year 2011 was 

the Parklawn replacement lease in Rockville, Maryland. The replacement lease originally was planned for 2,828 occupants in 

772,553 usable square feet, for a calculated utilization rate of 273. 

After re-examination and consultation with the Secretary, we 

made the decision to consolidate three of our agencies along with 

the fourth that was already there into the Parklawn replacement 

lease. The current planned facility will house 4,517 people in 

823,924 usable square feet for a calculated utilization of 182. Over 

the term of that lease, the Department expects to save in excess 

of $215 million in rent costs associated with the consolidation of 

the four operating divisions. 

In April 2011, HHS agreed to work with GSA’s Office of Client 

Solutions as part of their proposed Client Portfolio Planning initiative aimed at working with agencies to find long-term cost savings. 

We became one of the pilot agencies and the initial plan focused 

on reaching the President’s goal of $3 billion in savings by end of 

fiscal year 2012. 

GSA worked with our Department to optimize our real estate 

footprint. In addition to savings that we had already identified, 

GSA looked for targeted opportunities for potential additional savings in managing our portfolio. The original plan identified roughly 

eight opportunities by September of 2012, six of those, in fact, were 

implemented or complete. 

We are now working with GSA to develop a long-term plan that 

aligns our National Capital region real estate portfolio with leadership’s long-range business goals. The plan will change the Department’s approach to real estate from a transactional model that 

manages each separate asset individually to one that takes into account Departmentwide planning and goals. We will evaluate potential strategies for consolidation and lease replacement in order to 

increase overall efficiencies and utilization of space. 

9 

We are committed to generating savings for the taxpayers 

through better utilization of our real property assets. We continue 

to work with our operating divisions and with GSA to identify opportunities for improved efficiencies in our leased portfolio, whether 

through consolidations, improved utilization costs, or innovative 

workplace solutions like the chairman and the ranking member 

mentioned. 

This effort requires Departmentwide cooperation and the accomplishments we achieved to date are the product of that cooperation. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning, Mr. 

Chairman, and I welcome your questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Holland. 

Mr. Orner, you may proceed. 

Mr. ORNER. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member 

Norton, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to 

testify. I am DHS’s chief readiness support officer and senior real 

property officer, a career civil servant with 31 years of experience 

in the Federal Government. 

DHS’s real property portfolio includes 38,000 properties nationwide, half of our real property footprint is DHS-owned and remainder is leased either through GSA or directly from the private sector. Additionally half of our real property is operational mission 

space or personnel housing, and the remainder is predominantly office space and warehouses. The United States Coast Guard and 

Customs and Border Protection are responsible for 90 percent of 

DHS real property assets. 

In support of our frontline mission, DHS has made great strides 

in the management of our real property portfolio, and we are committed to the foundational principles of real estate property management. The right facility, at the right location, at the right cost 

to support our operational mission. To control costs and support 

our frontline operators and their mission, one key approach we 

have taken is to improve our use of space. We have improved our 

space utilization by partnering with GSA’s workplace solutions 

group, and together with our GSA partners, we have conducted a 

detailed space use assessment followed by introduction of flexible 

workplace strategies. 

We introduce concepts of leading-edge workplace designs that resulted in higher space utilization, including supporting a mobile 

workforce strategy, hoteling and collaboration space. We conducted 

a pilot redesign in my own office using these concepts. The redesign cut the amount of office space by over 50 percent leading to 

a cost avoidance of approximately $1 million annually, and taking 

us to an average of 100 square feet per person. Despite that very 

aggressive space reduction, it is a very open space that is pleasant 

to work in. 

DHS is now managing numerous flexible workplace design 

projects in the National Capital region due to density and cost of 

general office space in this metropolitan area. And this approach 

will improve our Department’s efforts in consolidating our headquarters’ footprint. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention the DHS headquarters 

projects at St. Elizabeths for which we thank this committee for its 

support over the years. As evidenced by the President’s fiscal year 

10 

2014 budget submission, the administration, DHS, and GSA remain committed to collocating the Department’s operation coordination functions, executive leadership and policymaking functions 

into that secure campus. We continue to work with GSA to plan 

and execute the St. Elizabeths vision in order to achieve the overall 

goals and objectives at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers. 

As such we are developing approaches to further reduce our real 

property costs by using flexible workplace strategies at the St. Elizabeths campus, and that should enable DHS to further reduce our 

remaining National Capital property portfolio. 

Last week, the DHS CFO and I submitted the DHS real property 

cost savings and innovation plan to OMB and GSA in response to 

the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy. This plan was developed by a 

team comprised of representatives from DHS headquarters and 

each of our operating components. I am excited about our response, 

because it illustrates a real commitment to rightsizing office and 

warehouse space, it highlights our strategy for consolidation and 

reduction, and it defines our initial focus over the next 3 years. 

It also outlines longer term efficiency initiative expected to 

produce an even greater reduction over the next 6 to 7 years, including reducing our average square foot of office space per person 

from 200 to below 150. 

To guide our components in implementing this policy, this week 

we signed a detailed new DHS workplace standard which provides 

our components with detailed how to on implementation on our 

‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ goals. 

In closing, DHS looks forward to achieving milestones of improved business processes and implementation of innovative concepts such as flexible workplace strategies. Our goal is it to support 

this Department’s mission needs at the lowest achievable cost. I 

very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today 

and I look forward to answering your questions, thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Orner. 

Mr. Borchardt, you may proceed. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Norton, 

members of the subcommittee good morning. And thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s efforts 

to reduce office space consistent with the Federal ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission is to license and 

regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source and special 

nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of the public 

health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and 

protect the environment. 

The NRC was created in 1975 and initially occupied 11 buildings 

throughout the Washington, DC, and Maryland area. The 1979, 

Three Mile Island nuclear accident revealed numerous lessons for 

the industry and the NRC. One of the major findings was the need 

to centralize NRC’s headquarter’s staff to maintain our operational 

efficiency, regulatory effectiveness and emergency response capability. 

NRC’s initial consolidation of its headquarters began in 1986 

with the General Services Administration’s acquisition of One 

White Flint in Rockville, Maryland. At the time, GSA and NRC 

11 

contracted for the construction and lease of the Two White Flint 

North buildings for purposes of housing the remainder of the NRC 

headquarters employees on one campus. The buildings were constructed with above and below ground connectors and since 9/11, 

share the common access and egress for protection. 

The passage of the Energy policy Act of 2005 stimulated a nuclear power resurgence with a considerable increase in the number 

of applications for U.S. nuclear power plants. This had an immediate and dramatic impact on our workload, and in response, our 

staff increased from approximately 3,000 to 4,000 employees. With 

the growth of the NRC, the agency leased temporary space in four 

buildings in the Bethesda-Rockville area, and at the same time, 

pursued the construction of a third building at our headquarters location to maintain a consolidated workforce. 

In December of 2007, the President signed legislation appropriating funds for the NRC to obtain this additional office space in 

order to maintain NRC’s efficiency and emergency response capability. GSA signed the lease for the Three White Flint North building in October of 2009. 

Over the last 2 or 3 years, moderating demand for electricity and 

the low price of natural gas has caused the Nation’s nuclear plant 

operators to delay or defer a number of applications for new plants. 

In response, our need for additional staff abated, and in fact, declined slightly so that we now have approximately 3,800 employees. 

During the same time the Federal Government instituted new 

guidelines for Federal real estate. Both of these realities have had 

an impact on our space requirements. Soon after arriving at the 

NRC in the summer of 2012, Chairman Macfarlane became aware 

of the office space issues, including concerns from this subcommittee regarding the renewal lease prospectus for the Two 

White Flint building. She chartered a task force of senior staff to 

look closely at our office space and cost estimates. The task force 

re-baselined NRC space requirements and is now working to 

achieve a cost-effective footprint reduction. 

The NRC is committed to ensuring that the agency’s footprint is 

appropriate to fulfill our safety mission and consistent with the administration’s space utilization policies. Chairman Macfarlane and 

the GSA Administrator have met and created teams that have 

worked jointly over the last 5 months to present an updated recommendation to this committee. NRC and GSA have been working 

intensively to develop a solution designed to address the issues 

identified by the subcommittee. 

The NRC/GSA housing analysis concludes that even with a reduced utilization rate the NRC needs approximately 21⁄2 buildings 

to perform its functions. The optimal approach for meeting this 

need is to retain Two White Flint North in its entirety, and for the 

NRC to relinquish several floors in the new Three White Flint facility. NRC’s preferred path forward is consistent with the ‘‘Freeze 

the Footprint’’ policy and achieves office space targets set forth in 

OMB guidelines. The NRC/GSA plan is consistent with the NRC’s 

goals to consolidate our headquarters staff into one campus, to facilitate our mission, and to provide effective working conditions for 

the agency’s professional engineering and scientific workforce. 

