[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL
INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(109-63)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 30, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-278 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas, Vice-Chair Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
DON YOUNG, Alaska JULIA CARSON, Indiana
(Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Winstead, David L., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
General Services Administration................................ 3
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESS
Winstead, David L................................................ 20
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Roth, Judge Jane R., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Chair, Judicial Conference Committee on Security and
Facilities, statement.......................................... 26
THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL
INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM
----------
Thursday, March 30, 2006
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The Subcommittee will come to order. I was
going to welcome all the other members of the Subcommittee, but
it looks like I am the only one that has made it here so far. I
know Ms. Norton is on her way and will hopefully join us
shortly, but we are going to go ahead and get started.
We have got a crowd here this morning, too. No members, but
we have got people in the audience, which is a different twist
for us. So welcome all of you here this morning. There is, I
guess, interest in what we are going to be talking about today
and the bills we are going to be marking up.
Each year, the General Services Administration submits to
Congress prospectuses for the alteration, acquisition, design,
construction, and lease of Federal buildings and courthouses to
house Executive Branch agencies and the judiciary, and, in
turn, perform a detailed review of the request and closely
examine each project submitted for our consideration.
The resolutions we will mark up later this morning reflect
those that the Committee has determined are acceptable,
sensible, and beneficial to the Government and qualify for our
consideration at this time. Other prospectuses are undergoing
additional review and will be considered at a later date. The
GSA will provide brief detail of the submitted prospectuses and
I will explain them more fully during the markup.
It is important to note that the President did not include
any new construction for the judiciary in fiscal year 2007
budget. The Committee is hesitant to authorize any additional
courthouse construction projects at this time because they are
not included in the budget and the Committee is awaiting GAO
reports on the judiciary's rents and courtroom sharing. The
judiciary has continued to raise issues over rent payments to
GSA. The courts are concerned over the growing percentage of
their budget going to GSA for rent and the related effects on
court operations.
The Committee is aggressively examining the rent issue, as
well as the courthouse building program. Last April we
commissioned a study of the judiciary's rent by the GAO. We
requested the GAO to investigate how rent payments were
calculated by the GSA, how payments are planned and accounted
for by the judiciary, which changes the judiciary has
experienced in rent payment in recent years, and what impact a
permanent rent exemption would have on the Federal Building
Fund. I look forward to the upcoming release of this GAO study
as we continue oversight of the courthouse construction.
This Committee has also requested that the courts initiate
a comprehensive courtroom usage study in coordination with the
GAO. This study will investigate how often courtrooms are
actually used for official functions. I appreciate the fact
that the courts are moving forward with this important
undertaking, although I am very concerned by the slow pace and
limited process that they have made to this date. I look
forward to the results of the study and hope they assist this
Committee in fully grasping the needs of the courts as we
consider future requests for courtroom construction.
On a separate note, we must tackle the issue of market
price increases today. Market price increases are not due to a
change in the scope of a project or failures by the government
or contractor to keep a project on budget. These increases are
solely due to unexpected issues, such as significant increases
in the cost of steel and cement and labor shortages. The
Committee has examined these requests and found them reasonable
and necessary to complete these projects.
Over the past few years, this Committee's ability to
authorize GSA projects has been delayed by GSA's inability to
provide this Committee with Capital Investment and Leasing
Program by March, leaving little guidance for the appropriators
as they consider project funding. This year is different.
I would like to commend Commissioner Winstead and Deputy
Commissioner Tony Costa for submitting the Capital Investment
Program in February and a majority of the leases program to the
Committee by the first week of March. By providing this
information shortly after the submission of the President's
budget, our Committee can properly fulfill our role as the
authorizers of these projects. I want to thank you gentlemen
again for presenting those to us in a timely fashion, and I
look forward to this promptness in the future.
I would also like to reiterate my intention to closely
examine each project that is submitted for our consideration.
While we are not delving further into the details of the
courts' supposed rent crisis today, it is an issue that has
forced us to reexamine our role in the approval of projects
over the years and will require additional oversight in the
future.
And, with that, we have no other members, so--oh, welcome.
Thanks for coming today.
Mr. Winstead, why don't we ask you to come to the desk?
I need to ask unanimous consent that our witness's full
statement be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the Subcommittee would request that you limit your
summary to five minutes or a little longer. We are not going to
be too tough on you on time today.
