[House Report 116-655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-655
======================================================================
GSA LEASE TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2019
_______
December 16, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5047]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5047) to require the Administrator
of General Services to conduct an annual audit of properties
leased to private parties, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 2
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 5
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 6
Preemption Clarification......................................... 6
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 6
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Minority Views................................................... 8
Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 5047 is to require the Administrator of
General Services to conduct an annual audit of properties
leased to private parties, and for other purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
The General Services Administration (GSA), through its
Public Buildings Service (PBS), is tasked with the acquisition
and management of Federal real property. GSA currently owns and
leases over 376.9 million square feet of space in 9,600
buildings in the United States. GSA's typical leasing activity
involves the acquisition of space from private entities. GSA is
required to follow the processes and model lease provisions
outlined in the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR).
In some cases, GSA is authorized to lease underutilized
space to private businesses and non-Federal entities--a
practice known as outleasing. These properties can include
retail shops, food service facilities, office space, warehouse
space, rooftop space, and parking lots. Since outleasing
involves the temporary disposal of space, rather than the
acquisition of space, GSA is not required to follow the
standard processes or to use model lease provisions contained
in the GSAR. Further, there is no statutory requirement that
GSA conduct financial audits of its outleased properties to
ensure that all rents and revenues owed by a private tenant are
received by the Federal government.
H.R. 5047 would require GSA to conduct audits of Federal
properties that have been leased to private parties. The audits
would occur on an annual basis and would apply to outlease
agreements in which the tenant leases at least 20 percent of a
Federal building.
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 5047:
On September 25, 2019, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing entitled, ``Landlord and Tenant:
The Trump Administration's Oversight of the Trump International
Hotel Lease.'' Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Mathews, Public
Buildings Commissioner, U.S. General Services Administration;
the Honorable Carol F. Ochoa, Inspector General, U.S. General
Services Administration; Mr. Michael A. Foster, Legislative
Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional Research
Service; Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin
Meese III, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage
Foundation; Ms. Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy,
Project on Government Oversight; Mr. Walter Shaub, Senior
Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
and Former Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Topics
discussed included GSA outleasing practices and the Trump
Organization's Old Post Office lease.
Legislative History and Consideration
H.R. 5047 was introduced in the House on November 12, 2019,
by Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Titus and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee, H.R.
5047 was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
The Chair discharged the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management from
further consideration of H.R. 5047 on November 20, 2019.
The Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 5047 on
November 20, 2019 and ordered the measure to be reported to the
House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment by a
record vote of 33 yeas and 22 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 10).
No amendments were offered during consideration of H.R.
5047.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against.
The Committee ordered H.R. 5047 to be reported to the House
of Representatives by record vote of 33 yeas and 22 nays (Roll
Call Vote No. 10). The vote was as follows:
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
Roll Call Vote No. 10
On ordering H.R. 5047 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment.
Agreed to: 33 yeas and 22 nays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio, P Chair...................... X Mr. Graves of MO, P Ranking Member X
Ms. Norton................................... X Mr. Young............................
Ms. Johnson of TX............................ X Mr. Crawford......................... X
Mr. Larsen of WA............................. X Mr. Gibbs............................ X
Mrs. Napolitano.............................. X Mr. Webster of FL....................
Mr. Lipinski................................. X Mr. Massie........................... X
Mr. Cohen.................................... X Mr. Meadows.......................... X
Mr. Sires.................................... X Mr. Perry............................ X
Mr. Garamendi................................ X Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............... X
Mr. Johnson of GA............................ X Mr. Woodall..........................
Mr. Carson of IN............................. Mr. Katko............................
Ms. Titus.................................... X Mr. Babin............................ X
Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of NY............... Mr. Graves of LA.....................
Mr. Huffman.................................. Mr. Rouzer........................... X
Ms. Brownley of CA........................... X Mr. Bost............................. X
Ms. Wilson of FL............................. X Mr. Weber of TX...................... X
Mr. Payne.................................... X Mr. LaMalfa.......................... X
Mr. Lowenthal................................ X Mr. Westerman........................