12 

In closing, I want to reiterate NRC’s commitment to being responsive to the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ initiative as well as our 

changing space needs and the subcommittee’s interest in 

rightsizing in a cost-effective and timely manner. We will continue 

to work with GSA, OMB and the Congress to accomplish these objectives and to address these issues fully and transparently. We 

look forward to working with this committee on this important 

matter. I would be happy to answer any questions, thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony. 

I think it would be helpful for the committee to hear a little more 

about the current situation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and how we got there. For a variety of reasons in 2006, the 

NRC believed its personnel were going to increase. The NRC went 

to GSA, and with OMB approval, the GSA submitted a prospectus 

to this committee in 2007. The prospectus requested authority to 

lease an additional 120,000 square feet of office space at a maximum cost of $38 million, or $32 per foot for 10 years. The committee authorized the prospectus shortly thereafter. However, rather than abide by the committee authorization, the NRC leased a 

couple satellite locations and a custom building three times as 

large, and 10 times as expensive as the committee authorized. The 

building was constructed across the street from NRC’s headquarters, and was finished just last year. 

Although the building is mostly vacant, the NRC has been paying rent since December. On the left-hand side of the first slide, 

you can see the committee authorized 120,000 square feet of space 

for $38 million. On the right, you can see what the NRC spent, 

443,000 square feet for $400 million. On the second slide, you can 

see how the NRC’s office space grew from 785,000 square feet in 

2007, to over 1.2 million square feet of space in 2013. That is a 53- 

percent increase. 

Over the same time period, the NRC’s staff level actually 

dropped from 3,340 to 3,250 people. As a result, the NRC’s utilization rate went from 195 usable square feet per person in 2007 to 

322 square feet today. As a point of reference HHS’s policy is to 

house people at 170 square feet per person and the National Labor 

Relations Board which consists almost entirely of attorneys in private offices is at 200 feet per person. 

The next slide shows the actual number of workstations in the 

NRC headquarters buildings today. On the right is the actual number of people, including contractors that work in those buildings. 

The American taxpayer is paying rent to house 1,800 empty 

workstations. By almost any measure, the NRC has far more office 

space than it needs and millions of dollars of taxpayer money are 

being wasted. 

In addition, about 1,600 of those workstations are located in a 

building where the lease expires at the end of the year. Yet despite 

the empty space and clear directives from the President, the NRC 

wants the committee to authorize a sole source renewal of this 

lease at a cost of $177 million. The question before the committee 

today is how much office space, if any, should the committee authorize for the NRC? 

I will now begin our first round of questions and we are going 

to limit each Member to 5 minutes. 

13 

Mr. Borchardt, how much space specifically—before I go there, as 

you have heard, agencies across the Government are improving 

their utilization rates and cutting office space as per the President’s request, and as the request of both Democrats and Republicans on this committee. So with that being said first, how much 

space specifically does NRC need? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Mr. Chairman, we agree what the current satellite offices that we have leased. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Can you put your microphone on? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. It is on. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Maybe if you could pull the mic up closer, it is 

hard to hear. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. As you mentioned, in 2005 we had the Energy 

Policy Act that generated a renewed interest in nuclear power in 

this country. We had applications projected for—over 30 applications for new nuclear power plants as well as numerous facilities 

in the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle. That caused our projected 

staffing to increase agencywide from approximately 3,000 to almost 

4,000 people. As a result of the economy and as a result of the price 

of natural gas, those applications have declined significantly. As we 

staffed up in the 2005 to 2008 time period, we found it necessary 

to lease space and satellite offices that are within 3 miles of the 

current NRC complex. 

Right now, we have already vacated one of those facilities, we 

have just transferred the staff from a second facility into the new 

office space. But we agree that the NRC does not need, based upon 

our current best estimate of the workload and the staffing requirements, all of the office space for all three of the buildings in the 

White Flint campus. Our suggestion, and I believe our best plan is 

for us to retain One White Flint and Two White Flint in its entirety and then give up approximately half—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. What is your target utilization rate? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. The target for the plan that we had would be 

128 square feet per employee after we give up about half of the 

new building. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Your utilization rate. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Yeah, I think that is—that is after we give it 

up, after we give up and terminate the lease on all the satellite offices, it would be 128. 

Mr. BARLETTA. If you keep all three buildings, it will be 275. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I can’t verify that one way or the other, but it 

wouldn’t be—we don’t see a basis or need to keep all three. 

Mr. BARLETTA. We can, we can. It will be 275. In 2007, it was 

195, and 2012 it was 231, and now it is at 322. We think the utilization rate should be closer to 200. So what is your target utilization rate? You are at 322 now, if you keep three buildings, it’s 275. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. If we—I think—I can’t dispute the number that 

you have, but we are not proposing that we keep all three buildings 

in its entirety. We think Two White Flint, the facility that is up 

for lease renewal in December of this year—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yeah. The all in utilization rate, what is the all 

in utilization rate? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. 215. 

14 

Mr. BARLETTA. You state that NRC’s preferred path forward is 

consistent with the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ policy and achieves targets for space utilization set forth in OMB guidelines. What exactly 

is the new plan and has it been approved by OMB? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. It is under review by OMB now. There are several scenarios that are being developed. Our preferred approach because of the special use facilities in the Two White Flint campus 

or Two White Flint building because it has certain rooms for the 

advisory committee, we have the safeguards which is mandated by 

law, as well as the hearing board, as well as some other facilities 

in that room, would need to retain all of One White Flint, all of 

Two White Flint and to give up, as I said, approximately half of 

the new building, the Three White Flint preferably to another Federal agency. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Who would pay more to move in there? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I don’t know what the arrangements would be. 

I would have to defer to GSA on how the financial arrangements 

would—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. We have been asking NRC repeated for this plan, 

why haven’t we receive it? And when will we receive it? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I believe we are working through GSA and 

OMB. And I think we have—we are in that process. I would ask 

GSA if they had anything to add. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And do you expect that this committee will approve its prospective while it’s seeking a new plan? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I can’t answer that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Borchardt, the NRC has spent a significant 

amount of funds customizing Three White Flint for its needs, more 

than $90 million in tenant improvements. Now the taxpayers are 

locked into paying for that space for at least 15 years, costing $350 

million total over the term of the lease. Why would the NRC just 

walk away from that and can you explain how your proposal will 

save the taxpayers money? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to remember that at the time the decision was made to build Three White 

Flint and then to make the decisions regarding its build-out and 

how it was to be constructed, at that time in the 2007, 2008 timeframe, we were in a period where as I had mentioned in my oral 

testimony there was a great deal of enthusiasm for new construction of plants and other facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle. We projected NRC growth to be—go in excess of 4,000 staff members total. 

That reality has, in fact, changed. So what was a good decision, I 

believe, in 2008 is no longer the decision we would make today. 

Given that reality, we think Three White Flint is a high-quality 

building and would be a desirable location for many other Federal 

agencies. I think the cost associated with moving the special facilities out of Two White Flint would—do not appear to me, anyway, 

to make good financial sense, so that is why we prefer to keep Two 

White Flint in its current situation and to give up part of Three 

White Flint to another agency. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Borchardt, I understand what you are saying, 

there is a lot of things that we prefer. And you know, Democrats 

and Republicans many times argue over cutting food programs 

versus education and make all those tough decisions all the time, 

15 

and there are legitimate arguments on both sides. I find it very 

hard to accept the fact that we could try to convince the American 

people that we actually need more space for less people because we 

prefer that option. 

At the same time there are so many needy programs that we are 

trying to save money to, and to have a Federal agency, it is very 

hard. This is like a softball for us, really. It is very hard to have 

an agency try to convince us that we prefer this, this will be better 

for us. At the same time you have less people today than you did 

in 2007, disregarded the committee’s, what the subcommittee authorized in 2007, went ahead instead of $38 million, we are talking 

about $440 million. I am just going to say, I really think you have 

a real tough argument here today, and—— 

Mr. BORCHARDT. If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the 

headquarters staff is approximately 250 people more today than it 

was in 2007. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But there are actually less employees today than 

you had in 2007. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. No, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I believe that you do. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I think in 2007, headquarters staff I believe we 

had 2,652. Today we have somewhere around—well at the end of 

2012 we have 2,913. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yeah. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I think the other point I would like to make is 

that, as I know you are familiar, we were in four temporary locations in the headquarters offices. As I mentioned, we have already 

terminated one of those leases. We are in the process, in fact, we 

have moved an entire office of approximately 200 people from a second building into the Three White Flint building, and we will be 

terminating that lease. It is our desire to be able to terminate the 

other two satellite offices buildings completely when we can have 

the decisions regarding the lease on Two White Flint and the final 

configuration of Three White Flint. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. We will come back for another round 

of questions. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Norton. 