We do have but one witness, for those of you in the
audience today, Mr. David Winstead. He is Commissioner of the
General Services Administration's Public Building Service.
This is your first time testifying before the Committee, so
we welcome you. Congratulations on your appointment. We have
worked together already and look forward to continuing to work
with you and look forward to your testimony. With that, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. WINSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Winstead. Chairman Shuster, thank you. And, again, it
is a pleasure. This is my first appearance before the
Subcommittee, but I have met with other members prior to this
to sort of brief on the continued program at GSA Public
Buildings.
Obviously, our mission--former Commissioner Moravec has
been here on a number of occasions, and our mission continues
to be providing a superior workplace solution at best value to
the American taxpayer, and I think we are charged, most
importantly, with the responsibility of managing the Federal
Building Fund and the Revolving Fund created in 1972 that funds
the space needs of over 59 Federal agencies using a market
based approach. And I think you all have had testimony over the
last couple of years of new innovations that we put in place
both a customer service and an asset management that had, I
think, improved that delivery.
Each year, obviously, Congress vests us and appropriates
funds to our customer agencies, who then pay user fees, a rent
approximating the equivalent of commercial rents for the space
that they utilize. One of the purposes of requiring these
agencies to pay rent is to encourage them to both weigh the
cost of their space needs within their budgets, as well as to
prioritize their own mission versus their facility needs, and I
think this funding approach requires agencies to make choices
in balancing their demand for space, as well as fulfilling and
having the budgets to fulfill their mission program.
At the same time, I think GSA offers them the flexibility
in the selection of space options and quality, and obviously
amenities. Congress does rely on the Federal Building Fund to
provide that reliable source for GSA to both rent space from
the private sector, operate, maintain, repair, and modernize
their own inventory, as well as constructing new Federal
facilities in support of GSA customer service missions.
We are pleased, as you said, Mr. Chairman, in submitting
the Capital Investment and Leasing Program to you in mid-
February this year. When we met at the end of last year, when I
first got in this position, you encouraged us to get it in a
little earlier, and I am pleased that you acknowledged that. I
am testifying in support of that authorization of that program
today, and GSA requests your authorization of the individual
projects that are in the project, which we believe reflect
wisely investments and scarce taxpayers, but ultimately provide
the best support for our customer agencies, as well as
maintaining our very important Federal real estate portfolio.
We have analyzed all these projects and feel that they
address the most critical customer needs, as well as the
President's right-sizing goal for real estate asset management.
Since we last--since I think the commissioner last was before
this Committee, we have in fact achieved a green status in the
President's Management Agenda for asset management approach,
the tiering approach we have in our portfolio and a lot of our
efforts to move both project completions, as well as
dispositions of underutilized space.
We are obviously acquiring and constructing new Government-
owned assets to meet these long-term needs, which we hope
continue to be cost-effective; reducing the number of vacant
underutilized facilities. Last year we disposed almost 30
properties. We have improved conditions of mission-critical and
mission-dependent assets to ensure continued functionality, as
well as increase security needs and life safety and a very
pleasant work environment. And we continue to improve the
operation efficiency of key facilities and achieving the energy
efficiency goals set out in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
As you know, in the repair and alteration section of this
program we continue to be steward of over 1500 Federal
buildings, with a replacement value of about $41 billion, and
we are requesting a Repair and Alteration Program of about $866
million to maintain and improve these projects, which are
critically needed for the missions of our customer agencies.
Some of the highlights of GSA's fiscal year 2007 Repair and
Alteration Program include: $375 million for Basic Program, $23
million for more Limited Scope, as well as $398 million for
Major Renovation. In addition, there is a section in the
program which devotes about $25 million for our Design Program,
$15 million for continuation of our energy focus, as well as
$10 million for the CFC program; also, $10 million additionally
for the Class Fragmentation Program, which, again, is meeting
the security needs that we are for many of our buildings these
days, another $10 million for Fire and Life Safety.
I should note that we have evaluated and ranked our repairs
and alterations proposals based on a lot of following criteria:
customer urgency based on mission requirements, as well as
overall satisfaction levels; the physical urgency in these
buildings in terms of the building conditions and needs; the
economic justification in terms of financial return and present
value; and as well as project timing and execution risks.
The projects before you today have passed these three
criteria and reflect sound investment in our own portfolio,
and, again, best return to the American taxpayer.