Mr. DeSaulnier............................... X Mr. Smucker.......................... X
Ms. Plaskett................................. X Mr. Mitchell......................... X
Mr. Lynch.................................... X Mr. Mast............................. X
Mr. Carbajal................................. X Mr. Gallagher........................
Mr. Brown of MD.............................. X Mr. Palmer........................... X
Mr. Espaillat................................ X Mr. Fitzpatrick......................
Mr. Malinowski............................... X Miss Gonzalez-Colon of PR............ X
Mr. Stanton.................................. X Mr. Balderson........................ X
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.......................... X Mr. Spano............................ X
Mrs. Fletcher................................ X Mr. Stauber.......................... X
Mr. Allred................................... X Mrs. Miller.......................... X
Ms. Davids of KS............................. X Mr. Pence............................ X
Ms. Finkenauer............................... X
Mr. Garcia of IL............................. X
Mr. Delgado.................................. X
Mr. Pappas...................................
Ms. Craig.................................... X
Mr. Rouda.................................... X
Mr. Lamb..................................... X
-------------
Vote Total: 33 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5047 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5047, the GSA
Lease Transparency Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 5047 would require the General Services Administration
(GSA) to perform an audit of federal contracts with private
entities that lease 20 percent or more of a federal building.
In addition, all future leases with private entities would need
to include provisions to permit GSA and its inspector general
to audit those leases.
Using information from GSA, CBO expects that around 5 to 10
leases would be audited under H.R. 5047 and that GSA would hire
accounting firms to conduct those audits. Based on the cost of
similar audits, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
cost about $1million over the 2020-2024 period. Any spending
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to ensure
the Federal government has received all rent and revenues in
accordance with the provisions of GSA outleases.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 5047 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 5047 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the
``GSA Lease Transparency Act of 2019''.
Sec. 2. Annual audit
This section directs the Administrator of General Services
to conduct an annually occurring audit of leases covered by the
Act within 90 days of enactment. The section also states that
the audit shall determine whether the Federal government has
received all rent, revenues, and anything of value due in
accordance with the provisions of each covered lease. The
section defines ``covered leases'' as an active lease of space
in a Federal building in which at least 20 percent of such
building is leased to any entity pursuant to any provision of
law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE
SUBTITLE I--FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec.
SUBCHAPTER VII--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
625. Annual audit of leases.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 625. Annual audit of leases
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Administrator of General Services shall complete an audit, in
compliance with generally accepted government accounting
standards, of covered leases.
(b) Content of Audit.--The audit shall determine whether the
Federal Government has received all rent, revenues, and
anything of value due in accordance with the provisions of each
covered lease.
(c) Submission.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
completion of an audit, the Administrator of General Services
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the
audit and a report on such audit.
(d) Additional Audit Requirement for Leases.--With respect to
any covered lease that takes effect on or after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall require that
such a lease contains audit rights for the Administrator and
the Inspector General of the General Services Administration.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the following definition
applies:
(1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means
an active lease of space in a Federal building in which
at least 20 percent of such building is leased to any
entity pursuant to any provision of law, including--
(A) section 543;
(B) section 581;
(C) sections 306121 and 306122 of title 54,
United States Code; and
(D) Public Law 108-447 (108 Stat. 2809 et
seq.).
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Republicans oppose H.R. 5047, the GSA
Transparency Act of 2019, as ordered reported. The bill creates
new responsibilities for the General Services Administration
(GSA) outside its core expertise for not only its out-leased
properties but for those of other agencies. H.R. 5047 burdens
the GSA without any demonstration for the need, analysis of the
potential impact on the costs to the taxpayer, nor
consideration of long-standing bipartisan priorities that
dictate unused or underused federal real estate assets.
OUT-LEASES AND THE OLD POST OFFICE
Unfortunately, the Majority proposes these government-wide
leasing changes based on a single, unique out-lease related to
the redevelopment of the Old Post Office (OPO) in Washington,
D.C., into the Trump International Hotel. This specific out-
lease was proposed and supported by Democratic Committee
Members prior to the election of President Donald J. Trump.