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

You know, Dr. Robyn, one of the problems I see here is this agency seems to be doing its own housing plan. You know, if you let 

an agency do what they have done, first of all, they completely ignore what has been authorized by this committee, so they simply 

go to their appropriators, to somebody else, and they end up in one 

of the highest lease, highest rents, highest cost parts of the region, 

where it is GSA’s job to keep that from happening with all this discussion. And all of it comes from NRC. You know, we have absolutely no confidence in NRC on this issue, in part because that is 

not their business. It is your business. So I have to ask you, is 

there a long-term housing plan that GSA is working on for NRC? 

Ms. ROBYN. First of all, let me say I would agree with the first 

part of your statement that this is a situation that occurred because NRC went to the appropriators. 

Ms. NORTON. Completely berserk, you know. They are playing 

with the taxpayers’ money. 

16 

Ms. ROBYN. We ran the procurement because it was—they did 

get—— 

Ms. NORTON. Did they at least consult with you before they go 

out and have another brand new space? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, no, once the appropriation language was law, 

I am told our folks consulted with our lawyers. They said it is—— 

Ms. NORTON. But they didn’t consult with you ahead of time? 

Ms. ROBYN. I don’t believe so, no. I think they were not happy 

with, I think—I have talked to our staff about the history of this. 

I wasn’t there at the time. I think they—— 

Ms. NORTON. So they are paying above the rental cap now? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, yes. I think we did a procurement. The procurement that we did, we proposed, as the chairman described, our 

prospectus, which this committee approved very quickly, 120,000 

square feet, and the delineated area was, I believe, within 2 miles 

of the NRC’s campus. Going out that far means you get a fair 

amount of competition and you can drive down the rates, and in 

fact we typically have a maximum, we have a rate cap for the—— 

Ms. NORTON. But they are above the rate cap? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, because the language allowed that to do that. 

So when we did the procurement, it was a very, very narrowly defined procurement, and it resulted in a building that is right at 

White Flint. 

Ms. NORTON. How often does an agency rent above the rent cap? 

Ms. ROBYN. In any GSA lease that does not happen. 

Ms. NORTON. That is right, and this was not a GSA. But it is up 

to GSA to do something about it. 

Ms. ROBYN. But that said, so the history, I don’t like the history. 

This is—— 

Ms. NORTON. All right, let’s go forward. 

Ms. ROBYN. But going forward, we are—— 

Ms. NORTON. Go forward. Because, you know, they give me all 

that happened before as well. You know, we thought we were going 

to be big, we turned out to be small, and we still want to renew 

a lease to be almost as big. And they say, they who are not real 

estate people, they say, oh, we have got a plan. What do I care 

about their plan? They are nuclear people. You come to me and 

talk about nuclear stuff, I will listen to you. 

I am going to talk to Dr. Robyn. They have got a plan. And their 

plan is they want to renew a lease that is expiring, which would 

seem to give us an opportunity to correct this mess. And these nonreal estate agents tell us what they want to do is to move another 

Federal agency into this expensive property, and they don’t tell us 

who will pay for the delta that would exist on the rental cap, which 

you would never have allowed if this had gone through GSA in the 

ordinary course or if this committee had been given the opportunity 

that the law requires it be given. 

So you tell me about their plan. Is their plan feasible? 

Ms. ROBYN. And let me say, they will pay the delta if we—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you understand you would pay the delta? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. No, they will do it. No other agency. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you understand that your plan would still leave 

you paying for the delta if a new agency moved in there because 

17 

that new agency could only move in there compliant with the rental cap? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. That is consistent with the discussions we have 

had with GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are prepared to take that on? That extra, 

that extra amount in your own budget? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I am not sure of the details myself. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you need to be sure of them before you come 

in with a plan to let this lease expire. And you say you have no 

authority to rent out part of the building, to rent out the other part 

of the building. So you see why I have to just scrap that and pay 

no attention to it and ask Dr. Robyn, we need a housing plan. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yeah. And we are working closely with NRC and 

OMB to evaluate different options. 

Ms. NORTON. So do you support renewing the lease at this time 

on the second building, Two White Flint? 

Ms. ROBYN. Leaving aside how we got to this situation—— 

Ms. NORTON. Please leave that aside. I have asked you a direct 

question. 

Ms. ROBYN. In an ideal world—— 

Ms. NORTON. They want to let a lease expire. Do you support letting that lease expire or not? 

Ms. ROBYN. They want to hang on to Two White Flint Mall. The 

NRC campus. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, they want to—sorry—renew the lease. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. They want to renew the lease. Do you support renewing the lease on Two White Flint? 

Ms. ROBYN. I have to explain a little bit. It is not a simple answer. 

Ms. NORTON. OK. 

Ms. ROBYN. We own White Flint Mall, we own One White Flint 

Mall. We lease Two White Flint Mall. We had a purchase option. 

We should own that building. We should not get in a situation 

where we are leasing a building that is joined at the hip with another Federal office building like this one is. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you ask the administration for authority to buy 

the building? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think this is our—— 

Ms. NORTON. Hasn’t the owner said he is not interested in selling 

the building? 

All right. So let’s move on to what you are really going to do. 

Ms. ROBYN. I think we had a purchase option and I think when 

the time came to exercise it, we did not have the money, and I 

don’t know whether that was us or NRC, we traded that—— 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. Dr. Robyn, I am told GSA sold the 

purchase option. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. So why are you talking about the purchase option? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I was giving you the history of why I think— 

we traded it for buffer land from the lessor, but I point to that—— 

Ms. NORTON. All right. So why are you talking about owning the 

building? 

Ms. ROBYN. Because I still think that is the ideal outcome. 

18 

Ms. NORTON. You know, this is—— 

Ms. ROBYN. We are the Federal Government, we should have leverage with lessors, and one source of leverage is entirely vacating 

the building. 

Ms. NORTON. You know what? You are going around in circles. 

Dr. Robyn, we have a letter, the building owner says he is not interested in selling the building. Now, you are telling me, and you 

see why we have no confidence in NRC because they are in a business that is not their own, but we are supposed to have some confidence in you. But you tell us that we should own that building, 

knowing full well—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Ideally. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. That the owner says he is not going to 

sell that building. What am I supposed to do with that statement? 

Ms. ROBYN. This can be seen as a negotiation, and this is not an 

unusual situation. I think we are prepared to—— 

Ms. NORTON. So you therefore support, you support the renewal 

of the lease? 

Ms. ROBYN. That would be the ideal circumstance—— 

Ms. NORTON. What is there about that building that is so important that it has to be renewed for another 15 years? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, and again, not at any price do I think we 

should renew that lease. Not at any price. It comes down to cost. 

It is joined at the hip with One White Flint Mall as a result of various security measures, and Dr. Borchardt can talk about that 

more, better than I can, but it is—there are tunnels and security 

linkages and access interconnections that make it—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go on to one more 

question. Once again GSA, which should be holding the cards, is 

over a barrel. Obvious this owner knows he has got them over a 

barrel, NRC has them over a barrel. They don’t have a plan. They 

have no plan. They can’t come in here today and say that they are 

for renewing the lease because they are in negotiations with the 

Lerner Group, who know how to bargain. And therefore this committee is faced with what should be put on an indefinite hold, and 

that is the notion that somehow pending your negotiations we 

should allow a renewal of a lease for 15 years that should not have 

occurred in the first place. 

I have a final question here to GSA. In this city GSA is building 

and it is about to open the Coast Guard building. That leaves you 

with an empty Coast Guard building, and you are going to owe on 

that building empty. We calculated it is something like a $60 million loss to the taxpayer with respect to the remaining lease when 

the Coast Guard moves out and they may move out as early as August. What have you done to mitigate that liability? The chairman 

showed you that we are paying on an empty building or much of 

an empty building in White Flint. In August are we going to be 

paying for an empty building that the Coast Guard, at Buzzard 

Point, that the Coast Guard shall have moved out of? 

Ms. ROBYN. Are you talking about Transpoint or—— 

Ms. NORTON. Buzzard Point Coast Guard building. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. Jemal Riverside? We are planning to exercise our termination rights under the lease agreement on the 

Transpoint Building for a variety of reasons. 

19 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking you about the $60 million. How are you mitigating the $60 million cost to the taxpayers? In other 

words, what you are telling this committee, we are going to leave 

it empty? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. Well, I am not sure what building, whether we 

are talking about—— 

Ms. NORTON. The Transpoint Building. 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I ask Mr. Orner to clarify which building we 

are—— 

Mr. ORNER. The Coast Guard Headquarters currently occupies 

both the Transpoint Building and the Jemal Building. Relative to 

the Transpoint Building, I received a letter from GSA several 

months ago that told DHS and the Coast Guard that they would 

be exercising the termination clause on that lease effective at the 

end of the—effective when the Coast Guard moves out. The Coast 

Guard begins to move out in August, and it takes place over a 4- 

month period, and they outlined in the letter the reasons for terminating the lease, which had to do with, first of all, that the building 

is on a floodplain, and secondly that there are costs associated with 

that lease that are unique to that lease. 

