    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 2513, A BILL DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO
              ACQUIRE A POSTAL SERVICE BUILDING IN TERRE HAUTE, IN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                          INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2513

     TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO ACQUIRE A BUILDING
            LOCATED IN TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-118

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-490                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                                     ______

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho                   (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

       Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                       STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JIM TURNER, Texas
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    DOUG OSE, California                 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
              J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
       Bonnie Heald, Director of Communications/Professional Staff Member
                              Chip Ahlswede, Clerk
                         Michelle Ash, Minority Counsel
                        Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 29, 1999...............................     1
        Text of H.R. 2513............................................     2
    Statement of:
        Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Property
          Disposal, Public Buildings Service, General Services
          Administration.............................................    33
        Jenkins, Jim, Terre Haute, IN................................    17
        Nation, Todd, Save the Architecturally Magnificent Postal
          Station, Downtown Terre Haute, Inc.........................    20
        Pease, Hon. Edward A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Indiana...........................................     9
        Rynne, Edward J., Jr., real estate specialist, Asset
          Management Group, U.S. Postal Service......................    40
        Whitlock, James, Assistant Regional Administrator for Public
          Building, Great Lakes Region (Region 5), General Services
          Administration.............................................    28
    Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
        Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Property
          Disposal, Public Buildings Service, General Services
          Administration, prepared statement of......................    35
        Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California:
            Letter dated September 27, 1999..........................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Jenkins, Jim, Terre Haute, IN, prepared statement of.........    19
        Nation, Todd, Save the Architecturally Magnificent Postal
          Station, Downtown Terre Haute, Inc., prepared statement of.    23
        Pease, Hon. Edward A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Indiana, prepared statement of....................    11
        Rynne, Edward J., Jr., real estate specialist, Asset
          Management Group, U.S. Postal Service, prepared statement
          of.........................................................    41
        Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas, prepared statement of............................     7
        Whitlock, James, Assistant Regional Administrator for Public
          Building, Great Lakes Region (Region 5), General Services
          Administration, prepared statement of......................    30

     H.R. 2513, A BILL DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO
              ACQUIRE A POSTAL SERVICE BUILDING IN TERRE HAUTE, IN

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
                                        and Technology,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Horn, Ose, Turner, and Mink.
        Also present: Representative Waxman.
        Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief
    counsel; Randy Kaplan, counsel; Bonnie Heald, communications
    director and professional staff member; Chip Ahlswede, clerk;
    P.J. Caceres and Deborah Oppenheim, interns; Michelle Ash and
    Trey Henderson, minority counsels; and Jean Gosa, minority
    staff assistant.
        Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the House
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
    Technology will come to order.
        The focus of today's hearing is H.R. 2513, introduced by
    our colleague from Indiana, Representative Ed Pease. This bill
    is of great importance to Mr. Pease's constituents, the people
    of Terre Haute, IN.
        The bill would direct the Administrator of General Services
    to acquire a Postal Service building located in downtown Terre
    Haute. The building, a three-story Indiana limestone structure,
    was constructed in 1935 through a Depression-era public works
    project. The building is listed on the National Register of
    Historic Places, but it is sorely in need of repair.
        Historically, the building has housed Federal courts, the
    Post Office and several other Federal offices, including the
    Social Security Administration, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. Following the
    Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the building was transferred
    from the Federal inventory to the U.S. Postal Service. Because
    of its declining condition, however, a number of Federal
    tenants have already moved out. Without repair and
    modernization, the local community fears that the remaining
    tenants, including the Postal Service, will also leave. The
    General Services Administration has estimated it will cost
    between $4 million and $5 million to renovate the aging
    building.
        In 1997, the Postal Service's main processing and
    distribution operation moved from the downtown building to a
    new location; however, a small retail outlet still remains at
    the site. In addition, building tenants include the U.S.
    district and bankruptcy courts, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, the U.S. attorney, the U.S. Marshal, and
    Representative Pease's district office.
        The subcommittee marked up the bill and reported it to the
    full committee without amendment on September 22, 1999. Today's
    hearing is being held at the request of the ranking member of
    the full committee Mr. Waxman and the subcommittee's ranking
    member, Mr. Turner, both of whom requested further
    consideration of this legislation.
        We have a knowledgeable group of witnesses before us today.
    We will hear from Representative Pease; local officials,
    including the mayor of Terre Haute, Jim Jenkins. We will also
    hear from representatives of both the Postal Service and the
    General Services Administration. We want to learn about the
    Postal Service's efforts to maintain this historic structure
    and potential restoration plans under the property management
    leadership of the General Services Administration.
        We welcome the witnesses. We look forward to your
    testimony.
        [The text of H.R. 2513 and the prepared statement of Hon.
    Stephen Horn follow:]

    106th CONGRESS
    1st Session
                                   H. R. 2513

     To direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire a building
            located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and for other purposes.

                                     ______

                        IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 July 14, 1999

      Mr. Pease introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
      Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on
      Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
       determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

                                     ______

                                     A BILL

     To direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire a building
            located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and for other purposes.

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF BUILDING.

        (a) Acquisition.--The Administrator of General Services shall
    acquire by transfer from the United States Postal Service the real
    property and improvements located at 30 North Seventh Street in Terre
    Haute, Indiana.
        (b) Reimbursement.--The transfer under subsection (a) shall be made
    without reimbursement, except that the Administrator shall provide to
    the Postal Service an option to occupy 8,000 square feet of renovated
    space in the building acquired under subsection (a) at no cost for a
    20-year term.

    SEC. 2. RENOVATION OF BUILDING.

        (a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services shall
    renovate the building acquired under section 1, and acquire parking
    spaces, to accommodate use of the building by the Administrator and the
    United States Postal Service.
        (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to the requirements
    of section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 606(a)),
    there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
    $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such
    sums shall remain available until expended.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.002

        Mr. Horn. I now yield to the gentleman from Texas Mr.
    Turner, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is appropriate that
    we have this hearing and that the GSA has expressed some
    reservations about the project. I am personally very
    sympathetic to Mr. Pease's legislation. Being from a small town
    myself, I understand how important it is to preserve the
    downtown area. I think it is very important for us to have this
    hearing today because the bill would transfer the building to
    the General Services Administration, with reservations being
    expressed by the GSA. It is important that we get them ironed
    out and get the matter resolved satisfactorily in order for the
    legislation to ultimately be meaningful.
        So hopefully today, by having this hearing, all parties
    have the opportunity to express their point of view. It is my
    hope that the ultimate outcome will be to see this building
    restored, its historical significance preserved, and it be an
    enhancement, rather than a detraction, to the downtown of the
    hometown of my good friend Ed Pease.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Well, thank you. I also came from a small town,
    and I agree with you, and we hope that the preservation aspects
    and the historic value would be worth saving.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.004

        Mr. Horn. I want to now welcome the gentleman from Indiana,
    Mr. Pease to introduce the witnesses, and then he is welcome to
    join us here at the dais if he would like to pursue questions.
        So, Mr. Pease.

    STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD A. PEASE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

        Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, the ranking
    minority member, to you and your staffs and the other members
    of the subcommittee with whom I have met and with whom my staff
    has met over the period of time in which we have worked
    together to try and reach an appropriate resolution of an
    admittedly difficult situation involving formerly Federal and
    now Postal Service property in Terre Haute, IN.
        I have prepared a statement that goes into much greater
    detail than I plan to orally and would request, Mr. Chairman,
    that that statement be included in the record.
        Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be included at this
    point.
        Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Briefly, the background of the situation is this: The
    building that is currently occupied by the--that is owned by
    the U.S. Postal Service at Seventh and Cherry Streets in Terre
    Haute, IN, was originally a Federal building. It was a WPA
    building, and it housed a number of Federal agencies and the
    Post Office for many years until the Postal Reorganization Act
    divided some properties between the Federal inventory and the
    U.S. Postal Service, and this property, which was the main
    postal facility in western Indiana, was transferred to the
    Postal Service. In its modernization program of the last 25
    years, eventually there was built a new distribution center
    closer to the interstate in Terre Haute, IN, and the need for
    the extensive amount of space that the Postal Service had
    required before was no longer there.
        The building has included a number of Federal agencies
    through the course of its history. Some are still there. Most
    prominent among them, the U.S. District Court, the bankruptcy
    court, the FBI, the Marshal Service and several others, but
    those being the most prominent ones. One of our district
    offices is located in this building as well.
        The building is typical of many buildings from the WPA era.
    It is an imposing building. You will be told more about it, but
    it is also a large building that needs maintenance, and which
    the Postal Service has done the best they can, I believe,
    through the period of their stewardship. But to make the
    building more attractive and more competitive for other tenants
    is going to require more work, and the Postal Service has made
    it clear, and I do understand, that their major priority is
    delivering the mail. Management of buildings is secondary to
    that goal, and their presence in this building will be much
    reduced from what it was before, leaving them with a large
    building to manage really outside of the realm of their primary
    mission.
        The Terre Haute community, like many communities, has had
    difficulty in maintaining its downtown area, despite
    commitments by the city and by Indiana State University, which
    is an urban campus in downtown Terre Haute. There has been
    progress made, particularly in the most recent past, in trying
    to turn that around. The city has made substantial investments
    in the downtown area, but this is the most prominent historic
    building in downtown Terre Haute, and its presence as an anchor
    for the business and government activities of downtown Terre
    Haute is critical to the success of the efforts of the city,
    the Chamber and others to make the downtown area more viable
    than it has been in the recent past.
        Because the building is not as attractive in terms of
    office space and other facilities in Terre Haute have been, we
    have seen some of the Federal agencies that used to occupy that
    building move to private commercial leases in other space
    within the city of Terre Haute. Most prominent among them are
    the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security
    Administration, the armed services recruiting offices, and the
    Department of Agriculture, although there are others. It is our
    belief that if this building is transferred, as we propose it
    should be, to the General Services Administration, which is in
    the business of managing buildings, and if we provide the
    resources that are necessary to make the building as attractive
    as we would like for it to be, that when those other leases
    expire for Federal space that is being rented elsewhere in
    Terre Haute, those tenants could be brought back to the Federal
    building, fully occupy the building, and make it a viable,
    government center for the city of Terre Haute, as well as
    preserve the historic integrity of the building and its
    importance in the downtown community.
        We have worked with the Postal Service and the GSA for
    almost 2 years on this project, trying to find ways that will
    work to the best advantage of everyone. We are convinced that
    this is the best proposal at this time, but we remain open to
    further conversations and discussions as the matter progresses.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Edward A. Pease follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.010

        Mr. Horn. Well, if you would like to join us now, and if
    you could introduce the witnesses, we would like to hear from
    them, and please come up here and introduce them one at a time,
    and then we will ask the General Services Administration and
    the Postal Service to speak.
        Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think first I should
    introduce the mayor.
        Mr. Horn. Let me swear in everybody just so we do not have
    to go through this every time. Why don't you all stand up. This
    is an investigatory committee of government reform, so
    everybody is sworn.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all five witnesses have
    affirmed.
        Mr. Pease. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to introduce
    everyone at the same time, or introduce one at a time and let
    them present?
        Mr. Horn. One at a time, and in the order you would like
    them to testify.
        Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The mayor of the city of Terre Haute is my good friend Jim
    Jenkins. Mayor Jenkins was the sheriff in Vigo County before he
    became the mayor of the city of Terre Haute. He has worked for
    years in community service in a variety of capacities, and he
    has been one of the leaders in trying to find appropriate ways
    to partner public and private investment in the city of Terre
    Haute to revitalize the downtown and to preserve our historic
    structures there.
        Mayor Jenkins has been part of our conversations from the
    first day in trying to find a way to resolve this positively
    and productively. I am grateful that he is here, the Honorable
    Jim Jenkins.