In addition, in the New Construction section we are
requesting some $690 million under Construction and Acquisition
of Facilities. We traditionally pursue a construction ownership
solution for special and unique facilities. Two of these that
are obviously of great concern to this Committee and are unique
facilities are our border station program, as well as our
courthouse program, which are not available in terms of their
functional needs and designs in the real estate marketplace.
We recommend new construction where it meets new housing
needs of specific agencies or to consolidate several dispersed
agencies with long-term needs in terms of a given location. Our
construction program requests include also funding for site
acquisition, design, construction, and management inspection
costs of these Federal facilities.
If you look at the program this year, our construction
program reflects long-term customer needs in the Washington,
D.C. area for agency headquarters, significant funding for
border stations in support of our Customs and Border Protection
role and their program in securing the border initiatives. The
highlights of our fiscal year 2007 program include:--and I see
Delegate Norton has joined us--$306 million for the Coast Guard
consolidation at the St. Elizabeth's Campus; another $179
million for the Food and Drug Administration at White Oak--I
recently toured that facility, as well as St. Elizabeth's
campus--$40 million for the Remote Delivery Facility in
Washington, D.C.; $6 million for general infrastructure
support; $53 million for the transfer of the Nebraska complex
to the Department of Navy; $97 million for site acquisition
design and construction of eight border stations; and $10
million for Non-prospectus Construction Program.
In addition, the last component is a strong leasing program
with total leasing inventory of over 166 million square feet
located in 7200 buildings in the U.S. We are pleased that the
vacancy rate, which is one of our benchmark performance that we
review on a quarterly basis, is currently standing at 1.2
percent, a figure well below the current market industry
average of 12.5 percent.
We strive to keep leasing costs below market levels, and
have developed, as you know, comprehensive strategies to do
that, including the new national brokerage contract, including
the standard use of industry benchmark such as BOMA, operating
costs, and market surveys to compare our shop with sort of best
practices in the field.
This year, we are actually submitting 17 lease prospectuses
for your consideration. This constitutes the majority of our
lease program submittal. We are currently working on additional
proposals, as the Chairman noted.
And one of the final notes I would mention is that we are
always very, very conscious of budget constraints, both within
GSA, we are looking to contain costs in our operation and our
staffing. We obviously are very, very sensitive to the customer
agencies and the budget constraints they are under. You
mentioned the issues with the Judiciary. And we are continuing
to devote ourselves and time to manage our real estate and
manage our purchases to maintain and control those costs.
We are collaborating with a lot of tenant agencies to
identify feasible approaches to meeting customer constraints.
Some of those, including the FBI, which I know has a lot of
lease prospectuses in this submittal. We are identifying ways
to improve operational efficiency and reducing operating costs,
managing procurements, providing information for customer
decision-making, as well as consolidating requirements and
maximizing customer utilization of space.
In an executive order in 2004, President Bush issued the
Federal Real Property Asset Management Act, and I mentioned
that it focused our efforts on managing that Federal inventory,
as well as utilizing very cost-effective space actions in terms
of leases, and I am pleased that, as I said before, that we
have achieved green under the President's Management Agenda in
that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I think that pretty much on target here
concludes my prepared remarks. I thank the members of the
Committee for being here and I am pleased to answer any
questions about our 2007 Capital Investment and Leasing
Program.
Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you very much, Commissioner. I
have a couple questions on the Coast Guard headquarters. I know
there are going to be other tenants that join the Coast Guard
down there. Has it been determined who those other tenants are
going to be in that facility with them?
Mr. Winstead. Congressman, we are working very closely with
the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the Coast
Guard. We were up here testifying at their budget hearing, the
Coast Guard budget hearing, and, as you know, in the prospectus
it has a number of investments to both look at St. Elizabeth's,
in terms of design as well as access, and I know we are waiting
for a housing plan from the Department of Homeland Security for
final proposal for utilization of the St. Elizabeth's campus.
Mr. Shuster. In that plan, you have been working closely
with them and looking at consolidating some of those DHS--
Mr. Winstead. That is correct.
Mr. Shuster.--departments, because I know they are spread
all over the city.
Mr. Winstead. That is correct. And I know we are taking an
active role through the NCR. We have 11 regions around the
Country. NCR is obviously engaged in the leadership on this.