Ms. NORTON. What are you doing to mitigate the $60 million cost 

to the taxpayers you will be left with if that lease is terminated? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think we wouldn’t, if we are talking about the 

Transpoint Building—— 

Ms. NORTON. We are talking about the Transpoint Building. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yeah. I think terminating the lease is a way of avoiding that $60 million. That is why we will be terminating the 

lease, is my understanding. I mean, we wouldn’t terminate it. We 

would, alternatively, if—— 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Robyn, there will be 2 years where you are responsible for paying on that building. You have got or DHS has in 

holdover status now a number of agencies where you are paying for 

that reason, because the DHS building has not gone up as quickly 

as we had thought. Have you thought of ways to keep from paying 

on an empty building for 2 years? 

Ms. ROBYN. The letter to Mr. Orner from the regional Commissioner, GSA Regional Commissioner Bill Dowd, says GSA’s intent 

is to exercise the termination option this spring, this is referring 

to Transpoint, which will produce upwards in $60 million in total 

rent savings. So I believe—— 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, my goodness, Mr. Chairman, could I ask this? 

Within 30 days—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Would you write to the chairman how 

you will avoid paying rent for an empty building, 2 years’ rent for 

an empty building? 

Ms. ROBYN. I will. 

Ms. NORTON. In other words, in the law we call it mitigating the 

damages. You have mitigated it somewhat, but you still would be 

paying for an empty building. We would like to know what action 

you have taken or propose to take so that the taxpayers will not 

be left with liability and whether or not, for example, some of the 

DHS agencies and holdover leases temporarily could occupy that 

space. I don’t even mean to suggest to you what must be a hundred 

20 

options other than simply eating the amount that you would be left 

with. 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me just say one more time, and I will confirm 

this, but when we terminate a lease, that we have a right in certain leases, we have a purchase option in some of our leases, we 

have termination rights. When we exercise the termination right, 

that gets us out—— 

Ms. NORTON. We aren’t questioning your right. We aren’t questioning. We are asking what you are going to do for 2 years paying 

rent on an empty building, that is all. Is there nothing that can be 

done during those 2 years to mitigate the remaining liability? 

Ms. ROBYN. OK, I think we—— 

Ms. NORTON. In 30 days. 

Ms. ROBYN. I think we have a difference of actual—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, then, in 30 days in writing—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I will clarify. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Would you let the committee know— 

here is the chairman, so you know who I am talking about—in a 

letter what you intend to do to mitigate whatever liability you 

claim you will be left with, unless you are telling me there will be 

no liability whatsoever. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. We will certainly get back to that. We are going to go to the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. Just to answer later, if we are not backfilling that building, why should we believe that we are going to 

somehow find Federal employees at a higher rate for the NRC? We 

will get back to that. I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you folks for coming in. It is good seeing you. My first 

question, will be directed to Mr. Borchardt. Is it doctor or mister? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Mister. 

Mr. PERRY. Mister. OK. 

The information I have shows since 2007 a decrease in staffing 

of about 3 percent. Meanwhile, during the 2007 to 2013, the same 

commensurate period of time, an increase in square footage. Now, 

the numbers vary somewhat from other information I have. If I go 

back to 2007, I have got 2,652 employees on, information that I 

think was provided by your agency, and it increases in fiscal year 

2010 to 3,035, and it is down to 2,913 in 2012. 

With that, again, according to your testimony, so if I am wrong, 

please correct me, but the NRC says its preferred solution is that 

all of Two White Flint be leased and the NRC relinquish space in 

Three White Flint to another Federal tenant. But what you propose 

is that the taxpayers are paying for all three buildings as opposed 

to two or two-and-a-half buildings. Is NRC’s analysis based on the 

cost to the taxpayer or the cost to the NRC? And do you have a 

Federal tenant who has committed to backfilling the space? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, we are working with GSA regarding the 

final configuration. The decision has not yet been finalized as to 

what the headquarters campus of the NRC will be, how it will be 

configured. Our preferred approach is the one I described, where 

we give up half of the new Three White Flint building, but that is 

still a decision to be made. 

21 

Mr. PERRY. And the basis, again, is it for the cost regarding NRC 

or cost to taxpayers? What is the basis for the decision? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I would have to get back to you on that. I am 

not sure. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. Dr. Robyn, do you have any input at this 

point based on those comments? 

Ms. ROBYN. We are evaluating the cost and the benefits of a couple of different options. As I said earlier, in an ideal world we 

would own Two White Flint Mall and the NRC would fully occupy 

One and Two and a portion of Three. But that may not be the most 

cost-effective. It may be, in the end, more cost-effective to, given 

that the lessor does have us over a barrel, it may be more effective 

to simply get out of Two White Flint Mall and occupy—I agree that 

NRC needs two-plus buildings. How you configure that, whether it 

is One and Two plus part of Three or One and Three and some satellite spaces, we are running the numbers on that. 

Mr. PERRY. And, again, would you consider the cost to taxpayers 

or cost to the NRC? What is the higher standard? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I haven’t really drawn that distinction. Costs 

to Federal agencies are costs to taxpayers. In this case, if we backfill a portion of Three White Flint Mall, I said earlier that the NRC 

would pick up the incremental cost of that higher priced space to 

Federal agencies. So in that sense it would be a cost to NRC ultimately. 

In the case of NRC, I should say, they are funded largely by industry user fees. So, yes. OK, I am sorry, that is what you were 

getting at. Yes. One can distinguish agencies like Securities and 

Exchange Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that are 

funded by user charges to industry. It is worth drawing that distinction. 

Mr. PERRY. I would say it is. And, you know, as a person that 

pays for base load out at Three Mile Island, because I am part of 

the PJM, this is important to me. 

Mr. Borchardt, much of the budget is, as is already stated, from 

fees on the nuclear industry. Do you know what will be the total 

cost of the NRC’s preferred solution to the industry and then to me 

as a ratepayer, including amounts you have already sunk into 

Three White Flint. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, as you alluded to, 90 percent of the NRC 

budget is paid for by the licensees that we regulate, so our budget 

is approximately a billion dollars. Ninety percent of that is fee reimbursed. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. In the time remaining, you state that if the lease 

prospectus is not renewed and the NRC were to vacate Two White 

Flint, the agency would have insufficient space to house its current 

employees and conduct effectively its nuclear safety mission. Have 

you, in that regard, run analysis on the following solutions: Fully 

utilizing Three White Flint and the satellite buildings and/or 

vacating half of Two White Flint. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Yes, we are in the process of doing that analysis. As I recall, the estimate is about $4 million to $7 million a 

year in order to lease the space necessary to hold the hearings, the 

special use buildings in the Two White Flint facility. So this has 

22 

to do with the hearings and the Advisory Committee to the Commission. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Perry. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. 

Edwards. 

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

that I haven’t been here for the entire hearing. I appreciate your 

continued oversight and the ranking member’s oversight of the 

GSA leasing process, let’s just say. 

I have long had questions about GSA’s role and who you work 

for. And in some of my work on this committee, it has come to my 

attention that it is often unclear who is in the driver’s seat when 

it comes to making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers and what 

might be most cost-effective for taxpayers when it comes to GSA 

and its relationship to the client agencies. 

And so I just want to ask you, Dr. Robyn, who is in the driver’s 

seat when making these decisions? Who gets to say that is the 

deal? 

Ms. ROBYN. We have a difficult role because we were created and 

we still have dual functions. We are a cop, on the one hand, we 

have a regulatory control function of telling agencies to dispose of 

that property, shrink your footprint. At the same time, we have a 

service-provision function, and we try to balance those two. We 

were created that way. Some countries have severed those two 

functions because it is hard to do both. I think they belong together, but it is a balancing act. And over time GSA has at some 

periods in its history been more in what one would call an ordertaker role and at other times been in more of the cop role. I like 

to think we are not an order taker, but we do need to work cooperatively with agencies. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask this, so I want to get right 

down to it: When you look at the National Capital region, how 

many counties, jurisdictions does that include? 

Ms. ROBYN. Oh. Well, I normally have a little map. It is—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Give me a number. 

Ms. ROBYN. It is the District and Prince George’s County and 

Fairfax and Arlington. Six, seven, something. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Montgomery. Right. 

Ms. ROBYN. Montgomery County, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so if we are to take a look at the consolidation that needs to happen with HHS which has, I believe, about 97 

offices throughout the National Capital region, how many of those 

offices are located in one of those handful of jurisdictions that you 

just pointed out? How many of those are located in Prince George’s 

County? 

Ms. ROBYN. I don’t know the number. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Does anybody from HHS know? 

Mr. HOLLAND. I don’t have that number, Congresswoman, but we 

certainly can get it and get back to you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Definitely want to get that. 