               STATEMENT OF JIM JENKINS, TERRE HAUTE, IN

        Mr. Jenkins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. Thank
    you very much for allowing us to appear and speak to you today.
    We appreciate the opportunity.
        Approval of this bill is in the best interests of the city
    of Terre Haute, IN, and its citizens and businesses. We believe
    the existing Post Office building in downtown Terre Haute
    currently serves broad clientele that is important to our
    downtown. Major users of this Post Office include Indiana State
    University, Indiana Regional Government Center, City Hall, the
    Vigo County courthouse, and also our downtown retail and office
    community.
        The city of Terre Haute is working very hard to improve
    this downtown to make the city a more desirable place for
    people to choose to live and to enhance the marketability of
    the community as a whole.
        A new vision statement has also been adopted to guide our
    downtown development. Businesses are converting upper floor
    space to apartments, building facades are being restored, the
    streetscape is being enhanced, an art museum is being
    renovated, and a major mixed-use urban renewal project is under
    way. The Post Office renovation has the potential of being the
    next major downtown civic improvement project.
        The Terre Haute community is working together in a united
    front to maintain the Post Office downtown and see that this
    building is restored. Entities such as Indiana State
    University; Downtown Terre Haute, Inc.; the Alliance for Growth
    & Progress; the Chamber of Commerce, both of whom are
    represented here today with the Alliance director Mr. Bill
    Price, the Chamber of Commerce incoming chairman Mr. Thomas
    Francis is also with us today; the Indiana Landmarks
    Foundation, and also local government, we are committed to the
    purpose of and the adoption of H.R. 2513.
        I believe the Post Office should remain in its present
    downtown location for the convenience of the public. The
    building is certainly able to accommodate the space needs of
    the Post Office, especially now that they have been reduced. In
    addition, there are a number of other Federal offices in Terre
    Haute that could be consolidated into this downtown building
    that are now scattered throughout the city. Moving these
    offices to a building that is already owned by the Federal
    Government would save money, we believe, and be beneficial to
    the downtown economy.
        I was born and raised in Terre Haute, a citizen, and have
    lived there all my life, served in public office, and I have
    seen Terre Haute change a great deal, especially over the past
    30 years. Prior to the building of the interstate, which is
    located south of the city about 3 miles, U.S. 40 was the main
    route through the middle of town, the National Road, as you may
    be aware of, going from the east coast all the way to St.
    Louis. Once the interstate was constructed, the downtown
    virtually moved 3 miles south of its original location. The
    retail and commercial shopping all centered and located around
    the interstate, and as such, the downtown languished and
    withered over those 25 or so years. It finally bottomed out, if
    you will, buildings being torn down and businesses moving out,
    and the community as a whole has decided over the past 5 to 7
    years that we must restore the heart and soul of the community
    of Terre Haute, and that is its downtown.
        It is a story not unlike many others throughout the Midwest
    where the downtown has withered, languished, and we want to
    show the rest of the world that the community of Terre Haute
    has a past, has a history that we are very proud of, and it
    also has a very viable heart and soul, and that is the
    downtown.
        This particular building is very prominent in the downtown.
    It is just a half block off the National Road. It would serve
    any number of purposes, it does serve any number of purposes,
    especially as a tie to the university. The university is
    separated from the downtown again by one block. This particular
    building allows for Post Office boxes and mailing services,
    window services and other kinds of services for the students at
    Indiana State University.
        So we believe it does any number of things, but it is
    essential to us restoring our heart and soul, and we would
    appreciate greatly your support of the adoption of Congressman
    Pease's bill. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.011

        Mr. Pease. Mr. Chairman, I would next like to introduce
    Todd Nation. Todd is a businessman in downtown Terre Haute, has
    been actively involved in Downtown Terre Haute, Inc., but he
    has also been involved in the historic preservation programs of
    the community and in a particular volunteer civic association
    whose goal it was to maintain a postal presence in this
    building and to maintain the viability of this building.
        As an aside, I note for the chairman's benefit that Todd
    owns an independent book shop in downtown Terre Haute, because
    the chairman looks for independent book shops whenever he
    travels, and I hope someday we will get you to downtown Terre
    Haute and you can go to BookNation.
        Todd Nation.

    STATEMENT OF TODD NATION, SAVE THE ARCHITECTURALLY MAGNIFICENT
               POSTAL STATION, DOWNTOWN TERRE HAUTE, INC.

        Mr. Nation. Thank you, Congressman, Mr. Chairman. As Ed
    said, my name is Todd Nation. I have traveled here at Chairman
    Horn's invitation to represent the business community of
    downtown Terre Haute, IN. I own and run BookNation, a small,
    independent book shop on Wabash Avenue, about a block from the
    historic Post Office and Federal building in question here
    today.
        As a long-time member and immediate past president of our
    local Main Street organization, Downtown Terre Haute, Inc., I
    have been very involved with local efforts to persuade the U.S.
    Postal Service to keep downtown's post office box and window
    services in the Post Office and Federal building. My neighbors
    and I agree that the historic facility is in the neighborhood's
    best location for these services.
        We also believe that this property should again become the
    central location for Federal offices like the IRS, Social
    Security, military recruiters, and the Department of
    Agriculture, as the mayor just said. Those offices and others
    are now scattered throughout the community, while space within
    our taxpayer-built Post Office and Federal building has sat
    empty downtown for years.
        STAMPS Downtown, our organization. In 1997, the U.S. Postal
    Service announced their intention to relocate all postal
    functions housed in the historic main station. Offices, sorting
    machinery, fleet parking, retail windows and other operations
    were consolidated in the new Terre Haute postal facility at the
    southern edge of town. Luckily, Postmaster Ken Hartweck
    recognized the need to maintain post office box and window
    service somewhere downtown, but he began advertising for
    leasable space to locate a new retail unit within a mile of the
    historic facility. Most available options would be too far away
    from their neighborhood customer base, most of whom now walk to
    the centrally located Post Office and Federal building.
        These announcements caused great concern in the downtown
    community. Neighborhood businesses and residents joined forces
    with local government, Indiana State University, the Historic
    Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, our Chamber of Commerce and
    other local, not-for-profit agencies in an extraordinary
    demonstration of community resolve to form Save the
    Architecturally Magnificent Postal Station Downtown, known by
    its acronym, STAMPS Downtown. We have been very fortunate to
    have the support of our Congressman Ed Pease, who has helped us
    carry our message all the way here to you in Washington, DC.
        Why this legislation is necessary.
        This situation merits your attention for a number of
    reasons. I will briefly explain the top three. No. 1, restoring
    the Post Office and Federal building to accommodate postal
    retail operations and relocated Federal offices will save
    taxpayers money and serve us better in the long run. Renting
    offices and parking lots throughout the city, while our
    historic and centrally located downtown facility deteriorates
    further, is wasteful. Local taxpayers expect better stewardship
    of our funds and facilities than we have seen in recent years.
        No. 2, the General Services Administration ownership of the
    Post Office and Federal building will ensure proper maintenance
    and management of this taxpayer-built landmark. Postal
    officials have repeatedly cited the high cost of remodeling and
    maintenance as being their primary reasons for looking
    elsewhere for space.
        No. 3, keeping post office box and window services in the
    historic facility is the best thing that the Federal Government
    can do to help support State and local efforts to revitalize
    downtown Terre Haute. A regional State office building was
    established about a block away from the Post Office and Federal
    building a few years ago. In the past 2 years, local
    initiatives have aided the development of housing for nearly
    100 new residents within two blocks of the old Post Office.
    Those are all people who would use this facility and continue
    to use it. Indiana State University has recognized the
    importance of having an attractive, convenient downtown at
    their southern border and has repeatedly stated their wish to
    have postal services maintained where they are.
        Why doesn't the USPS just stay there?
        Throughout many meetings and discussions that we have had
    with the U.S. Postal Service, the only vision that postal
    officials could articulate for the Post Office and Federal
    building was their intention to try and find a suitable tenant
    to lease the building, but they made it clear that they did not
    intend to invest in upgrading the facility to make it more
    appealing. The USPS's advertised rental rates per square foot
    are also considerably higher than those of similar downtown
    office and retail space.
        The more information that we gathered about the U.S. Postal
    Service's management of this property, the more alarmed members
    of the STAMPS Downtown became. Local opinions were expressed
    through letters to elected and USPS officials, on the editorial
    page of the Tribune Star, our local newspaper, and in public
    meetings where the Postmaster and other USPS officials were
    begged to reconsider their plans for downtown service and the
    historic facility.
        The members of STAMPS Downtown hereby ask you to lead your
    fellow Representatives to the best solution for all parties
    involved. In H.R. 2513, Congressman Pease has proposed a
    solution to this set of problems that balances taxpayer
    concerns with the long-term
    maintenance and management needs of our historic Terre Haute
    Post Office and Federal building.
        I stand ready to answer any questions that you might have
    about our organization's support of this legislation.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nation follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.014

        Mr. Horn. I would ask Mr. Pease, is this the last witness
    locally?
        Mr. Pease. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. I would like to read into the record the
    testimony of another witness from Terre Haute. I happen to know
    this gentleman to be a person of high integrity and a great
    educator. John W. Moore, president of Indiana State University
    at Terre Haute, happened to be a colleague of mine when I was
    president of California State University in Long Beach, and he
    chaired and was president of the Stanislaus campus, which is a
    growing campus in the central valley, and he writes me this
    note:

        I am writing to support the GSA receiving ownership of the
    Terre Haute Office and Federal Building from the United States
    Postal Service. It is crucial to the day-to-day operations of
    Indiana State University and others that the Federal building
    have a landlord that will maintain and invest in its historic
    significance and the services it provides to the community.
        Indiana State University, located adjacent to the Federal
    building, employs over 1,700 faculty and staff, serves a
    student population of nearly 11,000, over half of whom live on
    campus and some 500 of whom are international students. Also,
    each summer the university hosts literally thousands who come
    to the campus to participate in Hoosier Boys and Girls State,
    Special Olympics, Summer Honors, State Police, cheerleader and
    other such camps, to name but a few. The sheer volume of mail
    flowing in and out of the campus is staggering, not to mention
    the foot traffic to and from the Federal building.
        Also within the block housing the Federal building and in
    close proximity are the offices of the Vigo County School
    Corp., the Deming Center, a residential facility housing the
    elderly, city and county government operations, downtown
    merchants and businesses, a bus terminal. And a new city center
    project is currently under construction directly behind the
    Federal building.
        Revitalization of Downtown Terre Haute is critical to the
    city and university leadership and those we serve. A vital
    Wabash Valley depends on the revitalized downtown district, and
    the Federal building is a major component to that success. I
    strongly urge your endorsement of this effort.
        My respect and best wishes go to you and your colleagues in
    the House with this letter.
        Sincerely, John W. Moore, President, Indiana State
    University.

