[Senate Report 106-458]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 905
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-458
_______________________________________________________________________
SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER PUBLIC-
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
H.R. 3069
TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
October 2 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Peter A. Ludgin, Minority Professional Staff Member
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 905
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-458
======================================================================
SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
_______
October 2 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3069]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 3069) to authorize the Administrator of
General Services to provide for redevelopment of the Southeast
Federal Center in the District of Columbia, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Contents
Page
I. Purpose & Summary................................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................5
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................7
i. purpose & summary
The purpose of H.R. 3069, the Southeast Federal Center
Public-Private Development Act of 2000, is to authorize the
Administrator of General Services to provide for the
redevelopment of the Southeast Federal Center in the District
of Columbia.
ii. background
Planning the capital city
Washington, D.C.'s design is the product of careful
planning. Two plans for the city were created and followed.
These plans were completed by Pierre Charles L'Enfant in the
18th Century and Senator James McMillan of Michigan in the 20th
century. Planners today refer to and interpret how L'Enfant and
McMillan would have extended their plans to accommodate the
current needs of D.C.
In 1791, Pierre Charles L'Enfant was selected by President
George Washington to plan the Federal City known as the
District of Columbia. L'Enfant, through his planning of
Washington, attempted to symbolize the balance of the executive
and legislative branches of the government by placing the
Capitol and White House on prominent sites in the city and
linking them with Pennsylvania Avenue. L'Enfant also
highlighted the importance of States by creating prominent
squares and circles named after State heros and linking them
with roads named for the States.
L'Enfant also envisioned the possibility of new development
and planned the city such that neighborhoods were linked with
one another and the Federal government. He also emphasized the
importance of preserving open space, parks, and vistas. In
particular he envisioned the grand stretch of open space west
of the Capitol extending to the planned Washington Monument now
called The Mall.
In 1901, Senator James McMillan, as Chairman of the Park
Improvement Commission of the District of Columbia (McMillan
Commission), began extending L'Enfant's Plan to revitalize the
District of Columbia. McMillan re-emphasized the importance of
open spaces and parks. He also expanded the planning of open
space and parks away from The Mall, extending it throughout the
city.
Since 1924, a National Capital planning agency has existed
in various forms to be responsible for the comprehensive
planning of the National Capital Region. The current commission
is the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). In 1997,
the NCPC released ``Extending the Legacy: Planning America's
Capital for the 21st Century,'' intended to build upon the
previous planning efforts by creating a vision plan for the
city. Although not a comprehensive plan, the Legacy Plan
creates a ``framework'' for planning which provides vision for
the development of the Capital in the 21st century which
includes the Southeast Federal Center. The Legacy Plan also
takes into account the local planning efforts begun after Home
Rule in 1973, which established the current local D.C.
government.
History and need for legislation
The Southeast Federal Center (Center) is a 55.3 acre site
located in Washington, DC. It is bounded by the Anacostia River
on the south, M Street on the north, the Navy Yard on the east,
and 1st Street on the west. Other than the Navy Yard, there is
only moderate industrial use in the area.
During the time of Pierre Charles L'Enfant much of the
Center was under water. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson
established shipbuilding in this area of the city.
Subsequently, there was a rapid development of wharves,
warehouses and refineries. By the end of the 19th Century,
electricity and the railroad were introduced to the site.
During World War I, the nature of development on the site
shifted from shipbuilding and refineries to weapons production
and most of the private development was eliminated from the
site. Further changes occurred during World War II when the
site was the center for ordnance production and repair of
damaged navy vessels. Following the war, however, development
of missiles and electronic equipment made this production and
repair obsolete.
By 1962, all production ended and the Navy Yard was split
into two--a portion of the property remained with the Navy Yard
and a portion was transferred to GSA. Today, the main presence
in that area is the Navy Yard, which has increased its number
of personnel over the years. GSA has attempted over the years
to encourage other Federal agencies to relocate to this area to
help revitalize it; however, they have not been successful.
In 1996, Congress appropriated funds to start environmental
restoration of the Navy Yard area and demolition or restoration
of unused buildings to help make the area more attractive. Even
with these efforts, GSA has identified approximately 5 million
square feet of potential office space which is going unused.