So of the 97 offices throughout the National Capital region, the 

number that I want to know, when you look at the spread throughout the region and you look at consolidation, how many of those are 

23 

in one county, in Prince George’s County? And while you are at it, 

in responding, I hope in writing to that question, I want you also 

to give us the average distance of the offices that you are currently 

operating and what you envision as consolidation from a Metro station, from a transportation hub. And also I would like to know the 

average lease rate per square foot paid in each one of those jurisdictions for the offices that HHS operates. 

[Please see pages 58–59 for responses from the Department of 

Health and Human Services to Hon. Donna F. Edwards’ questions.] 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just ask about DHS. DHS has about 50 

locations throughout the National Capital region. How many of 

those are planned, are you trying to draw down to sort of one vision, one DHS with, I don’t know, how many, 10 maybe other offices? 

Mr. ORNER. DHS headquarters and our component headquarters, 

as you say, occupy over 50 locations in the NCR. If you count our 

local field operations, it is another 50 locations. Our goal is to get 

down to roughly 15 anchor locations in the National Capital region. 

St. Elizabeths would be one of those. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And of the 50 locations currently in the National 

Capital region, do you know how many jurisdictions are in the National Capital region? 

Mr. ORNER. I don’t know off the top of my head. 

Ms. EDWARDS. OK. So, again, of those 50 locations in the National Capital region, and as you envision the 15 locations that you 

want to drill down to, with the anchor being the St. Elizabeths 

Hospital, how many of those are located in Prince George’s County? 

Mr. ORNER. I will get back to you with a written answer on that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And the same thing, how many, where they are 

located, the proximity to a Metro. 

[Please see pages 64–66 for responses from the Department of 

Homeland Security to Hon. Donna F. Edwards’ questions.] 

Ms. EDWARDS. What I am trying to get at is whether the National Capital region is treated fairly in all of its complexity in 

every single area of the county because when it comes to consolidation, when you start to look at what is the benefit of the bargain 

for the taxpayer, what is the cost? What is it going to cost us ultimately? Not what the cost is to an individual agency juggling a 

budget. What is the overall cost to the taxpayer and how are we 

saving the taxpayer money? And if there is a jurisdiction that we 

are jumping over top of to get someplace else at an agency directive, then I would say to you that GSA is not in the driver’s seat 

when it comes to giving the benefit of the bargain to the entire capital region and making sure that the taxpayer comes in first. 

And with that I would yield. 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I respond to that? I think that we rely on competition to get taxpayers the best deal. We spend an enormous 

amount of effort identifying the appropriate delineated area, and 

sometimes we have differences with individual members on this 

committee. But ultimately we use a competitive process. And we 

are not fundamentally different from a corporation when siting a 

large new facility, we are not fundamentally different from a corporation that is thinking—— 

24 

Ms. EDWARDS. With all due respect, there have been too many 

studies for you, Dr. Robyn, to sit in front of this committee and tell 

us that it is just kind of a transparent corporate decision looking 

at a delineated area where things are considered fairly. There has 

been way too much documentation. I don’t want to go into it again. 

But the reality is that there is only one jurisdiction in the National 

Capital region that is treated differently, and that is Prince 

George’s County in Maryland. 

And if the members of this committee want to get a better bargain for taxpayers, our job has to be to make certain that the GSA 

is treating the entire region with the fairness that taxpayers deserve, not because an agency just kind of wants it that way or because it is more convenient for the agency, but what is in the interest of the taxpayer. And I have to just tell you that from your agency and the data that you provided to the data that has been provided by outside third parties, it is really clear that there is only 

one jurisdiction in the National Capital region that is not treated 

with the same kind of transparency. You can’t come to this committee and try to make another argument about fairness because 

the data just doesn’t bear fruit. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The Chair now recognizes the former chair of the full committee, 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the last Member was 

usually very favorable towards the Government side of the equation, and I thought she framed my position very well. Look forward 

to working with her. In fact, I want to associate myself with her 

remarks. 

I guess there is some good news and some bad news, Ms. Robyn. 

The bad news first. Would you convey a message, tell Mr. 

Tangherlini, if GSA does not send a witness to my next hearing, 

they will be subpoenaed or I will come and sit in their office until 

I get the answers. This is on information technologies. Along with 

OMB. I can’t conduct an oversight of $84 billion worth of information technology business that the Federal Government conducts 

without one of the prime participants; that is GSA. I know that is 

out of your purview, but if you ever see Tangherlini, just tell him 

I sent that message. 

Let’s see, what should we take, the bad news or the good news? 

The good news is, Ms. Robyn, what to my wondering eyes should 

appear? I came into the office yesterday, maybe GSA was trying to 

give me some reason not to continue breathing because I gasped 

when I saw this: General Services Blanket Purchase Agreement for 

Real Property Sales and Support Services. Gasped in a pleasant 

way because I thought maybe we are heading down the path to 

doing something positive. This is just out, and what is the schedule 

for moving forward? Are you aware of this? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. 

Mr. MICA. You aren’t aware of it? General Services Administration, Public Building Service, Office of Real Property Utilization, a 

blanket purchase agreement. Did you talk about this before I got 

here? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. 

25 

Mr. MICA. Am I missing something? And you are aware of it? 

Hello, everything working here? 

Ms. ROBYN. I am sorry. I work closely with our disposal office. 

That is something they put out. I don’t know if that is something 

brand new. 

Mr. MICA. Hey, you should get acquainted with it, Robyn. I 

mean, things actually may happen in your agency. So I had a 

whole list of questions that I can’t ask you about, but one you could 

get back with us. This would only deal with GSA properties, right? 

It wouldn’t deal like Agricultural Research Service and some outside your purview. Would it or wouldn’t it? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, without seeing it, we are the disposal agent for 

all agencies. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, tell me if that is the case if they will have 

that purview. Is this requirement, and I want to find out if it is 

on a national basis or is it going to be subdivided to regional where 

they can go in and take pieces of it? 

Then another question. And, staff, I hope you are taking these 

down because I want them in writing because sometimes they forget to respond. The third question would be, are there any impediments? The staff already cited to me the possible impediments to 

moving forward with some of this disposition of real property because of McKinney and other Federal statutes. I want an analysis 

of any impediments from you that might interfere with this, which 

is good news. Please be aware of the good news before you come 

next time. 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I respond to that? 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, what the heck, go ahead. 

Ms. ROBYN. Because I did in my opening statement, my written 

statement, I said what you, Congressman Mica, have heard me say 

before, the impediments, there are three major impediments to us 

disposing of a lot of Federal property. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, in the context of this new venture, which 

you are not a whole lot aware of but should be, and I want to know 

if all of that, if the above applies or anything else because this is 

a little bit different approach. Quite frankly, I like it. I think it 

would be better if it was regionalized so we could go at it more effectively. It is hard to eat an elephant except a bite at a time. 

Ms. ROBYN. We have three disposal regions. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, that is I guess some good news. 

DHS, no. We need to be dismantling DHS. One of the biggest 

mistakes we ever made was putting it together. We probably need 

a DHS of about 3,000 people that is connecting the dots instead of 

this huge bureaucracy. I am going to do everything I can to close 

down anything at St. Elizabeths, have done that to date, will continue. We have got Coast Guard there, God bless them, they deserve it, a billion dollars, we have got 3 million square feet, billions 

of dollars invested in the infrastructure, which is fine. Maybe in 

the future, maybe we can open up a disposition of Federal bureaucracy office there, and I would support that, but we won’t get into 

that. I would just give you a little message. 

The other thing, Ms. Robyn, if you can get back with the committee, you know my slight interest ongoing in the Federal Trade 

Commission Building. 

26 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Which the consolidation of that single building over 20 

years would save a half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. I don’t 

know of any property where you could have it totally renovated, 

still keep it in the trusteeship of the Federal Government, like the 

1932 FTC headquarters building and have it renovated for another 

purpose at nontaxpayer expense, which I would estimate to be $150 

million to $200 million, and yet you persist in dividing up space 

which you are obligated to in the Constitution building. How much 

space was left there, 450,000 square feet? 

Ms. ROBYN. In which building? 

Mr. MICA. The Constitution Center, the one that you leased for 

Securities and Exchange Commission, signed a 10-year—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Oh, yes, yes. I think that is filled now. 

Mr. MICA. It is filled in your mind? Yeah. 

Ms. ROBYN. Including with—— 

Mr. MICA. And part with FTC? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, I believe so. 

Mr. MICA. Then you crammed some other agencies in there to fill 

it so you couldn’t properly move the FTC. Is that what we are looking at? Are the others moved in yet? Do I have to go down and 

chain myself to the door to stop that nonsense? 

Ms. ROBYN. That is leased space. That is a lease. 

Mr. MICA. Has anyone moved in there? Has anyone moved in 

there yet? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes. I have not been there. I am told there are 

various financial regulatory agencies there. 

Mr. MICA. So the only way I can stop it is through some dramatic 

move? 