        Without objection, that letter then will also be put in the
    record at this point.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.015

        Mr. Horn. So now we are pleased to have the experts on the
    Federal Government side, and we will start with Mr. James
    Whitlock, the Assistant Regional Administrator for Public
    Buildings in the Great Lakes region, region 5, of the General
    Services Administration. We thank you very much, Mr. Whitlock.
    We are happy to have you here, and we look forward to your
    testimony. Please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES WHITLOCK, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
      FOR PUBLIC BUILDING, GREAT LAKES REGION (REGION 5), GENERAL
                        SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Whitlock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, too, have
    submitted an opening statement, and I would like to submit that
    for the record and just sort of summarize some points.
        Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be inserted in the
    record at this point.
        Mr. Whitlock. It is impossible for us to disagree with the
    Congressman and the mayor representing the downtown, and the
    university president. The goals that are being outlined there,
    we face those in every one of the cities of this size with
    buildings of this character, especially one as attractive,
    historic, one that has murals. I mean, it has all of the
    ramifications of the types of things that should be preserved.
    And you can tell from the last couple of years of activity that
    there has been a lot of attempts to find ways to do that, and
    we have not yet found any. And one of the attempts--and this is
    not something just in Terre Haute. It happens in community
    after community. Finding ways to accomplish this is very
    difficult.
        The Congressman outlined some of the agencies that are in
    the community. GSA is no longer a monopoly. We have not the
    ability to order them to the space. It is interesting how
    Agriculture, which is basically funded through the State
    universities, tends to be, or demands to be located at the edge
    of town, serving farmers. They refuse to come downtown, and
    they think that is the proper thing for them to do, so they do
    it because they think that is the right answer, not because
    they are obstructionists about rebuilding downtowns.
        Recruiting, which you may have read in this morning's USA
    Today, is not meeting their goals. They tend to move wherever
    the movie theaters are, wherever they can pick up candidates
    for the services. So they are very concerned about getting
    close to where they see potential recruits.
        The last two agencies that are perhaps candidates, IRS and
    SSA, they moved from the building not so much because the space
    is not attractive, that is not their issue. They usually base
    their discussions on the need to be handicap-accessible, which
    is normally a first floor or a single location without steps.
    They stressed adequate parking as being very important because
    they are becoming customer-service agencies. But the most
    critical issue is it wraps around; going back into the Postal
    Service building is a technological difficulty with the
    functional obsolescence of getting cabling and wiring into
    those work stations, so they prefer to do that in a more modern
    building where they can do that at a lower cost.
        So there is a set of practical reasons why this just does
    not fall into place as we all wish it would. Based on that, GSA
    has taken the position that this is probably not a good
    building for us to own. We do not disagree we can manage it,
    that is not the issue. The issue is how can we keep it
    occupied.
        I wanted then to pass the baton to Gordon, who can talk
    about some of the ways that--there are other ways perhaps some
    buildings of this character might be able to be utilized.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitlock follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.018

        Mr. Horn. Mr. Gordon Creed is the Deputy Assistant
    Commissioner for Property Disposal of the General Services
    Administration here in Washington. Mr. Creed.

     STATEMENT OF GORDON CREED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR
     PROPERTY DISPOSAL, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Creed. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. I am Gordon Creed, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of
    the Office of Property Disposal within the General Services
    Administration.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss H.R. 2513, a bill that directs the
    Administrator of General Services to acquire a building located
    in Terre Haute, IN, and for other purposes.
        I will briefly discuss GSA's role in the disposal of
    government-owned property and how GSA would view the
    redeployment of this U.S. Postal Service asset under existing
    statutory authority.
        Commencing with the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which was
    administered by the War Assets Administration, and continuing
    with the enactment of the Federal Property and Administrative
    Services Act of 1949, GSA's mission has included the promotion
    of real property disposal, consistent with sound asset
    management practices.
        GSA promotes asset management in the property disposal
    program by three ways. One, we encourage agencies to release
    unneeded properties; two, recycling unneeded Federal property
    to agencies that are in need of real property; and three,
    disposing of property no longer needed by any Federal agency.
        GSA has more than 50 years of experience in the transfer
    and disposal of government real property assets, spanning from
    simple easements to complex military bases. Taxpayers benefit
    from the efficient transfer of property to non-Federal public
    and private interest. Surplus properties that are returned to
    local tax rolls contribute to economic growth and job creation.
        GSA objects to the enactment of H.R. 2513 because no
    administrative effort was ever made to promote and successfully
    market the redeployment of the Terre Haute property.
        In July 1985, GSA and the Postal Service entered into an
    agreement that covers the transfer, exchange and disposal of
    real property. The agreement established procedures for the
    Postal Service to notify GSA of postal real property that was
    no longer needed for its purposes; that is, excess to its
    needs. The agreement covered real property that is excess to
    the Postal Service for purposes of ownership, yet remains
    encumbered by existing tenant agreements.
        In recent discussions with Postal Service officials, I have
    learned that there is no need for the Postal Service to retain
    ownership of the Terre Haute property. I further understand
    that there are outleases issued by the Postal Service that need
    to be honored in any potential reuse of the property.
        Mr. Horn. I am going to have to interject for a minute. I
    have a commitment that I have to meet in Transportation. Mr.
    Ose will preside while I am gone, and then if you finish your
    testimony, Mr. Turner will have 10 minutes for questioning, and
    then next will be Mr. Ose, and then Mr. Pease and then Mrs.
    Mink.
        Mr. Ose [presiding]. Please continue.
        Mr. Whitlock. Thank you.
        GSA's leases account for 13,250 square feet of the
    building.
        I note that GSA successfully solved this same, very same,
    situation in 1998 when it disposed of the 11-story Federal
    building to the city of Philadelphia. Although this facility
    was excess to the needs of the General Services Administration,
    there was a continuing need to provide space for the Military
    Recruitment and Induction Center located on two floors of the
    building. After acquiring the property, the city of
    Philadelphia entered into an exchange transaction with the
    Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts so that the academy could
    gain additional space in which to accommodate its growing need
    for academic and gallery space. It is important to note, this
    disposal was favorably reviewed by this subcommittee.
        Another example of this type of successful redeployment of
    unneeded government-owned property is the former Federal office
    building in Asheville, NC, known as Grove Arcade. In 1997, this
    property was conveyed to the city of Asheville, without cost,
    for use as a historic monument. Section 203(K)(3) of the
    Federal Property Act authorizes this type of conveyance, and,
    in addition, allows for the transferee to generate income in
    operating the property. Thus, a revenue stream for repair,
    rehabilitation, restoration and maintenance of the property
    remains an option should the city of Asheville seek to outlease
    any available vacant space in this building.
        Is the Terre Haute property a potential historic monument?
    While the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites,
    Buildings and Monuments established by section 463 of Title 16
    makes the recommendation over the suitability of property as a
    historic monument, clearly the property's age, design and
    history seem to lean in that direction. Successful reuse of the
    Postal Service property appears to be the goal of the
    legislation, and to that end GSA stands available to assist the
    Postal Service in marketing this property.
        Because of the proximity of the Terre Haute building to the
    Indiana State University, it is also possible that an
    application could be submitted to the Department of Education
    for public educational use of the property. Section 203(K)(1)
    of the Federal Property Act allows for the conveyance of
    surplus real property for public educational use.
        Finally, I note that GSA's experience and brand name
    connote a quality in the real estate market often sought by
    developers who seek trophy properties for their portfolio. This
    could, in fact, be one of those desired properties.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be
    pleased to respond to any questions you or any members of the
    subcommittee may wish to ask.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Creed.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Creed follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.023

        Mr. Ose. Our next witness is Edward J. Rynne, who is a real
    estate specialist with the Postal Service.

      STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. RYNNE, JR., REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST,
              ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

        Mr. Rynne. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Edward J. Rynne, and I am on the staff
    of the Asset Management Group at Postal Service headquarters. I
    thank you for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 2513, a bill to
    direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire the
    Federal building owned by the Postal Service in Terre Haute,
    IN.
        At the outset, I would like to thank Congressman Pease and
    his staff for the considerable time and energy they have
    expended on this matter. I would also like to state that we
    share the Congressman's desire to resolve this matter in a way
    that preserves the character and usefulness of the Federal
    building while also meeting the need of our customers in Terre
    Haute, as well as the practical and financial interests of the
    Postal Service and the government as a whole.
        Mr. Chairman, much of the information in my prepared
    statement has already been conveyed and with your permission, I
    would like to submit my entire statement for the record and
    offer a few brief comments.
        Mr. Ose. Without objection.
        Mr. Rynne. The proposed legislation, H.R. 2513, would
    attempt to resolve the current situation by requiring a no-cost
    transfer of the Federal building to the General Services
    Administration. In turn, GSA would provide the Postal Service
    with an option to occupy approximately 8,000 square feet of
    renovated retail space on the ground floor of the building at
    no cost for a 20-year term. The bill would also authorize the
    appropriation of $5 million to GSA in future fiscal years to
    renovate the building and to acquire parking spaces.
        This proposal would achieve at least two major goals. It
    would preserve and improve a historic Federal building for use
    by key government tenants and maintain an active Postal Service
    presence in the Federal building, which we believe serves the
    interests of our downtown and university customers. We also
    understand that it would pose some interesting challenges for
    the General Services Administration.
        In conclusion, I want to reiterate that we appreciate the
    progress that has been made on this issue, and we look forward
    to working with the interested parties to resolve this matter
    in a way that serves the important interests of all concerned.
        At this time I would be glad to respond to your questions.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Rynne.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rynne follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4490.026