H.R. 3069 provides GSA with the authority to enter into
various types of agreements with private entities including
leases, contracts, cooperative agreements, limited
partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, and limited liability
corporations. Further, GSA would be authorized to sell or
exchange property in that area.
The Committee concluded that special authorization for GSA
was needed for several key reasons. First, previous GSA
attempts to re-develop this area under the current law have
failed. Second, any property transactions authorized by H.R.
3069 must be for ``fair consideration,'' thus ensuring the
Federal government will receive appropriate compensation for
any business arrangements, leases, sales, or exchanges. Third,
the redevelopment fits into a larger revitalization plan for
redevelopment, following the legacy of the L'Enfant and
McMillan plans.
Fourth, Congress has a special responsibility to the
District of Columbia as the Capital City as mandated in the
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
Finally, to ensure the Federal interests are adequately
protected, the bill requires GSA to report to Congress on any
agreements and explicitly retains the authority of the NCPC
over this site to ensure future development is consistent with
the overall planning for the National Capital Region.
Local district efforts
The District of Columbia in recent years has been
attempting to revitalize the city. There already has been
tremendous redevelopment in the downtown area, planned
redevelopment westward from the Navy Yard down M Street to
South Capitol Street, and discussions about revitalizing key
entry points into D.C. such as Georgia Avenue and New York
Avenue. The local government has attempted to facilitate this
revitalization in reasonable ways.
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams outlined key economic
development priorities in the District of Columbia Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Year 2001. Among the goals of the economic
development plan are increasing targeted industries, marketing
the District, increasing access to the Capitol, establishing
retail hubs/commercial centers in neighborhoods, and relocating
District agencies to neighborhoods to spur economic growth. The
redevelopment of that area is a part of the broader
revitalization that will help D.C. achieve some of the local
goals. In particular, the redevelopment of the Southeast
Federal Center and the Navy Yard has a projected potential of
creating 15,000 new jobs in D.C.
The redevelopment of the Center will also allow for better
use and public access to the waterfront. Unlike many other
major cities, D.C. has underutilized its waterfronts including
the waterfront at the Center and Navy Yard. Currently, even
pedestrian access to the waterfront in the Southeast is
limited. Redevelopment is intended to open access and
development of this waterfront.
Although the employment level at the Navy Yard is expected
to increase by 2,000 in the near future, the lack of
redevelopment of the Southeast Federal Center may slow down or
adversely effect the redevelopment of the area. This is one of
the reasons GSA and the District of Columbia are partnering
together to coordinate the revitalization of the Southeast
Federal Center. It is an important piece of the redevelopment
in that area and citywide. Also, because of plans to encourage
growth, create more open access to the waterfronts, and connect
this area down M Street to South Capitol Street, it is a
natural extension of the L'Enfant and McMillan plans as
outlined in the NCPC's ``Extending the Legacy: Planning
America's Capital for the 21st Century.''
The authority provided to GSA in H.R. 3069 is a
continuation of this effort and is appropriate given the role
the Federal government has with respect to D.C.
Amendment
The amendment offered by Senator Thompson provides
technical changes to the bill. First, it corrects the spelling
of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) in section
3(f). Second, it clarifies the role of NCPC by requiring that
the Administrator of GSA consult with NCPC on the
interpretation of the NCPC vision plan entitled ``Extending the
Legacy: Planning America's Capital in the 21st Century.''
Third, it corrects the Senate committee to which GSA is to
report from ``Environment and Public Works'' to ``Governmental
Affairs.''
iii. legislative history
H.R. 3069 was introduced in the House of Representatives by
Representative Bob Franks (R-NJ) on October 13, 1999 for
himself and Representatives James A. Traficant, Jr. (D-OH),
Robert E. Wise, Jr. (D-WV), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
(D-DC). It was referred to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and then to the House
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation. On March 23,
2000, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
ordered reported H.R. 3069 by voice vote. The bill was passed
by voice vote under suspension of the rules in the House on May
8, 2000.
On May 9, 2000, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs considered H.R. 3069 with an amendment
offered by Senator Thompson on September 27, 2000. The
Committee voted to order the bill reported as amended by voice
vote.
iv. section-by-section analysis (as amended)
Section 1 entitles the Act as the ``Southeast Federal
Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000.''