Are you moving the 217,000 square feet that was north of Union 

Station there first? 

Ms. ROBYN. I am sorry? 

Mr. MICA. FTC had its secondary location was in, what do they 

call it, north of MOMA? 

Ms. ROBYN. NOMA, NOMA. 

Mr. MICA. What is it? 

Ms. ROBYN. North of Mass Avenue, NOMA. 

Mr. MICA. New Jersey Avenue property, have they moved out? 

Ms. ROBYN. I am sorry, I don’t know. 

Mr. MICA. Let the committee know. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. I want a complete one-pager, break it down so even 

an idiot can understand it as to where you are in that process so 

I can dismantle whatever you are doing. Would you help me with 

that? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. It is always a delight 

to be with this subcommittee. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

If, Dr. Robyn—— 

Mr. MICA. Could we make—at least reference to this part of the 

record and would the staff make a copy for the—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So moved. 

27 

[Please see pages 48–50 for responses from the General Services 

Administration to Hon. John L. Mica’s questions.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Dr. Robyn, if we could go back for just a moment 

on the Coast Guard property. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So when you terminate actually, you will be pay- ing rent for 2 years on the empty building that will cost $60 million? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, normally, I think the Congresswoman and I 

were talking past one another, and maybe—it sounds like we have 

a factual disagreement. This letter stated to Jeff Orner that we 

were getting ready to use our one-time termination rights. That 

means we walk away from a lease. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I believe it states that the earliest termination 

rate is in 2 years. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. That is the earliest termination rate, which would 

mean that we would be paying rent on that building for 2 years 

at a cost of $60 million. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, but this letter clearly says—our understanding—I mean, this letter says that doing this will save $60 

million or avoid that $60 million. So that is why I think we have 

a factual misunderstanding about what the—I do not believe we 

are left with—if we were left with a $60 million bill, we would be 

backfilling that. That doesn’t make sense to me. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I believe that is exactly what is happening, 

and—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I will clarify that. I don’t think that is right. 

[Please see pages 46–47 for responses from the General Services 

Administration to Hon. Lou Barletta’s questions.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. All right. If I can go back to the reference of the 

possibility of buying Two White Flint. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Representatives of the owners, as had been mentioned a little earlier, provided us with a copy of a letter that was 

sent to GSA. I will just read a small portion of it. ‘‘I spoke with 

the owner to the building, and the ownership has no interest in an 

option to purchase the property. As you are aware, the owner of 

this property holds property for the long term since a purchase option is not a possibility.’’ 

So if that is not an option, and we are considering purchasing the 

building, then I have to ask the question, if the owners aren’t willing to sell, are you considering condemning the building, condemnation? 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me start by saying, it is not unusual for, it is 

not unheard of for a lessor to say we don’t want to sell the building. 

That can be part of their negotiation strategy. If, indeed, that is 

their position, I think our position should be that, again, depending 

on the cost, we are prepared to walk away from this building. I 

don’t like—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So condemnation would not be an option? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, there are different flavors of condemnation. I 

think condemnation, as you are using the term, I think we would 

not do that. One, there are leasehold condemnations that we occaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
28 

sionally exercise in order to be able to gain additional time to vacate a building. We might exercise that sort of a, I believe it is 

called a leasehold condemnation. I don’t like being in a position of 

negotiating with a lessor when we don’t have choices. I think we 

need to be prepared to walk away from Two White Flint Mall if a 

lessor is not going to be reasonable. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The new $1.2 million Coast Guard headquarters 

required 1.6 million cubic yards of excavation, 250,000 cubic yards 

of concrete. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yep. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thirty miles of conduit and wiring, 40 miles of 

plumbing and piping. That was built in 4 years. The new 16-story 

San Diego courthouse was constructed in 3 years. Now, according 

to the NRC/GSA estimates that it will take 4.5 years to seal a few 

garage and walkway connections between the two existing buildings. How is this possible? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think it is a matter of expense, not the time involved. I will let my colleague speak to that, but I think it comes 

down to cost issues. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Borchardt, the lease at Three White Flint is 

$7 more per square foot than the rental cap for the suburban 

Maryland, and there are additional fees, including parking. Would 

the NRC commit to paying for the cost difference if another Federal 

agency moved into 3? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I would have to ask to submit the answer to 

that in writing. I would need to go back and give the question to 

the Commission so that they could provide that answer. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, I am hearing a little misunderstanding with 

what GSA believes. 

Ms. ROBYN. My understanding is they would pick up that incremental difference. We can backfill, there are plenty of opportunities 

to backfill the space in Three White Flint Mall that the NRC does 

not need. We cannot impose that incremental charge on another 

Federal agency. So my understanding is that the plan would be to 

have the NRC pick up that difference. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So do you believe the NRC would be willing to pay extra for a space it is not using, swallow the $90 million of 

extra costs in tailoring that building specifically for the NRC just 

to stay in Two White Flint? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I think there are important 

operational reasons for staying in Two White Flint. As to what additional financial burden we would accept is a matter that the 

Commission would have to decide themselves. I am not authorized 

to answer that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But the Operations Center and the data center is 

in Three White Flint. I know there is a daycare center in Two 

White Flint. That certainly wouldn’t be the reason to stay only, but 

the Operations Center, which I was very impressed with, is in 

Three White Flint. Wouldn’t it make more sense? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Yes. It is being moved to the third building. The 

special use facilities that would stay in Two White Flint are the 

hearing rooms for the Advisory Boards that provide expert advice 

to the Commission. Both of those have numerous public meetings 

and extensive public participation in the meetings. That, combined 

29 

with the need to do security-related classified discussions, are 

things that make the attributes of Two White Flint that are already cleared for those activities desirable. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Orner, you pointed out pilot programs DHS 

has implemented to test different workspace strategies, and you 

highlighted one example where DHS was able to put the same 

amount of people in 50 percent less space, saving $1 million. Can 

you explain how you were able to achieve that, and has there been 

any impact on the operations in that office? 

Mr. ORNER. Well, I can, and that is my own office, so it is easy 

to talk about that. First of all, it took a fair amount of planning 

and preparation. We had to move to an information technology 

backbone where everybody has a cell phone and everybody has a 

laptop. Supervisors had to put in place new performance standards 

that were measuring outcomes so that we could get to the point 

where we are managing outcomes as opposed to simply keeping 

track of who shows up every day. 

Most members of the workforce don’t have an assigned 

workstation. You go online once a week, and you sign up for: Am 

I doing something private this week that I can maybe do at home 

or am I collaborating with office mates? We have some open space, 

we have some more private cubicles. 

It is working out very well. The workforce is very pleased with 

it. It is a model that I would recommend on a much broader basis. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Holland, as you point out, HHS is already 

looking for opportunities to begin achieving your goal of 170. Recently the committee authorized two short-term leases for HHS as 

part of HHS’s plan to move those offices into Parklawn in Maryland. By doing this the utilization rate will be reduced from 273 to 

182. Are you still achieving that reduction? 

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, sir, we will. It does take the indulgence of the 

committee to extend those two leases a bit so we can finish the reconstruction of Parklawn, but we will get to 182. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

I will recognize the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to be really clear—and again I appreciate the hearing—that I really value the service of the men and women at HHS, 

at NRC, at DHS, and GSA. I truly do. I just think that when you 

come before this committee and our responsibility is to figure out 

how it is that we can support the work of all of the good people 

who work at your agencies and throughout the Federal Government, that we also recognize that we have tremendous financial 

constraints, and that those constraints can be alleviated when we 

have an open, fair, and transparent process, and that there will be 

members on this committee who will be, you know, very greatly 

supportive of your efforts to consolidate, to move, and to anchor 

employees where it makes the most sense. But we have to save 

money in doing that. 

And so my comments earlier were more frustration about representing a jurisdiction that I just feel like there can be no argument anymore and that this process can’t continue where we just 

hop and skip over a jurisdiction that, frankly, could save the taxpayer a lot of money. And I would urge each of you in your agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
30 

cies, but most especially GSA, to be in the driver’s seat, to be in 

the driver’s seat when it comes to making those determinations. 

Because sometimes the agencies have their own interests, and I 

understand that, but GSA has to be the arbiter. 

And I would agree with Mr. Mica that it is more than past time 

for GSA and its leadership to formally appear before this committee and for us also to see the leadership of the Office of Management and Budget, because so many of these decisions hinge on 

things that GSA says, oh, we don’t have any control over. But, you 

know, OMB. We need to see OMB and GSA at this witness table 

right here to respond to this concern even of Members who greatly 

value the service of our Federal workforce and aren’t interested in 

tearing that down, but also will not stand for the taxpayer not getting the benefit of the bargain. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Borchardt, you said that your goal was a utilization rate of 

215 feet per person. All of your actual Federal employees and over 

90 percent of everyone, including contractors, would fit in White 

Flint One and Three. With 125,000 feet of satellite space, you can 

house everyone. Why not keep 1 and 3 and have one satellite office? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. My answer, Mr. Chairman, has to do with our 

mission of nuclear safety and protecting the public. As I mentioned, 

Three Mile Island taught us an important lesson about having a 

consolidated workforce. I believe the events at Fukushima, that the 

Japanese regulators suffered from having a dispersed regulatory 

staff and not a timely ability to address some issues that needed 

to be addressed. 