        Mr. Ose. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Ose.
        One of the comments I wanted to inquire about was made by
    you, Mr. Creed. You made the statement, GSA objects to the
    enactment of H.R. 2513 because no administrative effort was
    ever made to promote and successfully remarket the deployment
    of the Terre Haute property.
        Expand on that a little bit. Are you referring to the
    Postal Service's inaction?
        Mr. Creed. No. What I am suggesting here, Congressman, is
    that GSA has not had the opportunity to conduct a nationwide
    canvass of those parties that are interested in acquiring
    government assets. We have not attempted to market this
    property.
        Mr. Turner. So when you refer to no administrative effort
    was ever made, you are talking about your efforts. You haven't
    had the opportunity to make those efforts?
        Mr. Creed. That is correct.
        Mr. Turner. As I understand the intent of the bill, it was
    to transfer the property to your agency and then have your
    agency renovate it and lease it. That seems to be totally
    inconsistent with what you just referred to about marketing it
    or disposing of it. Am I missing something here?
        Mr. Creed. No. You are absolutely correct.
        Mr. Turner. And do I take it that your vantage point is
    that you really do not want to even consider renovation and
    leasing of the property?
        Mr. Creed. Respectfully, Mr. Turner, I think that Mr.
    Whitlock can better address that question.
        Mr. Whitlock. I think we were trying to point out that even
    though we know the building needs to be preserved, I mean,
    there is no disagreement about that, we are trying to point out
    that the use of further Federal occupancy, the agencies that
    were sort of outlined, most likely would not agree to reenter
    the building, with or without renovation. So it puts us in a
    financial dilemma to take $5 million, give or take, out of our
    resources and to modernize the building.
        There is also the issue of a 20-year postal occupancy,
    which is sort of a fairly expensive cost issue that we are not
    quite sure why that provision is there other than to perhaps
    reimburse the Postal Service for their ownership of the
    building.
        From a strictly financial standpoint, and we are trying to
    analyze our projects on the basis of financial practices, it
    doesn't work with that equation with Federal agencies. But we
    did not want to close out the discussion of making the building
    work with all kinds of other possibilities between both the
    disposal, which is a formal process, declaration of excess by
    one agency giving it over to GSA and then goes through a
    formalized process. Our involvement to this point has simply
    been to look from a localized standpoint what is available
    within the community to make the building viable in the future.
    So there is a difference between the short term or the local
    activity versus the broader-based activity.
        Mr. Turner. You made reference to the fact that you don't
    think other Federal agencies would come back to this building.
    When their existing leases expire, how would you attempt to
    attract those agencies back? Would you just be a bidder as any
    other bidder in that process, and would you submit a bid to the
    agency for the space?
        Mr. Whitlock. Well, that is a good question. In prior
    times, we would have ordered them to the building, and their
    appeal process would have been to OMB, and we would usually
    win, because economics would rule. But in the last decade, that
    has changed. And if we were to attract them to a building we
    own, we have to modernize it and offer it to them, and they
    must accept it on the basis of what we have done for that
    particular agency, and then they have the opportunity to say,
    well, that doesn't meet our requirements, and on that basis
    then, we go into the lease market.
        I would like to note that most of our leasing for IRS and
    SSA, for example, we do still insist that they remain in the
    downtown areas. But that is controlled by residential Executive
    order, so they have to follow that as well as we do. So even if
    we are in the lease market, we are still in the downtown of
    these communities.
        Mr. Turner. So I guess some of our Federal agencies could
    simply, in their specifications, when they advertise for bids,
    expect that you wouldn't even be an eligible bidder because of
    your location or because of some other characteristic of the
    property?
        Mr. Whitlock. It is inevitably wrapped around excess,
    parking, and technology requirements.
        Mr. Turner. What is the parking situation at this building?
        Mr. Whitlock. My understanding is there are 20 parking
    spaces.
        Mr. Turner. Somebody estimated a $5 million cost of
    renovation including the acquisition of additional parking
    spaces? Is that part of the plan, to acquire additional space?
        Mr. Whitlock. I think that is in the proposal.
        Mr. Turner. Is there space available for that?
        Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Turner. It seems that obviously we have a variety of
    players here with different interests. I think it is probably
    important to step back and look at the big picture. I think
    Congressman Pease and the community leaders have done so in
    trying to fit this all together in a way that will preserve
    this building. My impression, just seeing the picture here of
    the building, is it certainly appears to be one that is
    structurally sound and has historical significance and deserves
    to be preserved. I am as interested, as are you, in trying to
    figure out how to accomplish that.
        I think it was important for us to have this hearing. If we
    have chosen a pathway of trying to resolve this problem that is
    meeting resistance by one of the partners, that is in this case
    the GSA, it is going to be a difficult road to travel down,
    even if the legislation passes. I think it is real important
    for us to try to figure out a way to get through this.
        If the GSA did acquire the building, would you then be in a
    position of being able to use the resources of the GSA to
    explore the various options for the preservation of the
    building, or are you constrained in some way that you basically
    could not accomplish that end result that we all seek? It would
    seem to me that the GSA should be in a better position to do
    that and to work through that than perhaps the Postal Service.
    The resources you have, the expertise you have, it seems to me
    you are uniquely suited in trying to help resolve this
    particular issue.
        If we made a decision legislatively that the building was
    going to be preserved and the building was going to be
    utilized, could you take that task on and attempt to resolve
    that in some way that would make sense?
        Mr. Whitlock. I think we have been in that situation many
    times before. When the Postal Service and GSA separated
    inventories almost 30 years, it was basically whoever
    controlled the majority of the space in the building became the
    owner of the building. Here now in this time, we have a lot of
    buildings of this vintage facing the same circumstance. It is
    very difficult to find the continuing use that almost always
    becomes a money problem: Where do the funds come from to do the
    renovations or to do the maintenance? And it becomes then from
    an investment standpoint difficult to rationalize the amount of
    dollars it takes. It is just a difficult equation, and I
    absolutely agree that we need to find solutions for it. And
    GSA, of course, could do that.
        We have simply two concerns. One is using the resources
    that we gather from rents around the country in the buildings
    we lease to our Federal tenants, directing them to be utilized
    for a specific project is not our preference. We usually do
    that through an economic analysis, and based on the tenant,
    expectations of the tenant base, we wouldn't see this coming up
    high on our economic analysis. That has been our concern. Of
    course, the second one would be a rent-free occupancy to a
    given agency that would simply be all cost and no income.
        So this discussion from our perspective is strictly on the
    financial side of the business. It is not on the emotional
    side, it is not on the preservation, it is not on supporting
    the city, it is on the financial investment side.
        Mr. Turner. I think we all know is that your responsibility
    is to look at it in terms of the economics. Yet it is apparent,
    I think, to all of us that there are other, valid
    considerations such as historical preservation.
        The Department of Agriculture has a plan to have one-stop
    shopping in all of our communities where you can go into one
    location and see the different agencies. It seems to me to be
    even a valid suggestion for all of our Federal agencies, that
    if there can be collocation, that that is helpful to the
    general public, because they know there is one place to go to
    to reach the Federal Government and its services.
        Is this a policy of the government and of your agency, to
    value a collocation of Federal agencies?
        Mr. Whitlock. Yes, and has been for as long as I can
    remember. Collocation would be desirable because of reducing
    costs and the usual discussions of why that would make sense.
        The thing I have noticed, and perhaps the chairman has,
    too, in some of his investigations, is that the reform effort
    takes place, agencies are making more and more decisions to
    deal with technology and the cost of technology and how they
    deliver their services. It has occurred to us that the cost of
    technology per person exceeds the cost of space. It changes the
    equation in how we have to look at these things. So it becomes
    more difficult for us to simply drive decisions based on space
    costs when personnel and technology costs are rising. So it
    makes them behave differently now compared to how they used to
    in the past.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn [presiding]. I notice the ranking member of the
    full committee is here, and I would be delighted to yield you
    time now if you have other things to do, or I can go to Mr. Ose
    and then to you; but if you need to go, you can go right now.
        Mr. Waxman. I appreciate it. I will take advantage of this
    opportunity. I will try not to take the full 10 minutes.
        I am trying to think this thing through. We all want to
    help out a colleague who wants to accomplish something
    worthwhile in his district, but on the other hand, as I
    understand it, this is a building where there is a lot of
    vacancy, and it would be transferred over to the GSA that
    doesn't want it, and we would tell the GSA, you have to take
    it, and then we would spend $5 million of taxpayers' funds to
    fix it up. And then after you rent it for a while, I gather you
    still believe there would be a lot of vacancy in the building.
    Is that an accurate statement of where things are?
        Mr. Whitlock. Pretty much. I mean, from the standpoint of
    the potential clients we see coming back into the building are
    quite limited.
        Mr. Waxman. So are people that always say, let's run
    government like a business. I can't imagine a businessman
    undertaking such a transaction.
        Now, one possibility, it seems to me, is directing the sale
    to a private entity using the historical or education use
    exceptions to a public sale, and then including in the contract
    that the private entity give USPA a 30-year lease option.
    Wouldn't that accomplish the goal? Isn't this what we would
    want to do, privatize things rather than have government run
    something that is a money-loser? And if we can privatize it,
    you would still have the building, and you have an entrepreneur
    who has a reason to want to fill it up. I just think the
    private sector could do this better than GSA, if you will
    forgive me, because it doesn't sound like it makes a lot of
    sense for GSA to take this on. Mr. Pease or others, what are
    your views on that?
        Mr. Creed. There are many other opportunities available for
    the redeployment of the property. In California, at Riverside
    County, the Riverside County Sheriff'S Department has submitted
    an application to acquire a portion of the former March Air
    Force Base to establish the Ben Clark Public Safety Training
    Center. With the proximity of this facility to the Indiana
    State University, and the Indiana State Police's intent in
    acquiring classrooms, this structure could be redeployed as a
    successful law enforcement/educational-type facility where you
    have shared accredited classes for law enforcement. This is
    something that Riverside County is pioneering. A successful
    redeployment is possible, I believe, in fact, there is a
    courtroom that could potentially be deployed on a part-time
    basis for law enforcement training--giving evidence,
    prosecuting cases, cross-examining witnesses. There are those
    types of connections, away to connect the dots to find a
    successful redeployment.
        We talked to the Department of Education yesterday and
    asked if a program of use for education were presented to the
    Department of Education for this facility, could a Post Office
    operation be consistent with an educational use of the
    building? Education says, yes, we think so. And the reason for
    that is because--and from what we heard earlier--is that
    students have mailboxes, mailing needs, packages, and those
    activities could be reviewed as supporting an educational-type
    use.
        Mr. Waxman. So you think this idea makes sense.
        What would be the timeframe for doing such a sale? Could
    this be done rapidly?
        Mr. Creed. Things like this can be expedited, yes.
        Mr. Waxman. Let me get the reactions from others, because
    this seems to me like a good solution to the problem. What
    troubles me is the solution that is being proposed, which is to
    take taxpayers' money, put $5 million into this building, force
    GSA to take a building they don't want, and run it with the
    expectation that it is going to lose money. That just doesn't
    add up to me, but this other one sounds like it accomplishes
    everybody's goals.
        Could we have some further reaction to this?
        Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Waxman, part of the problem we see here is
    the building has now been leased up due to its--the purpose of
    it and who owns the building is all up in the air. We just--
    people are hesitant, I think, to lease space or to try to
    utilize space in the building because they don't know what is
    going to happen to it. The city has taken on a project called
    Center City Project to construct a $6 million building right
    downtown, right across the alley from this Post Office
    building, in an effort to try to bring people downtown, to