Section 2 defines the ``Southeast Federal Center'' as the
site in the southeast quadrant of the District of Columbia that
is under GSA control and jurisdiction and extends from Issac
Hull Avenue on the east to 1st Street on the west, and from M
Street on the north to the Anacostia River on the south.
Section 3 authorizes the Administrator of General Services
to enter into agreements (including leases, contracts,
cooperative agreement, limited partnerships, joint ventures,
trusts, and limited liability company agreements) with a
private entity.
Subsection 3(b) sets out terms and conditions for such
agreements.
Subsection 3(c) requires that an agreement entered into by
GSA will be for fair consideration.
Subsection 3(d) authorizes GSA to convey any interests in
real property by lease, sale, or exchange, to a private entity.
Subsection 3(e) requires any obligations payable by GSA due
to use of space, goods, or services by GSA on property subject
to an agreement under this section be paid by funds available,
in advance, in an annual appropriations Act, to GSA from the
Federal Buildings Fund.
Subsection 3(f) retains the authority of the National
Capital Planning Commission with respect the Southeast Federal
Center and requires GSA, to the extent practicable, to ensure
any agreement will be in accordance with the NCPC vision plan
entitled ``Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital in
the 21st Century.''
Subsection 3(g) excludes GSA's authority under this section
from various federal property laws.
Section 4 requires GSA to report to Congress prior to
entering into an agreement under section 3.
Section 5 requires that net proceeds from an agreement
entered into under section 3 be deposited into, administered,
and expended, subject to appropriations Acts, as part of the
fund established by section 210 (f) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949.
V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3069, the
Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of
2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R.
Righter.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
H.R. 3069--Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of
2000
H.R. 3069 would authorize the General Services
Administration (GSA) to enter into an agreement with a private
entity for the purposes of redeveloping the Southeast Federal
Center (SEFC) in Washington, D.C. Because much uncertainty
exists as to whether GSA could find a private-sector partner to
redevelop the SEFC and the exact form that such an agreement
might take, CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of H.R.
3069. Because the legislation could affect direct spending
(including offsetting receipts), pay-as-you-go procedures would
apply.
An agreement to develop the SEFC under H.R. 3069 could take
one of many forms, including a lease, joint venture, or limited
partnership between the federal government and a private
entity. Through such an agreement, GSA could sell a portion or
all of SEFC; lease or exchange SEFC property for space, goods,
or services, including new construction or physical
improvements to existing federal property; or, through a
public-private partnership, construct, manage, and lease space
in new facilities to federal and nonfederal entities. The
legislation would prohibit GSA from providing a federal
guarantee for any debt issued as part of an agreement. Any
obligation for GSA to make payments under H.R. 3069 would be
subject to funding being provided in advance in appropriation
acts. Under the legislation, GSA could retain and spend any
proceeds resulting from an agreement, the legislation would
require GSA to report to the Congress on the proposed
agreement.
Because much uncertainty exists as to whether GSA could
find a private-sector partner to redevelop the SEFC and the
form such an agreement might take, CBO cannot estimate the
budgetary impact of H.R. 2069. However, depending on the type
of agreement, implementing H.R. 3069 could have significant
budgetary consequences. For example, a public-private
partnership formed to construct an office building at SEFC for
use by federal agencies would be a lease-purchase agreement.
Under the Budget Enforcement Act, a lease-purchase agreement
would require an up-front appropriation equal to the building's
full construction cost, and outlays would be recorded during
the construction period.
Alternatively, GSA could use the authority in H.R. 3069 to
provide a long-term lease of the SEFC to a private entity in
exchange for specific services, such as rent-free office space
for federal agencies. Because it would not involve the payment
of cash, that transaction would have no budgetary impact.
Finally, GSA could sell some or all of the SEFC property, thus
increasing offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending) from the sale of surplus federal property.
H.R. 3069 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The District of Columbia could benefit under this legislation
because public land currently exempt from property tax would
become taxable if the property is transferred to private
ownership. The outcome would depend on whether the District of
Columbia would choose to grant a tax exemption based on the
proposed use of the property.
On April 6, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
3069 as ordered reported by the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on March 23, 2000. The two
versions of this legislation are very similar and our cost
estimates are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are John R.
Righter (for federal costs) and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact). The estimate was approved by Robert A.
Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains
no other regulatory impact.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, there are no changes in existing
law made by the bill as reported.