I think there can be nothing that is more important than accomplishing our mission of protecting public health and safety, and experience tells us that the best way to do that is to have a collocated 

workforce. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Two problems there. I mean, DHS right now obviously have security issues, and they have multitenant properties, 

they are able to do it. And besides, this makes the most sense because 90 percent of all your employees will be in two buildings plus 

a satellite. So I am confused, because basically you are saying is 

if you kept 1 and 2, you know, they could backfill 3, but if you kept 

1 and 3, 90 percent of your employees would be together and one 

satellite. That would actually make your argument void. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, I am respectfully not sure I agree with 

you that the argument is void. I think the face-to-face interaction 

that is required in order to both conduct our normal job of doing 

detailed technical reviews of nuclear reactor designs, for example, 

and then more importantly the ability for the staff to be able to get 

together in a facility like the Operations Center, as recently as a 

result of Fukushima when we staffed the Operations Center for 

months at a time, and after 9/11, that ability to be collocated and 

to do joint collaborative work is highly valuable. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, it will be because what you are asking to 

do, you want to have 1, 2, and 3, so you will be taking people out 

of two buildings to get them over to three, versus being in 1 and 

3, having Three White Flint totally occupied where the Operations 

31 

Center is, and then your only other employees would be over in 1. 

How does having people in 1, 2, and part of 3 achieve what you 

are saying? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, because in my view that is one consolidated campus. Unless I misunderstood you, you were talking about 

having at least one more satellite office to house the remaining 

staff, because I believe we have provided information that demonstrates that the entire staff cannot fit into One White Flint and 

Three White Flint, the total of that. Plus there is the added complication, as I mentioned earlier, about the Advisory Committee 

and the hearing board, that we would need to find special facilities 

in order for them to do their jobs. 

Mr. BARLETTA. In meetings with your staff, the NRC stated that 

despite never using it in 60 years to acquire office space, the NRC 

has its own acquisition and leasing authority pursuant to the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Is that the NRC’s position, that like 

agencies such as SEC, the NRC can acquire and lease property on 

its own? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I believe section 161 provides that authority. 

And I know that there have been discussions between the NRC 

legal staff and your legal staff. And so if more information is required, I would ask that we be able to provide that in writing. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Six years ago the NRC went around the com- mittee authorization process and committed the taxpayers to $350 

million for a building that you can’t fill. Will the NRC and GSA be 

doing that again? Will you commit to abide by the longstanding 

committee process for authorizing leases? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we clearly want to work 

with this committee and with the GSA for all future activities. We 

would continue to do that. I think when we go back into time, as 

I mentioned earlier, that as a result of the Energy Policy Act in 

2005 and the renewed interest in nuclear energy, that there was 

great enthusiasm on the part of the Congress to make sure that 

the safety regulator was prepared to do all the work that was forecast to come to us. The decisions made were based upon our best 

information at that time. They were even, in my view, conservative 

at that time. We did not foresee the economic downturn nor the 

price of natural gas, which has resulted in the adjustments that we 

have had to make. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So is that a yes or a no? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. That we would continue to work with GSA and 

this committee, certainly. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Would you abide by the process? It would be a 

yes-or-no answer, would you abide by the process? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. On that question, I would have to go back and 

ask the Commissioners for their response. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So am I hearing—what you are saying is you 

don’t know whether or not you will abide by the process. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. What I am saying is I don’t have the authority 

to answer that question directly. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I actually don’t know how to answer that. 

Dr. Robyn, we asked over a month ago whether GSA’s inventory 

is actually shrinking and the data, for at least the last 5 years of 

the amount of space that is owned and leased, we have yet to get 

32 

that information. Can you tell us today is GSA’s inventory shrinking or is it growing, and when will we have that data? 

Ms. ROBYN. I apologize, I did not realize you had asked for it. We 

will get it for you. I have a feeling you have that number and I 

don’t have it handy. OK, you don’t. I don’t think—I think it has 

been fairly stable. I have been focused more on the leased-versusowned proportion in trying to stabilize the amount of lease space, 

because much of this hearing has been devoted to the problems 

that occur when we are—we have agencies in leased space that 

have more specialized needs, but I will get you that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I think—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Information. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I don’t have the answer, I don’t have the answer. 

But I think it is incredibly important that we know what our inventory is and how many employees are in those buildings because 

we really do need to get a grasp on it. 

Ms. ROBYN. I know within, you know, I know within a very, 

within a couple of million square feet. Asking how many people are 

in our buildings, that is—that is a tougher question. And to go 

back to what I said earlier to Congresswoman Edwards about the 

dual role we play and the cop role that we have played, agencies 

historically have not been eager to share that information with us 

because we have played the cop role when it comes to disposal and 

other things. So we don’t have the data on the number of people. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I believe we have the right to know that. I think 

when people at home are hearing this, it just again magnifies how 

dysfunctional Government is that we don’t even know how many 

employees we have, Federal employees the taxpayers are paying 

for in a building. And we have agencies who believe they have the 

right to say, we don’t think we want to reveal that information. I 

am telling you, that drives people crazy to believe that their Government would be so nonresponsive to very simple questions. And 

this would not happen in the private sector where you would have 

a department refusing to give you something so basic as how many 

employees do we have here. 

You know, if Federal employees are going to be so adamant 

about holding onto space. I have only been the chairman here for 

a very short time, and I have had an opportunity to do a couple 

of tours of buildings. And I am going to tell you, I didn’t know if 

it was a Federal holiday in one of the courthouses I walked in, I 

couldn’t find an employee. I didn’t know if they had the day off. I 

don’t believe—and I am not picking on just you, I am really talking 

to everyone, I don’t think the President’s recommendation that we 

shrink the footprint that Federal agencies begin to do the very necessary things as moving into smaller spaces, I don’t think that is 

a suggestion. I think he means it and I think we mean it. 

It is very hard for us. I mean, when you are talking about cutting LIHEAP, heating assistance for elderly. And to sit through 

this and have Federal agencies tell you that need, we would prefer 

bigger space and we would prefer spending more money to have a 

nicer facility and space. Well, I could tell you that there are senior 

citizens who would prefer having heat. 

Mr. Borchardt, this is not acceptable, it is very hard for you to 

defend that. One hundred ninety-five square feet in 2007 and 322 

33 

square feet today? I am going to disagree with you, in 2007, you 

had 3,340 people, today it’s 3,250 people and look at all the space 

you have. And to try to make an argument that we can’t do anything when we have a committee that authorized 120,000 square 

feet, but went out and they secured 443,000 square feet, instead of 

$38 million we are costing the taxpayers $400 million. You had a 

real tough argument today and I don’t think you made it. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that the 

NRC’s committed to complying with the ‘‘Freeze the Footprint’’ initiative, we are proposing a solution that significantly reduces the 

number of square feet for the agency, giving up over—giving up approximately half of the Three White Flint facility and terminating 

the leases on all of the satellites. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But half of a building, you are willing to give up 

half of a building that you charged the taxpayers with $90 million 

to tailor-make it for you. What about that money? Can you imagine? Would you do that with your home? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, as I mentioned, the way that situation developed was based upon the workload projections from the industry 

as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That hasn’t materialized in the way it was projected. The Congress supported the 

NRC’s plans for expanding the size of the staff. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I understand that, I understand what you are 

saying. OK, in 2007, for some reason, they anticipated hiring all 

these more employees and that didn’t happen. We negotiated our 

right in Two White Flint, we negotiated that away for another 

piece of property. We have a building that it the owner said they 

don’t want to sell. But here is what I am hearing today, we still 

don’t believe that. We still want to be 1, 2 and half of 3. 

I don’t think you are getting it. I think it has been very difficult 

when you are sitting next to agencies who believe what the President said, that we should find ways to move into smaller spaces. 

DHS moved into 50 percent smaller space. There are ways to do 

it if we want to, I know what you would prefer. And I have to say 

that I am absolutely astounded that you can’t say that the NRC 

will follow the law and abide by the authorization process, particularly when the NRC made such a mess of—of these leases. This 

wasn’t caused by the taxpayers, this wasn’t caused by the recession, this wasn’t caused by the economy, this was caused by a Government agency, and we are asking you to fix it. And to sit and 

tell me that you can’t tell me today that you will abide by the law 

is exactly why people believe the Government is just out of control. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I can just say that the 

NRC still firmly believes that we complied with the law, that the 

Atomic Energy Act provides us the authority. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The Chair recognizes Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you just very briefly, and I know the ranking member has returned. I just want to be clear Dr. Robyn, do you 

believe that you have the statutory and or regulatory tools to demand from agencies the leases that they have, the terms of those 

leases and the numbers of employees who were filling each one of 

those leaseholds? 