    cause people to live downtown, those that choose to, and the
    private sector has taken up the task here of locating various
    businesses downtown, that kind of thing.
        Mr. Waxman. Are you saying that you don't think the private
    sector would be interested in this?
        Mr. Jenkins. I don't know that--I am sure it could be
    interested in it, but I would feel more comfortable with GSA
    managing, owning it, in that it is such a large building.
        Mr. Waxman. What you are saying, it sounds to me, is if it
    is going to lose the money, the government should take it on
    and lose the money rather than let private enterprise try to
    make it work.
        Mr. Jenkins. Well, here the government--it is our tax
    dollars that would be going----
        Mr. Waxman. This bill is asking for my taxpayers to pay for
    your building.
        Mr. Jenkins. That's right.
        Mr. Waxman. It is hard for me to explain. This is a small
    thing, the people aren't going to notice it, but a billion
    here, a million here does add up. But if you take $5 million
    from everybody in the country, put it into this building to
    upgrade it, force GSA to take this building and then divert
    resources they would spend on other things to take on this
    enterprise, and with everybody's expectation that it is
    probably going to lose money----
        Mr. Jenkins. Well, we would also like to see the
    centralization of services as discussed here also. The State of
    Indiana has done just that in a building one block away,
    centralized the State offices in the Indiana State government
    center there, and it has been quite successful and met with a
    great deal of praise, because you can go to one building and
    receive all of the State services that are available. It would
    be nice, it would be very efficient, I think, to go to this
    building and receive the Federal services that are available in
    the city as opposed to going to Social Security.
        Mr. Waxman. I don't disagree with that, and I think we can
    get the Federal agencies to locate there. That is all a plus.
        I haven't been involved in this, but Mr. Ose from
    California has, and maybe I will even yield to him, to hear
    what he would have to say about this kind of a project. He has
    advised people and probably made some intervention, or, Mr.
    Pease, if you want to comment on it.
        Mr. Pease. Just one response, Henry. I am not certain that
    I agree, although I admit that I am not the expert, with the
    assertions made by GSA that the other Federal tenants would not
    move to this building. There is provided in the material
    distributed this morning information on the leases of other
    Federal agencies in the city of Terre Haute which exceed the
    square footage of available space in this building. Now, it is
    the other tenants that are in private facilities, obviously
    have chosen to be there because they are nicer quarters or for
    whatever reason, but we know from our conversations with, for
    instance, the Social Security Administration that they need
    more space than they have now in their private lease space.
        Mr. Waxman. So you think they will relocate here.
        Mr. Pease. I think it is premature to say it will not
    happen and, therefore, you should not proceed with the bill.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, we want it to happen, we want it to
    happen. But why not shift it over to somebody in the private
    sector to make sure that it is going to be more attractive than
    to force GSA to take funds away from other efforts to hope that
    they will do it?
        You are supposed to be a conservative, and I am supposed to
    be a liberal. Now, wouldn't the conservative point of view be
    that government should not be throwing money and wasting it,
    and we ought to privatize; we have a historical building, we
    ought to preserve it. That is fine. The government could say,
    continue to do that. But if you think that it is going to be
    occupied, let's turn to the private sector to run it rather
    than have the taxpayers take the chance.
        Mr. Pease. I don't disagree with that. In fact, we have
    said from the beginning that we will explore every option to
    make this work. Our objective is to make it work for the city
    of Terre Haute.
        Mr. Waxman. Do we need legislation if we are going to have
    a sale to private enterprise?
        Mr. Whitlock. No, we do not need legislation for that.
        Mr. Pease. GSA needs to own the building for it to dispose
    of the building, though.
        Mr. Whitlock. The property would need to be reported excess
    by the Postal Service to GSA, and what we do is we go and meet
    with the local authorities, the mayor, the county, the State
    government, those interested parties, prior to even going to
    the private sector to see if coalitions can't be made and
    opportunities can't be matched, to see first--because as a
    historic monument, the city could acquire the property without
    cost and then lease out the facilities, maybe as a police
    substation or a precinct or campus police, to try to make those
    matches for the competing needs prior to the time that we would
    go ahead and take the property to the market.
        Mr. Waxman. I sure would like to try that out before we
    take this other approach.
        I wanted to yield to Mr. Ose, but I gather it will be his
    time anyway. He has had these experiences. If people came to
    him, what would you do?
        Mr. Horn. Well, he will be next. The moderate progressive
    between the liberals and the conservatives just wants to get a
    question in here.
        Mr. Creed, I think you are familiar with the Fort Mason
    situation, aren't you, in San Francisco and what happened on
    that property? As I remember, GSA briefly owned that property.
    Give us a little background on that.
        Mr. Whitlock. I think we are speaking in San Francisco in
    the marina district it was a U.S. Army facility that was
    successfully redeployed and turned into a cultural center for
    the performing arts, and it has been a very much big success,
    being able to preserve it and to invite the community and to
    participate in it. So there are other activities that are
    available. Parks and Recreation has a performing arts center as
    a potential reuse for this property.
        Mr. Horn. Let me just mention one more thing. I am not
    familiar with the Terre Haute Post Office, but I happen to have
    in my district a beautiful Post Office with wonderful materials
    in it, WPA, Works Progress Administration, paintings and murals
    all over, and this is in San Pedro in my district, and if this
    Post Office is something like that, built in the 1930's, it is
    probably a work of art that should be kept, because it
    personifies the solidity, shall we say, of government, just
    like the bank buildings in that era also. It looked like your
    money was safe. So if it was that kind of Post Office, I agree
    with you, I think it ought to be worth saving for a good
    purpose.
        Mr. Waxman. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
        Mr. Horn. So I now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
    California Mr. Ose, and then we will recess for the vote, since
    we apparently have votes on the floor.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    confidence my good friend from California vests in my opinion.
        I am struck, as I am every day, by the realization that
    real estate remains an exceptionally local industry. I don't
    pretend to be able, having come from Sacramento, to understand
    the nuances of the Terre Haute market, for instance. I think
    the financial questions that you might deal with a 70,000-
    square-foot office building are pretty straightforward, but I
    am--I have a hard enough time understanding what is going on in
    Roseville 8 miles down the road as opposed to what is going on
    in Terre Haute. My inclination is to put great faith in the
    valuations provided by my good friend Mr. Pease and the mayor
    of Terre Haute in an effort to expedite a solution, because if
    there is anything that doesn't serve this property's--one
    truism, if you will, is that what doesn't serve the interest of
    this property is uncertainty. We need to come to a conclusion
    one way or the other.
        I am going to put great stock in the testimony or the input
    that I take from folks who actually live in Terre Haute on this
    issue. I just don't have the wherewithal to understand the
    nuances of the Terre Haute market sufficiently that it would
    give me comfort to override their input.
        Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ose. Certainly.
        Mr. Waxman. I can understand that point of view, and maybe
    we can ask Mr. Pease. Why not try this private sector option,
    and we could all together do whatever is necessary to push that
    forward. It would protect the historical site, and it wouldn't
    be calling on taxpayers to take on something that smells like a
    money-loser and force GSA to take on property they don't feel
    they can handle properly. It just doesn't add up to me. Do you
    think we can do something like that?
        Mr. Pease. I have been willing for the last 2 years of
    working with GSA, who has apparently communicated more with you
    than they have with me, to resolve this project, but I dispute
    the premise of your questions, which is that it could not be a
    viable facility and would be a drain on the taxpayers, because
    GSA is leasing more space in the city now than is available in
    this building, and the building is 75 percent occupied now.
        I have been and will continue to be willing to talk about
    any possible option and to operate in good faith with those
    that I hope will do the same in return.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I thank you for that. I want to work with
    you to accomplish what you want. If this is a viable business
    option, it seems to me that it ought to be appealing to the
    private sector, and I think you have GSA's attention, if they
    haven't been as forthcoming as you would like. I think we ought
    to sit down and talk about this as we consider this legislation
    and see if we can try this option first before we move to a
    government solution with taxpayers at risk and the taxpayers at
    risk of losing more money, let alone the $5 million that the
    taxpayers are going to have to put up for this legislation to
    upgrade the building so that it does become, hopefully, a
    viable option.
        I would urge that we pursue that together, and I want to
    work with you, and I hope we can accomplish what you want.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield back.
        Mr. Horn. We have a decision to make here. We have a rule
    vote, which is simple, followed by a 5-minute vote on the
    journal, which is idiotic, but we have to do these things. So
    we are going to be in recess, shall we say, for about 15
    minutes. Maybe we can make both votes. So with that, we are in
    recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Horn. I recognize the gentleman from Indiana for 5
    minutes, and then we will move to Mr. Turner for 5 minutes, and
    then back to the gentleman from Indiana.
        So please begin.
        Mr. Pease. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am not sure which of the witnesses from the General
    Services Administration this would be best directed to, but I
    will let you decide that. Does the General Services
    Administration include factors other than the financial
    management of property in its decision regarding investment or
    utilization of buildings, such as downtown location, historic
    significance, those--well, are there other factors besides the
    finances that go into your decisions, and if so, what are they?
        Mr. Whitlock. GSA is covered by 29 laws and 9 Executive
    orders, so we have a lot of factors.
        Mr. Horn. You might get that mic a little closer.
        Mr. Whitlock. We are covered by 29 laws and 9 Executive
    orders, so we factor in lots of things. A lot of that has to do
    with historic preservation, downtown locations, you know,
    keeping downtowns viable, but we try to wrap all of those
    together and take the values of those things and come up with
    an economic equation to make those decisions, as opposed to
    make them on one individual or singular factor. It is hard to
    do, because all of them are valuable. So in the final decision,
    we try to base it on, well, do the economics make sense, and
    that is how we try to keep all of that in balance.
        Mr. Pease. Do you want to talk about the Wilson Building in
    Washington, DC, what factors went into that decision?
        Mr. Whitlock. Well, Congressman, I don't know about the
    Wilson Building in Washington, DC.
        Mr. Pease. Does somebody from GSA?
        Mr. Horn. Is it Wilson or Reagan?
        Mr. Pease. No. The Wilson Building, a historic building
    that was acquired by GSA. I assume there were other factors
    that went into that decision besides the economics. I am just
    curious what they are.
        Mr. Whitlock. I don't know. I don't know the decisional
    factors on that building, Congressman.
        Mr. Horn. Perhaps Mr. Creed would be the one who would
    know, I would think.
        Mr. Ratchford. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Ratchford, in
    charge of professional affairs at GSA.
        The people who can respond to that are not at this table,
    and they were not asked to come to this hearing. We have the
    region representative; we have the disposal representative. We
    would be happy to provide that briefing in a timely fashion for
    other members of the committee.
        Mr. Horn. I would be glad to hold a hearing.
        Mr. Pease. I don't need a hearing. My question is, which is
    what I wanted an answer to, your response was we do think about
    other things, but it is only economics. My understanding is
    that there is an example right in the city where there were
    other factors that drove that decision other than economics,
    and that is all I want to know.
        OK.
        Mr. Horn. Well, we will get an answer for that, and we will
    put it at this point in the record. Could we get it, Mr.
    Ratchford, in a week's time or 2 days' time, because I guess
    this is going to full committee for discussion.
        Mr. Ratchford. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Great.
        Mr. Pease. The bigger question is what are the factors, and
    that is really all I need to know. I just--that would be
    helpful to know.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Rynne, we have heard a number of discussions
    here about other alternatives or possibly looking at other
    alternatives, which the Postal Service has been very
    cooperative, I will say, for the record with our office in
    trying to find other options. Are you familiar with this
    project and whether there have been other efforts explored,