Delegate Norton is having a meeting I think next week with some
of the community around there, so we are trying to both keep
very engaged with the community, as well as obviously address
DHS and Coast Guard and other options.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. On the national brokers contract, we
spoke about it briefly before we started the hearing. I have
been talking to some of the brokers, and they feel as though
they have not been getting the number of leases that they
anticipated by this time. Do you have any--I was told by one
firm that they received maybe $3 million to $4 million in
contracts, and they expected to be at $20 million or $30
million. I don't know the exact number. Can you address that
here?
Mr. Winstead. Sure. Congressman, I know you had a concern
about this earlier when I came up here to have sort of an
introductory meeting, and I issued a letter, sent a letter to
you on January the 3rd which outlined sort of the status of the
contract. As you know, my predecessor, Commissioner Moravec,
felt very strongly that we needed to restructure our customer
service approach at GSA.
We actually did that by establishing national account
managers, which enabled us to work through the regions and from
head office to look at the long-term needs of our clients and
to really look further out, anticipating their needs to be able
to deal with market fluctuations to get them the best deals,
and this is now still being implemented. Part of that effort
was to expand our ability to get the best market-based
information on real estate options in the 6,000 communities
that we are in around the Country.
We did contract, a year ago, with Jones Lang Studley,
Starbuck Company and Trammell Crowe to aid in that effort. In
addition to that, we have spent a lot of the past year training
our realty specialists to understand the importance and the
relationship that these brokers can provide through these
contracts in delivering the best deal for the Federal
Government in that regard.
We have had training that has taken part in all the regions
around the Country and also in Washington. We are 12 months
into the contract. We have basically had over 400 task orders
issued and basically handled almost 9 million square feet
through those leases. There is a renewal of that for a second
year upon us, and we are working closely with them to try to
achieve our goals set out for that program. They do vary from
region to region.
Historically, some of our regions have been much more
engaged in utilizing broker relationships. This is our new
approach to these four contracts. Some are over 50 percent and
on their targets, and others are less, and I think what we
would like to do is to continue to focus on this as an
important tool for us, and I would be happy, as we discussed
before the hearing, to come up here and really bring the head
of our customer service in our head office, our AC up here, to
go through exactly what is happening in each region through
these brokerage contracts.
But I will tell you, in conclusion, that I came back last
week from meeting with the head of all of our real estate in
all the 11 regions around the Country--we had a meeting--and we
pushed and reviewed the brokerage contract, and what is very,
very positive is that they feel it is a great tool; it is
yielding benefit to us and our Federal tenants and achieving
the best deal for the Government. So I think it is working. The
question is making sure we achieve those goals.
Mr. Shuster. Right, because these folks are concerned that
there has been some cherry-picking going on within the GSA and
they are not getting the better contracts, they are getting
sort of the low end contract. We want to make sure to share in
your enthusiasm and moving forward, making sure this program
works and that it will be a good tool.
Mr. Winstead. And I would be happy to provide to the
Committee sort of a quarterly update on that contract, if you
would like.
Mr. Shuster. That would be great. And my final question had
to do with the Federal judiciary. They are asking for permanent
rent exemptions so they would be exempt from putting money in
the Federal Building Fund. What is your view on that? How big a
hole would that create in the Federal Building Fund if that was
able to go forward?
Mr. Winstead. Right. Mr. Chairman, we have expressed and
have appreciated historically the support of this Committee for
the Federal Building Fund and for our ability to deliver on an
economic and best-value basis facilities to the courts. We have
actually achieved almost 40 million square feet of courthouses
and office space for the judiciary, some 330 owned and another
125 leased facilities, about 2500 courtrooms. It has been a
remarkable legacy I think of a partnership.
I recently met with Judge Roth, who heads their facilities
committee, and with Judge Hogan, who is a neighbor of mine and
chairs the executive committee for the judiciary and reports to
the chief justice, and shared with them this amazing 50
courthouse legacy of landmark buildings in our urban areas, and
it has been a very strong partnership with our efforts to both
realize and implement their space designs for their Federal
courthouses, obviously work with this Committee and at the
direction of this Committee in funding those courthouses, but
also looking for cost savings where we can.
And I am concerned about the situation with the courts.
Obviously, they have increased caseload. I am a lawyer by
training. They have increased caseload, they have to meet those
needs. At the same time, they are seeing budge constraints
which are impacting. Their rent portion is getting bigger and
bigger percentage-wise. So what I have proposed--and I have
talked to David Bibb, who is our acting administrator.