However, during a Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management hearing held on January 28,
2020, Subcommittee Chair Dina Titus tried to revise history,
saying ``. . . given the myriad of issues and concerns raised
by the execution of this lease from the outset, I want us to
make sure that the GSA and this Committee have a clear
understanding of the process moving forward and that we are not
going to be repeating the significant mistakes of the
past.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Hearing on ``GSA Outleases and the Trump Old Post Office
Hotel,'' Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
January 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It remains unclear as to why, if there were ``issues or
concerns'' with the lease from the ``outset,'' the Democratic
members failed to raise those concerns in 2013 when the
Committee had 30 days\2\ to review GSA's report, detailing the
material provisions of the lease.\3\ There is no record of any
Member objecting to the lease at that time nor requesting GSA
include lease provisions related to audits as proposed in H.R.
5047. In fact, contrary to the statements of the Subcommittee
Chair, Members of the Committee from both sides expressed
support for the lease.\4\ At the time, GSA officials under the
Obama Administration that oversaw the process stated that the
proposal by the Trump Organization was ``a combination of the
viability of the business plan, the quality of the commitment
to preserving the asset and a sense that this was the best deal
on the table for the American taxpayer.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 110-359, the Old Post Office Redevelopment Act of
2008, provided a congressional review period consisting of a ``30-day
period of continuous session of Congress following the date of the
transmittal of the report . . .''.
\3\``Report of Material Provisions of the Old Post Office
Development Agreement Submitted Pursuant to Old Post Office Building
Redevelopment Act of 2008,'' General Services Administration, June
2013.
\4\See, for example, Donald Trump Officially Breaks Ground on Old
Post Office Hotel: The Project will Cost an Estimated $200 million over
the next two years, Washingtonian, July 23, 2014.
\5\A Trump Makeover for Washington's Old Post Office, The New York
Times, May 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea for leasing the OPO, selection of the Trump
Organization, and execution of the out-lease for redevelopment
was driven and overseen by Democratic Members and by a
Democratic Administration. Those involved had sufficient
information and time to raise objections, questions, concerns--
yet they did not do so.
COMMITTEE'S OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL REAL ESTATE
Oversight of the GSA and its management of federal real
estate is an important part of the Committee's role. And,
oversight of the OPO redevelopment and other out-leases is
appropriate. This Committee has had a long history of
bipartisan work holding GSA and other federal agencies
accountable for being good stewards of federal real estate
assets. If there are questions or information needed about a
particular project or facility for proper oversight, both sides
have historically worked together to obtain that information
and, when legislation is needed, worked on a bipartisan basis
to draft and advance such legislation.
In addition, when requesting information from GSA, the
Committee has generally been sensitive to respecting business,
propriety, and procurement sensitive information. The possible
release of such information could not only lead to a chilling
effect reducing competition and increasing costs to the
taxpayer, but in the case of out-leases, such disclosures could
harm the revenue and benefits to the federal government and
American taxpayer. As such, demands for potentially sensitive
information by the Committee--whether directly or through
legislation--should be precise, deliberative, and on an as-
needed basis.
Instead, this Congress, the Democratic Members have made
sweeping document requests of the GSA related to the OPO and
other projects producing more than 3,700 documents totaling
more than 10,000 pages as of January 2020.\6\ Despite GSA's
responses to document requests, the private investment of $200
million to revitalize the historic OPO asset, and adherence to
the rental payments that accrue to the benefit of the
taxpayers, the Democratic Members have continued to insist that
they need access to potentially proprietary and business
sensitive information that, if released, could harm the
financial interests of the taxpayer. The fact that GSA's offer
to work with the Committee to accommodate the request to review
more sensitive information was rejected by Democratic Members,
raises questions as to the purpose for which the information is
being requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Testimony of The Honorable Emily W. Murphy, Administrator, U.S.