    including private ownership, or would you also need to get us
    an answer on that?
        Mr. Rynne. I think I can speak reasonably specifically to
    that. This building was from the 1997 time period; in fact,
    almost 2 years ago exactly. Obviously it became our problem
    within the asset management group at headquarters and passed
    from the greater Indiana district. We had engaged the services,
    put under contract a local reputable property management firm
    called Newlin & Johnson, who have tried to marshal up as
    effective a marketing effort as they could, certainly
    principally focused on leasing alternatives for the building,
    rather than on an outright sale, but I do know from speaking
    directly with Mr. Newlin that he is constantly searching for a
    private user, and if that came within his field of vision, he
    would certainly communicate that to us. But his activities are
    specifically basically weekly advertising for the space at
    rates that we think are competitive within the Terre Haute
    downtown area, which at this point is about $10 a square foot
    triple net, it would seem.
        Mr. Horn. So it is $10 a square foot downtown; what is it
    outside?
        Mr. Rynne. It would presumably fall off. We are talking
    simply about the central business district, and admittedly it
    is not a thriving real estate market. That is one of the
    reasons we are all here today.
        Mr. Pease. If I could just ask one other question, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Sure.
        Mr. Pease. For Mr. Nation. Todd, I know you are here
    representing STAMPS and have an active role with the downtown
    merchants, but have you worked with larger umbrella historic
    preservation groups on this issue, and if so, can you tell us
    what their feelings are; how much of a priority, if any, this
    project is in the historic preservation community in western
    Indiana and in the State of Indiana?
        Mr. Nation. Sure. I have had contact with the Historic
    Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which is a statewide historic
    preservation advocacy group, on this building. I am also--one
    of the many hats I wear is the vice president of a local
    historic preservation group called Terre Haute Landmarks. Terre
    Haute Landmarks has identified this as one of the 10 most
    endangered buildings in downtown Terre Haute.
        They are all of the opinion that this is a very significant
    property and that it is infinitely reusable, and it would be
    fairly easy to accommodate the kinds of uses that we have been
    talking about today.
        Mr. Pease. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you. I will yield 7 minutes to Mr. Turner
    for questioning.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In trying to seek a resolution to this problem, it seems
    that the GSA, even though right now you don't have the ball,
    that if you would be willing to go in and take a look at this
    building and give us some assessment of what options might be
    there, it would be very helpful to us. And I know you don't own
    the building, the Postal Service does. Could you assume that
    role for us and give us some analysis of options without first
    owning the building? Is that outside of your purview?
        Mr. Creed. Mr. Congressman, I think we could pursue that
    approach and attempt a Herculean effort. We would ask that the
    Postal Service provide us some documentation, and I am sure--we
    have a good relationship with the Postal Service. They could
    give us that documentation in one letter that authorizes us to
    go ahead and to start making an outreach to see what potential
    reuse opportunities that may exist which we are presently
    unaware of.
        Mr. Turner. I think that would be very helpful to us. I
    commend Mr. Pease for trying to move forward with a solution,
    because it is very apparent, I think, to all of us here that we
    have different Federal agencies involved with different primary
    interests, and about the only way to kind of get everybody to
    come to the table at one time and talk is to put some
    legislative proposal out there.
        You know, I feel very strongly that Federal Government
    collectively has a responsibility for this building. It needs
    to be a continued asset to the community, rather than a
    detraction. It seems to me that whether you find options for
    some private concern taking over the building or whether it is
    the government continuing to run it, manage it, that this is a
    building that deserves preservation, and it deserves to be run
    efficiently.
        I noticed when the comments were made about the efforts
    that have been made locally through the leasing agency, Mr.
    Mayor, I am kind of in the position of Mr. Ose, I don't know
    anything about the Terre Haute real estate market, but it does
    seem pretty apparent to me that over the long term, there is
    not going to be too much success in leasing this building
    unless somebody goes in and makes some renovations and
    improvements. And the efforts that have been made by a leasing
    agent to lease the building as is seems to be somewhat of an
    uphill battle.
        One question I would like to ask. When we talk about
    exploring various options, obviously the GSA is in the position
    of being able to do that, but ultimately if we choose to
    dispose of this building, transfer it at no cost to some third
    party, doesn't the GSA actually have the legal authority to do
    that kind of thing, as opposed to the Postal Service? Either of
    you, I welcome your comments on that.
        Mr. Creed. GSA does have that authority in the Federal
    Property Act to convey the property without cost for historic
    monument purposes. And I believe the Postal Service has
    authority to sell and to lease, but I don't know about without
    cost. That seems to be a substantial factor for any grantee
    receiving the property, because in essence, it's capital coming
    to propel the project. We have seen in other parts of the
    country where custom houses have been conveyed and successfully
    leased out as historic monuments--maintaining the facade of the
    building. So, yes--there have been past practices and successes
    in that area.
        Mr. Turner. From the Postal Service, what is your
    authority?
        Mr. Rynne. Our general policy--and clearly this is an
    unusual circumstance--but our general policy would be to
    dispose of an excess facility in a way that would garner the
    best result for the Postal Service, sort of a prudent steward
    rule. Currently, I think in the current bill what we very much
    appreciate and what we realize has become somewhat of a
    challenge, one thing is--theoretically about trying to
    reposition the asset is the treatment of the postal space.
        To take just a quick historical step back, when the Postal
    Service relocated its principal operations from this particular
    building at Seventh and Cherry to the West Margaret location,
    which is a new, approximately 150,000-square-foot processing
    and distribution facility, the plan was to move entirely out of
    the Federal building and to reposition a small retail station
    of about 3,000 or 4,000 square feet very proximate to that
    location, and clearly, because of subsequent events, we have
    decided to maintain the presence in the building. That raises--
    that brought us to the nub of the issue, where we are in more
    space than we would need to be in an exterior location.
        One thing I think we would certainly attempt to do in a
    good faith way is to squeeze down the amount of space we would
    need for the retail station. That is purely a function of the
    configuration of the first floor of the Federal building at
    Seventh and Cherry. There is a historic lobby that is really a
    monumental public space. It is actually very nice space. The
    trick would be to try to renovate that in such a way that it
    was an appropriate historical treatment of the building and to
    narrow down the space that the Postal Service would actually
    need. But that is the side of the building that the loading
    docks are on, and they would need to be included.
        I think that clearly a principal benefit we see from
    Congressman Pease's bill here is the right to remain there. It
    clearly wasn't our original intention, but recognizing the
    customer interest in that, I think the long-term goal would to
    be remain, but clearly under our disposal policy, I think that
    would be what we would figure would be the recompense for it.
        Mr. Turner. OK. I can understand why the bill is structured
    that way. You own the building, and, obviously, to transfer it
    to you, you see that as some remuneration. But I think you need
    to be flexible a little bit on that, if we ask the GSA to take
    a good hard look at really what are the options here.
        How long, Mr. Whitlock and Mr. Creed, would it take the GSA
    to report back to this committee with a full display of
    possible options that would give us something that we could
    look at as this bill moves forward so that we will be sure at
    the end of the day that we have arrived at a satisfactory
    resolution that preserves this building?
        Mr. Creed. Congressman, we would ask for the maximum
    allotted time to give us our best opportunities here, because
    we are abridging and shortening the process. Whatever time that
    we could be allotted we would ask for. So I don't wish to
    constrain our efforts here--I don't know what that period would
    be for your purposes.
        Mr. Turner. It just seems to me that it is appropriate that
    this bill move forward, because ultimately, it seems that
    placing title with the GSA is the best option, no matter where
    you end up at the end of the road, because you have the legal
    authority to do things that the Postal Service does not. It
    does trouble me a little bit that the transfer as proposed is
    encumbered with the 20-year lease at no consideration. But then
    again, there obviously are considerations there. I think
    ultimately it is important for that postal outlet to remain in
    that building for the long term. It is important for the Postal
    Service, and it is important, I think, for the community.
        But it would help us a little bit if you could give us some
    indication of what you would be comfortable with in terms of
    trying to give us some report, just as if the bill had already
    passed and you were now the owner of that building and you
    would have to make some assessment of what to do with it. That
    kind of information would be helpful to Mr. Pease and the
    committee in being sure that we resolve this successfully. This
    is our opportunity to have all of the agencies that have an
    interest here at the table and, in essence, craft a solution
    that is satisfactory to everyone.
        Mr. Whitlock. At the break we were talking about trying to
    come to some solution. Everyone spent a lot of time trying to
    think through this not only today, but in the couple years
    past, and we were fashioning that thought process to say, let's
    assume we do the maximum effort to acquire whatever
    possibilities there are to use the building. That is almost a
    blitz on the part of Gordon's people and some of ours to find
    imaginative solutions that perhaps don't just fall in the
    category as we have already discussed this morning. And Gordon
    can outline all over the country some of those unique things
    that have happened, and you don't know what the answer is until
    you kind of do that. So we were going to commit to working hard
    to do that, and it would take a number of weeks. I picked some.
    We are not quite sure how many would be appropriate.
        Mr. Horn. How many do you think would be appropriate?
        Mr. Whitlock. Well, probably a month to get us well into
    it.
        The other factor which occurs to me, because it becomes the
    basic problem, is the money, where does the money come from.
    And that almost inevitably is what makes a project work or not
    work. And a couple of contributions to an income stream make it
    a lot better when you are dealing with people who would be
    willing to take on this kind of a challenge, as the Postal
    Service calls it, a challenge. One is we would guarantee the
    rental from the courts; as long as the courts maintain
    occupancy, we will, of course, make rental payments to whomever
    the owner or the final disposition of the building would be to.
    We would make those payments. We were debating a little bit
    with the Postal Service about also making a contribution to the
    income stream for the space they occupy. I know that they
    consider it remuneration for ownership.
        Our problem we deal with here is there is almost no value
    to a building that has no occupants. In spite of how beautiful
    it is, it still has little value.
        So one of the things that we would try to do over this next
    month, if this is the right timeframe, is try to find
    possibilities, including as much income that we can contribute
    to it, so that whoever would have an interest would be able to
    depend on that as being part of covering their operational
    costs and things like that. So that would be--and then maybe
    that is the right solution to approach at this point in time.
        Mr. Horn. Let me just get a few things on the record in
    terms of the space and how it is utilized. As I look at this
    table I have been given, the total rented space is roughly
    31,000 square feet, 75 percent occupied, which is pretty good.
    The Post Office has really half of that square footage now, and
    that is 15,314 square feet.
        Could you tell me, Mr. Rynne, what that space allocation
    is? Is it mailboxes that people can come and get a lockbox
    there? Do you have clerks at the counter to process packages
    and help with stamps and all the rest? I would just be curious
    what is going on.
        Mr. Rynne. Yes. It is what we would refer to as a retail
    station, which is sort of the classic, over-the-counter stamp
    trade. There is also a very large post office box section.
    Because of the layout of the building on the first floor and
    the way the lobby penetrates that space, it is a long axis
    running the length of the building. Ideally, we would have
    tried to squeeze in something smaller. It is the nature of the
    architecture of the building that causes that occupancy to be
    so large for us at this point.
        Mr. Horn. So you are saying you could do it in less space.
        Mr. Rynne. Yes. The challenge would be how to design that,
    and I think one of the brief discussions we had with our GSA
    colleagues was to see if perhaps--I think we were using a
    figure of about 8,000 square feet currently. We would certainly
    try to assist in reducing that if that could assist. Once
    again, clearly we find that occupancy provision of the bill
    attractive, but we realize that if that could be reduced, it is
    less of a burden on a repositioning of the asset, clearly, if