In fact, next week we have meetings, and will continue to
on a quarterly basis, with the courts. We need to address this
with them. But as you all know, and have been a strong
supporter of GSA, the integrity of the Federal Building Fund is
based upon rents, which allow us to both build new buildings at
your direction, to renovate our buildings, and to deliver, in
the case of the courts, 50 landmark, beautiful urban buildings
over the last 10, 20 years.
So we are focused on this. We are going to be meeting
regularly with them. You mentioned the utilization issue. I
have actually and tried to understand better from the judges
this 1:1 ratio between courthouses and judges, and why that is
necessary or where it isn't necessary, and we are exploring
those things and waiting for this report from GAO. The bottom
line is--and I think we have responded to this Committee--that
if you look at the fiscal year 2004 in terms of per square foot
charges, their rent is about $25 a square foot, and the average
rent for all our other Federal agencies is about $22 a square
foot. In addition, over 2005, they actually achieved more back
in terms of construction than they did in rent.
So I will be--
Mr. Shuster. Better return?
Mr. Winstead. Sorry?
Mr. Shuster. They had a better return on their investment
than--
Mr. Winstead. Basically, they have been getting more back
than they have paid in. And I think the real issue I raised
with Judge Hogan, and will continue to raise with the
leadership of the judiciary, is that this is a partnership that
makes sense because the economies that are gained between
centralized real estate control, our Design Excellence Program,
our Construction Excellence Program, that we deliver better
value than if the judiciary and every other Federal agency spin
off and establish real estate departments to do so.
My last comment is that this Design Excellence Program,
which is where we have had peer review from the best architects
in the Country and selected them through a competition, has
really yielded some remarkable structures. Now, I am not an
architect, and I can't tell you that in every case is that
design the most effective, but when taken in aggregate, I think
the program has not only been a legacy for this Country, but
has also galvanized the Country's best architectural and design
minds, and produced really very outstanding buildings for the
judiciary. We are committed to considering that and continuing
that relationship, and will continue to work with the courts on
their rent problem.
Mr. Shuster. And their calculation on rent goes through the
same process as any Federal agency?
Mr. Winstead. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. And that $3 more per square foot is probably
due to the fact that their buildings are more pleasing to the
eye?
Mr. Winstead. Right.
Mr. Shuster. Larger than--
Mr. Winstead. I was just out in Fresno with Justice Kennedy
for the opening of that courthouse, and if you have the
opportunity to see it, it really is a remarkable building, as
the Sandra Day O'Connor is in Phoenix. They are beautiful
architectural landmarks.
I would tell you, though, I am very focused on the issues
of our Design Excellence Program, Construction Excellence
Program. We are actually hiring a new assistant commissioner
and sort of bifurcating the construction function in that
office so that we can have better pre-award control and post-
award monitoring of these projects. What we have seen and has
been reflected in the rent are the huge increase in material
costs over the last four years in the marketplace, and that has
translated into rent increases.
Mr. Shuster. Well, I don't see any reason why we can't
continue to build beautiful structures, landmark structures,
but we need to make sure we are utilizing them, so I urge you
to continue, as I am going to continue to talk to the folks in
the courts to get this utilization plan, because I am concerned
they are dragging their feet because they are going to find out
that they are not utilizing these buildings the way they
should. And these are taxpayer dollars. We have got to be good
stewards and make sure that the utilization is significant.
With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, if you have
any questions, statements, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
to you and the Committee that I was unavoidably detained, and
you did just the right thing to go ahead with this important
hearing.
I do want to say a few words. I won't read an entire
statement, but I do want to say a few words, Mr. Chairman,
about some of the issues, indeed, that you have raised and
thank you for the way in which you have given oversight to
important issues in this Committee. You mentioned in your last
question the courthouses, for example, and the President--and I
think for good reason--in his 2007 budget, did not authorize
new construction for Federal courthouses. Now, virtually all
that we build have been courthouses, and this has been perhaps
the most troublesome form of construction in my 15 years on the
Committee, and for reasons that vary from one period to
another.
The so-called Design Excellence Program that you speak of,
Mr. Winstead, I congratulate you on. Design was one of the
great and terrible controversial issues that faced this
Committee when GSA virtually abdicated its responsibility some
years ago to the courts and we have a virtual scandal, papers
wrote about courthouses with high ceilings and chandeliers and
kitchens and accouterments and trappings.
That was a sorry, sorry period, as far as I am concerned,
in the history of American jurisprudence, and it happened
because courts sometimes confuse their jurisdiction over cases
and controversies, which is theirs alone, and, Mr. Chairman,
the jurisdiction that is yours and mine and, if I may say so,
especially GSA's, and that is the jurisdiction over building
the things.