General Services Administration, Hearing on GSA Outleases and the Trump
Old Post Office Hotel, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, January 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF VACANT AND UNDERUSED FEDERAL PROPERTY
In 2003, the General Accountability Office (GAO) placed
real property management on its list of ``high risk''
government activities where it remains today. The key reasons
the GAO identified federal real property as high risk are:
excess and underutilized real property,
deteriorating and aging facilities,
unreliable property data, and
the over reliance on costly leasing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See High Risk Series: Federal Real Property, U.S. General
Accountability Office, GAO-03-122, January 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As GAO noted in its 2019 High Risk report, ``. . . federal
agencies continue to face long-standing challenges, including:
(1) effectively disposing of excess and underutilized property,
(2) relying too heavily on leasing, (3) collecting reliable
real property data for decision making, and (4) protecting
federal facilities.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\GAO-19-157SP High-Risk Series, p. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even prior to 2003, the Federal Government grappled with
the issue of empty and unused federal space and how best to
dispose of or reuse the space. In 1966, for example, the
National Historic Preservation Act included Sec. 111 which
allowed and encouraged federal agencies to out-lease unused or
underused historic federal buildings.\9\ The goal was to ensure
the preservation of historic buildings by attracting private
investment, save taxpayer dollars on ongoing maintenance costs,
and create an attractive asset in the communities where the
historic building is located.\10\ In 1976, Congress enacted the
Cooperative Use Act, which provided GSA with the authority to
lease out space in certain areas of federal buildings to
attract retail, cultural and other activity.\11\ Congress
subsequently expanded GSA's authority to enter into out leases,
first for more targeted projects, such as to redevelop the
Southeast Federal Center in Washington, D.C., and then expanded
such authority across GSA facilities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\16 U.S.C. 470h-3.
\10\See, for example, In a Spirit of Stewardship, A Report on
Federal Historic Property Management, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 2015. See also Report to Accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post
Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Rpt. 110-724.
\11\ Public Law 94-541.
\12\See, Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of
2000, Public Law 106-407; see also H. R. 2573, the Public Private
Partnership Act of 2003, 108th Congress. The core authorities proposed
by this legislation were ultimately enacted into law in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. H,
Title IV, Sec. 412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In more recent history, Congress has continued to work on a
bipartisan basis to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted on
vacant space. For example, in 2013, the Obama Administration
issued guidance to ``Freeze the Footprint'' for federal real
estate.\13\ This was followed with the issuance of policy to
``Reduce the Footprint.''\14\ The purposes of these policies
were to ``freeze the Federal Government's real estate footprint
and restrict the growth of excess or underutilized
properties.''\15\ These policies along with the corresponding
National Strategy for Real Property were intended ``to increase
efficient real property use, control costs, and reduce real
property holdings.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2013-02, Office of
Management and Budget, March 14, 2013.
\14\Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2015+01, March 25, 2015.
\15\Letter Accompanying the National Strategy for Real Property,
Dave Mader, Controller, Office of Management and Budget, March 25,
2015.
\16\National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property, 2015-
2020, Spring 2015, Office of Management and Budget; Letter Accompanying
the National Strategy for Real Property, Dave Mader, Controller, Office
of Management and Budget, March 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, despite these Executive Branch efforts over the
decades to provide GSA and other federal agencies with
expansive authority to dispose of, redevelop, or out lease
space, it has required this Committee's involved to spur
progress, given the reluctance of federal agencies to dispose
of or redevelop vacant or underused properties. The Committee
has acted legislatively and through oversight to push GSA to
redevelop key assets, revitalize them, and turn them from
assets losing taxpayer dollars to ones that benefit the
taxpayer.