    that space could be used to produce income.
        Mr. Horn. Now, that 15,000 plus square feet is all interior
    space.
        Mr. Rynne. That is correct. It is about 12,700 feet on the
    first floor; a small mezzanine space of about 2,500 or 2,600
    square feet.
        Mr. Horn. Now, when it was a full-blown Post Office for the
    city, you probably had space in back for the various office
    vehicles.
        Mr. Rynne. Right.
        Mr. Horn. What has happened there now?
        Mr. Rynne. Currently we have--it is approximately 20 spaces
    that are actually attached to the Federal building. We also
    lease a slightly larger than 16,000-square-foot site that is
    immediately abutting the property to the building. There are 56
    spaces in that. We have a lease on that that expires in 2002.
    There is a renewal option to kick that forward to 2007.
        Mr. Horn. And that is a privately owned?
        Mr. Rynne. That is privately owned. I believe there are six
    postal vehicles there currently.
        Mr. Horn. Do you run routes out of that Post Office?
        Mr. Rynne. No, we do not. Those 41 units moved to the new
    processing and distribution facility.
        Mr. Horn. Because what I am thinking, since I see Social
    Security is in the building, obviously if people get there,
    some could walk.
        Mr. Rynne. Actually, Social Security isn't in the building
    currently. They had moved out. IRS and Social Security had
    moved out.
        Mr. Horn. I see. Well, there are apparently a few people
    there, like the district court is still in.
        Mr. Rynne. Correct.
        Mr. Horn. Bankruptcy trustee, marshal, the representative
    that is with us, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
    GSA joint use, and then the U.S. Attorney and a private
    attorney.
        Mr. Rynne. Correct. And also a bankruptcy trustee.
        Mr. Horn. How much of a problem was parking space to get
    access to the building by clients or whoever?
        Mr. Rynne. At this point I don't think there is a
    difficulty given the configuration of tenants in the building.
    Clearly, if this building were leased up, and depending on the
    nature of the use, parking starts to become--becomes a central
    issue, clearly.
        Mr. Horn. Can they use some of those 20 spaces, or is that
    all government use?
        Mr. Rynne. No, government tenants are using those. I know
    that the FBI is utilizing those on the right side of the
    building, and the potpourri of users are currently using the
    remaining spaces.
        Mr. Horn. And the 56 spaces, is that a parking lot that
    charges, essentially?
        Mr. Rynne. That is correct. We are currently leasing that
    space, and since the move-out, since we don't have a need for
    all of those spaces, we have been subleasing that, basically as
    a cost control item.
        Mr. Horn. I wonder, Mayor Jenkins, what is the downtown
    situation in terms of parking so people can go to stores and
    lawyers' offices, whatever it is?
        Mr. Jenkins. Generally people want to park right in front
    of the store and walk right in.
        Mr. Horn. You don't have to worry about it.
        Mr. Jenkins. We have a parking garage located just one
    block away.
        Mr. Horn. Is that free parking then, or validated?
        Mr. Jenkins. Darn near. It is 25 cents an hour.
        Mr. Horn. Hey, I want to move there.
        Mr. Jenkins. Come on down. We will be glad to have you.
    That is a city-owned facility, and it has adequate--there are a
    number of spaces still available, and there are plenty of
    spaces for day parking. We have also looked to a number of
    other options, including a cooperative effort with the
    university. They have a parking, plat, level ground parking on
    the northeast corner, directly across the street from the
    building, and we have discussed possibilities with the
    university there about another parking garage in this vision
    statement that we have prepared.
        So the parking, although I guess you would say it is
    cramped according to some local residents, possibly, it is
    absolutely nothing like you have here in larger cities. There
    is adequate parking, and there are plans to increase the
    parking spaces.
        Mr. Horn. I am curious, Mr. Creed. How does GSA determine
    what the cost per square foot ought to be, and is there
    flexibility for you to, if you wanted to attract people back
    into the downtown--like the Social Security lease expires in
    February 2001, and that is 6,143 square feet. Could you make a
    deal they couldn't refuse?
        Mr. Whitlock. We determine the value of the space by an
    appraisal mechanism, comparing other rents in town. We do the
    whole inventory that way so it is the same in each location and
    so it is a local rate, based on local conditions.
        Yes, we can make some concessions to attract tenants into
    the buildings. Their refusals are usually not driven by the
    dollars, but they are driven by the condition and technological
    improvements that are needed for the space. So we have the
    ability to do that, but that is often where we don't win that
    argument with those customer agencies.
        I think one of the things that, if we are drawn into trying
    to do something here where GSA reenters the equation, we
    certainly can revisit with those two agencies, those two
    primary, IRS and SSA, and again ask them to consider such. I
    mean, that is a no-cost way to get back into the discussion.
    With as much attention that has been drawn to the building and
    to the location, maybe with the Congressman's help we can
    persuade them to rethink that.
        Mr. Horn. What is the transit system like in Terre Haute?
    Is there a bus system?
        Mr. Jenkins. Yes, there is. It is also a city-owned
    facility. The transfer station is located two blocks away,
    obviously, and then various bus stops around the building.
        Generally, a lot of the traffic that we see there now is
    foot traffic, coming from the university, local businessmen,
    the downtown merchants, that is what we are seeing in that
    area; and then also from the Deming Center, which you referred
    to, which is an elderly housing development just a half block
    away at the corner of Sixth and Cherry. So it is very necessary
    for this neighborhood that we are trying to create, a mix of
    retail, commercial and residential.
        Mr. Horn. The gentleman from Indiana Mr. Pease can have 7
    minutes, 10 minutes, whatever.
        Mr. Pease. I won't use it all, Mr. Chairman. You have been
    more than generous.
        I am just curious if any of the witnesses would have
    recommendations to us on the bill before us, if there are
    additions, amendments, or other actions you think should be
    included or changed in the legislation. I do understand that at
    least the GSA's preferred position would be not to have a bill
    at all, and I would not ask you to bid against yourself. But if
    there are things that any of you would suggest either now or
    later, we would appreciate having those suggestions.
        Mr. Creed. We will take a look at it and comment back.
        Mr. Pease. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you and the ranking
    member. This is obviously a difficult situation for everybody,
    and it has been for some years, and the people in the Terre
    Haute community have worked very hard to try and find a
    resolution that accommodates everyone's needs, and we
    understand that that is not easy. I appreciate the local
    government and the local private sector involvement. We have
    had help from staff from the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee that have been very helpful on this.
        I appreciate the Postal Service's time with us, and I know
    GSA has frustrations and concerns, but I am grateful for the
    opportunity for us to work together to try and find a way to
    solve this for the benefit of the people that I represent.
    Nobody could have been more helpful and supportive than the
    chairman and the ranking member have been, and I am very
    grateful for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you. Let me just ask a few for the
    record that we feel we have to ask.
        Mr. Whitlock, I guess this really would be to you. Could
    you tell us how GSA reached the conclusion that there is not
    enough interest to sustain this building? Was that strictly in
    the Federal market because they wanted to move out into other
    areas, or does GSA look at a potential private market in any
    way? There is a private lawyer in there now, and I guess that
    is the only private use, is that correct, in the building?
        Mr. Whitlock. From the information we had, yes.
        Mr. Horn. It looks like it. All the rest are government
    services of one sort or the other.
        Mr. Whitlock. The analysis we did, which was based on the
    cost assumptions of similar buildings, our conclusions were
    that the income stream that was in the building, what we could
    expect to move back to the building, the income stream was less
    than the operating costs. That has, of course, been debated a
    number of times based on what assumptions one uses, but
    clearly, if it is not fully occupied at the rental rates in
    this community, it is hard for us to say this is a good
    economic investment.
        I don't want to keep saying this is just an economic
    equation, but investing $5 million in the building and then
    trying to make it pay out has been difficult. It is perhaps why
    we were encouraging the use of trying to find a private or
    third party that would wish to take over the building.
        There is a unique thing that happens to us when we acquire
    a building. I mentioned the 29 laws. All of a sudden they all
    apply. They own it, we are obligated to remove the asbestos and
    handicap the rest rooms and all of those kind of things.
        Mr. Horn. Is there asbestos in this building?
        Mr. Whitlock. The asbestos is mostly in the floor tile,
    which is not terribly dangerous, but remains an issue. So when
    we take over a building, we find ourselves having to do these
    things to accommodate most of that legislation. Sometimes when
    it goes to a third party, they don't have to do some of those
    things, so their investment level is going to be less.
        What I am trying to communicate is that we know where we
    need to be, we know what would be the right answer, but there
    is holes in getting there, and we haven't quite found a way to
    do that.
        Mr. Horn. Mayor Jenkins, let me ask you, having heard what
    Mr. Whitlock has to say and the thought we are exchanging here
    on the attraction of private people to that building as well as
    public service people, would there be a real rebellion downtown
    in other office buildings: What are you doing taking away my
    customers, et cetera? How much of a problem would that be if
    they found 1 of those 23 laws said they could move the square
    footage up and down?
        Mr. Jenkins. I am sure there would be some individuals who
    would have objection to that, especially if any of the other
    Federal agencies were to return to this building, obviously
    someone is going to be harmed, because they are paying rent to
    a private individual there. But for the greater good, the
    community wants the downtown revitalized. They want activity
    there; they don't want holes, they want buildings, they want
    people, they want activity. The local merchants want activity.
    They want customers. We also want a good mix of university and
    citizenry, a good marriage there, and this speaks to that.
        I try to look at this as basically this way. It is a
    Federal building. It has housed a Federal agency. It is owned
    by the Federal Government and maintained by the Federal
    Government. I would hate to see it change. It just causes--as
    Mr. Whitlock pointed out, change does cause problems at times,
    and in this particular instance I don't think change is
    necessarily that useful. I think we should do everything we can
    to bring the building up to snuff and then have all of these
    agencies return if at all possible and truly make it a Federal
    building with Federal services available to the local
    residents. It seems to be the most logical to me, and we would
    have all of this income stream from these agencies that are
    paying out rent to other places.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Rynne, just for the Post Office, for the
    record, I am curious. Does the Post Office and the facilities
    it operates around the country try to get in private tenants to
    make up some of the space, or is that considered a no-no in the
    new postal corporation?
        Mr. Rynne. No. Actually, very definitely, we try to do
    that. In fact, it is our particular group, the Asset Management
    Group, that has that particular responsibility.
        Mr. Horn. How has that worked out? I mean, have you had
    customers ready that can use some of that space?
        Mr. Rynne. Oh, sure, sure.
        Mr. Horn. I would think, depending on the type of business,
    that they would love to be inside a Post Office.
        Mr. Rynne. Yes. There are occasions when it is a very, very
    nice fit.
        Mr. Horn. So how difficult is that in Indiana, in the
    Midwest, and what do you find there? Is there not that much
    movement or what?
        Mr. Rynne. My knowledge is, I think, fairly specific to the
    Terre Haute area and this particular facility. Generally--and
    it has clearly been a challenge. I think the most recent
    efforts, we have sort of detected a slight heartbeat over the
    last month or two, and it appears that there is a State agency,
    the Western Indian Community Action Agency, that appears to be
    interested in leasing a little under 2,000 square feet of
    space, and the bankruptcy trustee, who I think is actually
    listed as the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, I believe it is a
    private tenant, leases at 1,400 or 1,500 square feet and is
    interested in expanding that by about 500 or 600 square feet.
    The FBI also wants to add a little space. So without
    overstating that, there seems to be at least a heartbeat.
        If I could interject for a moment on the cost of the
    building, it currently--I think over the last year our
    extrapolated costs for running the building are a little over
    $200,000. Those are 1999 figures. I think the lease revenue,
    the projected rent stream for the building at this point is
    about $258,000, to the best of our calculations. So it doesn't
    seem--it is not a horror show, but it is clearly--but clearly,
    there is not a huge surplus there. It would be very helpful to
    pack some more tenants into that building.
        Mr. Horn. As I understand it now, if the Postal Service has
    excess space there, you could turn that over to GSA and just
    carve out, say--among that 15,314 square feet, you could carve
    out an area, could you, and then give the rest of the building
    to them? How does it work?