Ms. ROBYN. I don’t know the answer to that question. The last 

administration created the Federal Property Council the Federal 

34 

Real Property Profile. We are collecting data, a lot of data, it is 

problematic. We are reliant on agencies, GAO has pointed out problems with it. I am not sure whether the number of employees is 

part of what we collect. I know we do not have data on a number 

of employees. It is not always a simple question as you have got 

contractors, you have got people who are virtual—so it isn’t a simple matter. I know that it would help us a lot to have better data. 

I don’t know how—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. But are you saying that right now the way that 

you get that data is because agencies voluntarily provide it when 

you request it? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, it is a little more than voluntary, the Federal 

Real Property Profile, OMB is the enforcer and so they give us data 

that is part of the FRPP. It is—we are dependent, it is another 

part of GSA. And I apologize, that is why I don’t know some of the 

details, it is the Office of Government-wide Policy in GSA. There 

are issues with some of the data as GAO has pointed out. And we 

are taking steps to try to clarify the definitions and come up with 

some better metrics. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So if this committee asks you for information and 

there is not a formal mechanism by which every agency has to provide that to you. 

Ms. ROBYN. Certainly on any new lease or prospectus, we know 

how many people. We do detailed calculations of utilization. 

Ms. EDWARDS. The problem is, and I think the chairman has 

pointed this out, that it makes it really difficult for us to grab our 

hands around what it means to consolidate and reduce the footprint if when we ask you what is out in the ether, and you can’t 

grab your hands around it. And I just want to know from each of 

the agencies whether you feel that you have a statutory or regulatory obligation to timely, and often, regularly provide that information to GSA? 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I just clarify between two different issues, one 

is footprint. The OMB policy deals with square—it is a square-footage number, and we have worked with every single agency that 

falls under that policy, the CFO agencies, there are 24 of them. 

And we have given them their baseline figure, that is based on 

data from the Federal Real Property Profile from GSA leases and 

from their own leases that they have independent leasing authority. We know, we know that you will see that number on performance.gov. 

The harder thing is calculating on buildings that are not subject 

to lease renewals, what utilization is because we don’t always have 

the best data on the number of employees in it, that is a utilization 

number. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, couldn’t get that just by asking the agency? 

I mean, the agency surely must know. 

Ms. ROBYN. I think it probably is part of the FRPP, it is just not, 

it is not—it is something that is not reliable. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Any of the agencies comment on that and then I 

will yield. 

Mr. HOLLAND. Congresswoman, I don’t know what the statute 

says, but if Dr. Robyn had asked me for those numbers, I would 

find them. 

35 

Mr. ORNER. We absolutely feel we have an obligation to share 

those data with OMB, with GSA and with this committee. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. I also personally don’t know what the legal obligations are but we would be more than happy and we have in the 

past shared that information freely. 

Mr. HOLLAND. The one thing I would add, Congresswoman Edwards, it is, like Dr. Robyn said, not an easy question. I mean, the 

numbers of people in our buildings, we have 50 million square feet 

of real estate, it changes almost hourly, and it is a source of frustration for me and the Secretary to try to figure out at any particular given day, but we have general round numbers that we provide. 

Mr. ORNER. And to clarify, there is difference between the number of Federal employees assigned to a particular building, and the 

number of people who actually show up there on a particular day 

which may also include contractors, people from other agencies 

that may be detailed there, and so forth. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two hearings going on 

at the same time. And I don’t have any questions, but I do want 

to make clear. Mr. Chairman, the NRC got into this problem for 

the same reason that the SEC got into the same problem last Congress. The SEC problem created a terrible scandal because SEC 

went out and just rented, I mean, it did something comparable to 

what happened here, they rented office space, much more than any 

agency could possibly use, and then, of course, they fell back on 

SEC to help us get rid of it when Congress discovered it. Now we 

have the same thing happening with the NRC. And what they have 

in common is that both had independent authority, rare, very rare, 

never should have been done. I am going to introduce a bill, actually, if the chairman wants it to be his bill, I will go in it with him, 

that rescinds the independent leasing authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 

Isn’t it interesting that they never used it until now and they 

have had it since 1954; and they use it and they get a situation 

like they got at White Flint. 

Mr. Chairman, on the SEC, the SEC voluntarily, at least administratively, gave up its independent leasing authority. I put in a bill 

for that as well. I think both of them should be part of the same 

bill, and part of the policy of this committee, that no agency should 

have independent leasing authority because then you have no connection to the taxpayers, and people essentially are on a journey 

of their own to find out that the space on their wish list. It can not 

be exercised responsibly, so I believe certainly with the NRC, to be 

sure the SEC has given it up administratively, but I don’t see why 

they both shouldn’t be in the same bill. 

I want to remind Dr. Robyn that in 30 days, we want to know 

what she is doing to keep—I am telling you, reporters are going to 

be up there taking pictures of an empty building. We had this happen once before when I first came to Congress, I think it was the 

FCC building and the GSA allowed the agency to essentially refuse 

to move into the building, and so it became a story day after day 

in Washington about how we were paying, the taxpayers were payVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Aug 22, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\5-22-1~1\81150.TXT JEAN
36 

ing rent on this building. That is going to happen on that building. 

And if all you can say is well, we, you know, we are not paying 

as much as we might have, that won’t get you very far when this 

begins to be spotlighted. 

So in 30 days we want to know how you keep an empty building, 

what you are doing to mitigate that. If there is anything you can 

possibly do, and if not, why not? 

And finally on the present predicament of NRC, I would say that 

it is important for Dr. Robyn to submit to the committee a plan, 

an NRC housing plan. And I don’t think that you can expect this 

committee to take any action absent a plan. And even if there is 

one, I am not sure what we will be able to do for the NRC, but 

I will leave that to discussions I will have with the chairman. I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Mr. Borchardt, before we conclude, do 

all your employees and contractors respond to disasters? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. There are certainly a core number of technical 

experts that respond. I think the answer to you is no, although the 

entire agency would go into some kind of support function. So I 

mean, by that I mean the information technology staff person 

might not respond to the op center immediately. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So it would be possible to house those employees 

in one of the satellite buildings if necessary, those that weren’t responding directly to a disaster. 

For Ranking Member Norton’s benefit while, she was gone, one 

of the questions we were discussing was 6 years ago, that the NRC 

went around the committee authorization process and committed 

the taxpayers to $350 million for a building that they can’t fill. And 

the question was, will they commit today to abide by the longstanding committee process for authorizing leases, and the answer 

was they could not commit to that, that they would have to go 

back. 

Ms. NORTON. To see whether they will follow the law? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Correct. So I want to just close with this why, 

why did the NRC go around the committee authorization in 2007? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, first of all, I would like to say that without a doubt, the NRC will follow the law. There is no doubt about 

that. As I mentioned, the Atomic Energy Act provides us certain 

independent authorities. And the purchase of Three White Flint we 

did that in coordination with the GSA, so we didn’t act, operate 

completely on our own. And I am sorry, I forgot—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. What did the NRC—— 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, I think the situation, as I mentioned, was 

again, as a result of the Energy Policy Act in 2005, there was a 

great enthusiasm. The Congress expressed great interest, in fact, 

even concern about the NRC’s ability to respond in a technically 

credible and timely manner to the applications that were projected 

to come before us. As a result of that, we were authorized both an 

increase in staffing levels as well as authorization to construct the 

Three White Flint building. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And at the time the committee authorized 

120,000 square feet, which is exactly what you need? 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Well, in the time period around 2007, 2008 time 

period, the projected applications for new reactors was increasing, 

37 

so that the original forecast for space needs grew, and that is how 

we ended up with the facility that we now have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But ignoring the committee’s authorization of 

120,000 and build out 443,000, that is not double. 

Mr. BORCHARDT. Yeah, based upon the appropriations that we received. 

Mr. BARLETTA. At a cost of $400 million versus $30 million. 

Thank you all for your testimony. Your comments have been 

helpful to today’s discussion. If there are no further questions I 

would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open, until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. And 

unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any 

additional comments and information submitted by Members or 

witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. Without 

objection, so ordered. I would like to thank our witnesses again for 

their testimony today. If no other Members have anything to add, 

this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

38 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81150.006
39 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81150.007
40 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81150.008
41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81150.009
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81150.010
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81150.011
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81150.012
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81150.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81150.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81150.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81150.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81150.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81150.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81150.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81150.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81150.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 81150.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 81150.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 81150.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 81150.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 81150.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 81150.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 81150.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 81150.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 81150.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 81150.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 81150.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 81150.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 81150.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 81150.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 81150.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 81150.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 81150.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 81150.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 81150.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 81150.041
74 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 42 here 81150.042