For example, in 2011, both the Obama Administration and
Republican Members of the Committee proposed significant
reforms to reduce vacant and underutilized properties.\17\
These efforts culminated in the passage of the Federal Assets
Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) of 2016 which, among other
things, created the Public Buildings Reform Board to look
across government and identify unused or underused federal real
estate to sell, redevelop, or out-lease to reduce waste, lower
costs, and bring in revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See draft bill transmitted to the Honorable John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives by Jacob J. Lew, Director,
Office of Management and Budget, May 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OPO in Washington, D.C.,--the current location of the
Trump International Hotel--is a historic building. Yet this
historic building was never designed for more modern and
efficient office space.\18\ As a result, the annual operating
loss for GSA and the taxpayer was $6.1 million.\19\ For more
than a decade, GSA attempted to revitalize this building by
out-leasing ground level space for retail and expanding retail
space through construction of an adjacent pavilion.\20\ All
attempts failed.\21\ As a result, in 2008, D.C. Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced legislation directing GSA to
redevelop the OPO.\22\ This legislation was passed by the
Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by President
Obama.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See, Historic Buildings, Old Post Office, Washington, DC,
General Services Administration: https://www.gsa.gov/historic-
buildings/old-post-office-washington-dc.
\19\Report to Accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building
Redevelopment Act of 2008, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Rpt. 110-724.
\20\See Id.
\21\See Report to accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building
Redevelopment Act of 2008, Rpt. 110-724.
\22\H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008,
110th Congress.
\23\Public Law 110-359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite passage of this legislation, it was not until the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management began holding oversight hearings focused
on vacant and underutilized federal assets that meaningful
actions were taken to redevelop the OPO and other assets.\24\
Other buildings out-leased and redeveloped as a result of
Committee action or oversight include the David W. Dyer Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse (Miami, FL) and the Spring Street
Courthouse (Los Angeles, CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\For example, Subcommittee Hearing on ``One Year Later: Still
Sitting on Our Assets,'' February 9, 2012 at the OPO Annex;
Subcommittee Hearing on ``Sitting on Our Assets: The Georgetown Heating
Plant,'' on June 19, 2012 at the Georgetown Heating Plant; Subcommittee
Hearing on ``Sitting on Our Assets: The Vacant Federal Courthouse in
Miami,'' on August 6, 2012 at the David W. Dyer Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, GSA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
OPO and in 2012 the Trump Organization was selected as the
preferred developer, as noted by GSA during a Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management hearing on February 9, 2012, held in the then-vacant
Annex of the OPO.\25\ And, as required in the Old Post Office
Building Redevelopment Act of 2008, in June of 2013, GSA
submitted to the Committee a Report of Material Provisions of
the OPO Development Agreement for a 30 congressional day\26\
review period and conducted briefings for the Committee prior
to finalizing the agreement with the Trump Organization.\27\
And, as previously noted, no objections or questions were
raised at that time about audit requirements in the lease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, ``One Year Later: Still Sitting on Our Assets,''
February 9, 2012, Hrg Report 112-72, p. 6.
\26\See footnote 2 supra.
\27\``Report of Material Provisions of the Old Post Office
Development Agreement Submitted Pursuant to Old Post Office Building
Redevelopment Act of 2008,'' General Services Administration, June
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVASTATING IMPACT OF H.R. 5047
H.R. 5047 would have the potential of stifling the
bipartisan work of the Committee to encourage the redevelopment
and reuse of vacant or underused federal real estate assets.
With the potential of requiring GSA to disclose propriety or
business sensitive information, potential private sector
partners may be reluctant to participate in such projects.
Without evidence indicating that such requirements are
necessary, enacting such legislation would not be prudent and
could negatively impact the benefits to the taxpayer of leasing
government property. H.R. 5047 could also potentially turn away
GSA resources from managing these complex out-leases--which is
GSA's statutory purpose--to becoming the federal government's
auditor of such leases.
We are disappointed that broad, government-wide legislation
such as H.R. 5047 is based on a single case rather than on a
thorough review of its broader impact and need. The
implications of H.R. 5047 go beyond a single project and
undermine the precedent that led to the successful
redevelopment of the OPO and other federal buildings. A review
of all large out-leases covered by this legislation ought to
occur prior to crafting and considering such widespread reforms
so that the implications are fully understood. For these
reason, Committee Republicans must oppose this legislation but
look forward to returning to our traditional bipartisan work to
redeveloping underutilized property for the benefit of the
taxpayer.
Sam Graves,
Ranking Member.
[all]