        Mr. Rynne. You mean and condominiumize the building in a
    sense?
        Mr. Horn. No. I am thinking if you have a situation where
    you have this facility outside in the suburbs, what--and you
    say maybe 8,000 feet is all you need, not 15,000 feet downtown,
    depending on how you do the internal architecture.
        Mr. Rynne. And we would hope even perhaps to squeeze it
    down from the 8,000 if it is possible.
        Mr. Horn. So if you turned that building over to GSA, how
    does that that work? Do you simply do a transfer to GSA, where
    you say, we don't need all of that space, but we would like to
    have 8,000 or 10,000?
        Mr. Rynne. Under normal circumstances, if we were simply to
    excess the building, which, once again, had been the original
    plan since there had not been under that scenario a postal
    retail station remaining in the building, under the interagency
    agreement that exists between the Postal Service and the
    General Services Administration, they would get first crack at
    the building, and then we would go through the normal triage of
    State and local agencies to see if there were public interest.
    Failing that, then we would try to market it publicly to the
    private sector.
        Mr. Horn. So it would be the routine Federal system, where
    it goes through HUD and HHS and Justice and so forth?
        Mr. Rynne. Right. That's right.
        Mr. Horn. Now, as I understand it, the Postal Service has
    the authority to enter into arrangements such as what was
    talked about earlier, public-private partnerships to leverage
    private sector financing to restore aging buildings, and I
    wonder, has the Postal Service explored this type of option to
    restore and outlease the building, and if not, why not? Have
    you done that in other cities?
        Mr. Rynne. We have certainly done that in other cities, but
    once again, that is principally a function of the market. I
    think the greatest successes have been in the various cities
    around the country; New York City, San Francisco. I think on a
    grander scale we have a very large building in Chicago, in fact
    it is the largest postal building in the world, almost 3
    million square feet, which we are attempting to excess through
    that type of method, but it is located near the Loop, and so
    the financial projections on a property like that are clearly
    vastly different from the current situation.
        Mr. Horn. So you think you would have a lot of customers in
    Chicago in that area?
        Mr. Rynne. We are hoping to. That project is currently
    under way.
        Mr. Horn. Well, we wish you well.
        How about projects more similar to the situation in Terre
    Haute and throughout the Midwest?
        Mr. Rynne. Not that I can think of in that area of the
    country. I think the most local example which conceptually has
    some similarities to what exists in Terre Haute is the building
    on Massachusetts Avenue, the so-called Postal Square
    Development, which is catty-corner from Union Station, which
    was clearly a success story for us, and in which there are
    many, many Federal tenants.
        Mr. Horn. That is the one where the postal museum is.
        Mr. Rynne. That is correct.
        Mr. Horn. That is a wonderful museum.
        Mr. Rynne. That is probably the apex of that kind of reuse.
        Mr. Horn. Is that pretty well occupied?
        Mr. Rynne. Yes.
        Mr. Horn. Probably filled with lobbyists, right?
        What is the general services organization's strategy, Mr.
    Creed, with regard to investing resources to upgrade or
    renovate historic properties, and when making investments
    decisions, does GSA treat historic properties any differently
    than other properties?
        Mr. Whitlock. I can probably answer that. GSA's funding for
    renovation, construction, and including historic properties
    comes from the collection of rents that we collect from each of
    our tenant agencies. We do not have the outside funding sources
    to capitalize our projects, so there is tremendous competition
    for the income we collect each year to aid the courthouses,
    renovate existing buildings, and it is just simply a matter of
    having no capital access. So it becomes a constant problem for
    us to accrue that capital, to find that capital.
        Mr. Horn. Now, you were a creation of the Hoover
    Commission, as I remember, in 1949, in 1952; there were two of
    them. You are not putting that money that you get from your
    tenants--let's say they are all Federal tenants, might be some
    private--into a revolving fund that you can use?
        Mr. Whitlock. It is a revolving fund. I mean, it is similar
    to a revolving.
        Mr. Horn. So how does it work? Does each region of GSA put
    in a plan that says, look, this is what we need to do the
    renovation, this is what we need for maintenance, this is what
    we need to maybe build new buildings or an extension of
    existing buildings?
        Mr. Whitlock. Yes. Precisely.
        Mr. Horn. How does that system work?
        Mr. Whitlock. The income stream is in the neighborhood of
    $5 billion. Off the top comes government contracts to lessors.
    That takes about $2 billion of it. Then the basic operation of
    our own inventory, which is roughly the other half of the space
    we control, takes another $2 billion. Those are the contracts
    to heat and maintain and operate. The last $1 billion becomes,
    in effect, the competition part for, A, construction, and, B,
    for renovation of buildings. It works, but like a lot of other
    public enterprises, it has probably over the years been
    underfunded. At least that is our opinion.
        Mr. Horn. So you have not tried to endow the system then, I
    take it?
        Mr. Whitlock. We have asked for endowments in either direct
    appropriations or some kind of financing authority. It has been
    discussed a number of times.
        Mr. Horn. How about OMB on this? Are they favorable to back
    you up on that?
        Mr. Whitlock. They normally fall back into the scoring
    rules and to the budgetary caps and find themselves limited in
    supporting us on that.
        Mr. Horn. How about the various appropriations
    subcommittees, have they been supportive or not supportive?
        Mr. Whitlock. Both. I mean, we have had appropriations
    before. Right now we seem to be in kind of a tight crunch. I
    know you all are, and so are we; so are most of the agencies.
    Our discussion with most agencies is they are severely looking
    at their costs, and it is causing changes in how they behave.
        Mr. Horn. Well, are they, despite the cap bit, is GSA going
    to push for that type of authority in the future? What is your
    thinking on that? Maybe, Mr. Creed, you should answer that one.
        Mr. Creed. I think we could look into that and get back to
    you later--that would be appropriate for us at this point.
        Mr. Horn. Yeah. Well, I would be interested in that just in
    general, since we are your oversight agency, what makes sense
    and what would give you flexibility to do your job better. I
    would think we would all be on the same side on that one.
        Mr. Whitlock. I think you would probably want to have an
    indepth discussion of those issues, because it plays out in a
    lot of areas. From strictly a real estate standpoint, without
    trying to deal with all of the other influencing factors,
    having a capital source becomes very critical in making it all
    work out. So it is--especially with the amount of Federal
    construction being requested. We have taken the position that
    constructing courthouses, which are very complex, is probably
    in the long term better than leasing them, so it becomes a
    capital demand on us.
        Mr. Horn. You mentioned maybe 4 weeks would give you enough
    time to look at some of the options on this?
        Mr. Creed. Yes, Congressman. With a 4-week period of time,
    we will go ahead and mobilize immediately outreach and see what
    we can come up with.
        Mr. Horn. Well, today is the 29th. We are going to be here
    on the next 29th, so what date would you like to pick? It is
    wide open.
        Mr. Creed. Well, the 29th.
        Mr. Horn. OK, fine. The Speaker hopes we will get out of
    here on the 29th, and we will hold a hearing. I have one
    already that morning to the Y2K stuff and contingency plans. We
    will just work in another. So let's shoot for that and try to
    get it up here so that we at least can read it before the
    hearing starts. We would appreciate that.
        Are there any comments that the gentleman from Texas would
    like to make, or any questions you would like to ask, or are
    you going to round this up?
        Mr. Turner. Just maybe two or three. One, I would like to
    ask where did the $5 million estimated renovation cost come
    from? Who came up with that number?
        Mr. Pease. It came from a conversation in my office when we
    asked the Postal Service and the GSA what it would cost to
    bring this building up to--what the expectations were, and one
    of them said, we don't know, probably $3 million. So we thought
    we were being generous in authorizing $5 million.
        Mr. Turner. OK. I think that is important, and I am sure as
    you do your study here over the next month, you can take a look
    at that. You know, even $100-a-square-foot renovation costs--I
    believe somebody said the building was 31,000 square feet; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Whitlock. It depends how you wish to measure it. It has
    roughly 70,000 of gross square footage, the only number that
    probably everybody can agree to.
        Mr. Turner. Well, obviously, that is important to
    understand that number, where it came from.
        Mr. Horn. Just for the record, total square feet is 75,202.
    Rentable square feet is 41,318. The basement currently used for
    storage is 18,800, and total rented space now is 30,899 square
    feet, that was 75 percent occupied, and total vacant space is
    10,419 square feet.
        Mr. Turner. And the Postal Service currently uses 15,000?
        Mr. Rynne. Approximately 15,000.
        Not to confuse the issue, but the 75,000 square feet was
    what we would refer to as the net interior measurement. The
    gross square footage, which I believe we had communicated to
    your staff, was approximatley 85,000 square feet.
        Mr. Horn. Does GSA and the Post Office have the same square
    footage?
        Mr. Rynne. We have had a number of discussions, and I think
    we are pretty close on the inside. The gross square footage is
    simply from building wall to building wall.
        Mr. Turner. Again, I commend Mr. Pease for bringing this
    forward. I don't look at this as just an issue that pertains to
    Terre Haute and Mr. Pease. This kind of problem occurs all over
    this country, and Federal agencies end up in buildings they no
    longer need, or tenants start moving out. There is a tendency
    when you are not motivated by the profit incentive and
    capitalistic drive to do something with the building to just
    sort of let it drift along, and it goes further down and
    further down and further down, and I think we have a
    responsibility to realize that different agencies have
    different primary interests, and those sometimes don't work
    together very well to accomplish the goal of being a
    responsible property owner at the Federal level.
        So this is our test case, I guess, Mr. Chairman, and
    hopefully these agencies will get together.
        One thing I want to say to the Postal Service. I really
    believe that you have to be a part of the solution here. It
    sounded real good to say where you are going to get a lease for
    20 years at no cost, but you are in the prime rental area on
    the first floor of this building, and if we are going to
    structure something here that is economically appropriate and
    fair to the taxpayers, it is probably going to require the
    Postal Service to take some responsibility here.
        When we talk about, as Mr. Waxman did, trying to alleviate
    the burden on the taxpayer, the last time I took note of the
    Postal Service, I was proud to see that you are running your
    business off of your own revenues now, and I commend you for
    that. The taxpayers don't pay 1 dime to run the Postal Service,
    and we may need just a little bit of that little profit you are
    making to make this a viable project.
        And to the mayor, one question I have for you is would the
    city be willing to give GSA access to or the right to use for
    perhaps an unlimited term some of the spaces in that city
    parking garage about a block away, because obviously there is a
    shortage of parking space to make this a viable rentable
    building. I think if the city would step forward and negotiate
    with the GSA in this discussion over the next month and perhaps
    pledge to set aside some parking spaces that then could be
    controlled by the GSA and leased, that would be a perfect
    parking place for a lot of employees who could walk a block to
    work and leave those closer spaces available to the customers.
    Would the city perhaps be willing to chip in at that level?
        Mr. Jenkins. Certainly, Mr. Turner. Thank you.
        Mr. Turner. I think that would help in the mix of the
    discussion here.
        I appreciate the GSA being willing to take a lead here for
    us. It wasn't your problem, you didn't ask for it. So we are
    grateful that you are willing to step in and help us work
    through this. Again, I commend Mr. Pease for his leadership on
    a very difficult issue.
        Mr. Horn. Well, I agree with the gentleman from Texas. I
    think it was well said, how he summed this up.
        Would the gentleman from Indiana have any comments or
    questions?
        Mr. Pease. My thanks to the chairman and the ranking
    member. You have been very supportive, and I am very grateful.
        Mr. Horn. Well, thank you.
        Let me just ask you, Mr. Rynne, I have never had a problem
    with the Post Office in my 68 years. Do you cover the North
    Topeka Post Office in Kansas at all, I am curious?
        Mr. Rynne. The asset management group of which I am a
    member actually has a national charter, but our focus is on
    trying to serve as a profit center for the Postal Service.
        Mr. Horn. You are based here in Washington.
        Mr. Rynne. Based in Washington, correct.
        Mr. Horn. Well, if you could tell me who I should file a
    complaint with. When I was at a hearing in Topeka, I sent 20
    volumes bought by me to California in my district office, and
    only one arrived, and the box looked like a Caterpillar tractor
    had gone over it. But if you can tell me who I deal with, I
    would appreciate it.
        Mr. Rynne. I will try to do that.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. This has been a very
    worthwhile hearing, I can assure you.
        With that, we thank you all for coming. Each of you gave
    very useful testimony for us. We look forward to your options
    papers in 4 weeks.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]