Building the things is not for judges. I had a very
troublesome meeting with the very good friend who heads this
work for the judiciary, where she literally cited cases and
controversies as a reason why they ought to have input. I am a
law professor. I had to then read her the riot case about cases
and controversies and the Constitution of the United States.
This has been a chronic problem, though, as some of my
questions will indicate, for GSA, that is to say, not as much
for the courts, because this Subcommittee--and this was some
years ago, Mr. Chairman--reined in GSA on that issue, but,
frankly, on how much leverage an agency has when it comes to
spending of taxpayers' money, and that has to do with
everything from how it is located to how it is designed.
Now, I compliment you for the fast way in which you are
moving ahead on what the President has included in his budget,
and that is the construction of a new headquarters for the
Coast Guard. And that comes at an opportune time not only
because it is part of the Department of Homeland Security, but,
Mr. Chairman, that is a building not fit to house Federal
employees or anyone else in, and I think that moving first on
the Coast Guard part of the Homeland Security--perhaps there
will be others; we don't know exactly what yet--was very wise
for the President and wise for you, and, yes, I look forward to
working with you, as we will with the community. It is a truly
historic building because it is the first time that the Federal
Government has built east of the Anacostia River.
We own this huge piece of land that was St. Elizabeth's
Hospital, closed decades ago, and we have let it lie there,
even though the policy of this Committee is, of course, that
the Federal Government will build on its own land before we go
out and rent space from others. So this is a historic
development for the District of Columbia because you are moving
over to the other side of the Anacostia, and it is an important
path-breaking work for you that the President has, himself,
ordered.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there is going to be a
hearing on courthouses later. You and I sent a letter in 2005
for the courts to begin studying, with the help of the GAO,
sharing of courtrooms, and I was very disappointed that that
study seemed to have literally, or at least the involvement of
the courts in it, had literally just begun when they met with
me a couple of weeks ago. I am sure they met with the Chairman
and his staff as well.
So it seems to me that there is real reticence doing what
the Committee said, and that is seeing the extent to which
courtrooms can be shared among judges. And here we have this
radical notion that of all of the agencies, the courthouses
don't have to pay into the Building Fund. Of course, we who
shouted to the hilltops, that means everybody else's budget in
the Federal Government will make up for the fact that the
courts are not paying into that fund, even though they are
taking from that fund to build the courthouses. It doesn't work
that way; it is a revolving fund, and I don't think that
anybody in the Congress in either house is likely to do that.
There is a very serious set of other questions that I will
reserve for my own questions, and I think probably the best
thing to do, since I have given something of a statement during
this, is to then let you go, Mr. Chairman, to the next person,
and on the next round I will have a few questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I think you make a
great point there, that what the courthouse looks like doesn't
stop our courts from administering justice; they could that
from a warehouse, they don't need these opulent places. But we
certainly don't--we are not suggesting we move them into
warehouses, but they could do it in a warehouse if they had to.
That is the reality of it. And it wouldn't affect what we do up
here with them administering justice.
Mr. Kuhl, you are recognized.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you for coming. I appreciated your
testimony. Being a new member on the Subcommittee, there are
some things that I will probably ask you about that everybody
else here knows. But I am just curious as to your perception of
the need across the Country as to other buildings. Obviously,
you haven't included everything in your request here. How do
you go about deciding what buildings are ready to be renovated
or torn down and reconstructed?
Mr. Winstead. Right. Congressman, we have--I mentioned a
little earlier, the structure of our real property asset group
at GSA is doing a constant assessment based on a return on
equity, the same principles that a private real estate firm
would do, looking at the rent and looking at the reinvestment
in those facilities, and we have actually--and this is sort
of--Bill Matthews, who is here, Assistant Commissioner, is in
charge of that.
We have actually, over the last three years, completely--as
we do regularly--review those assets and determine which ones
are efficient to the goal to both return, as well as energy and
operating costs, and we compare them to industry standards, the
BOMA standards, which sort of evaluate operating costs. And if
those facilities are in fact meeting the client need and are
efficient, we continue to invest in them, and part of these
requests are obviously the renovation, alteration programs as
well. So that is how we sort of evaluate the properties in
terms of reinvesting in them.
We also have a realty specialist on the local level and
regional account managers that are dealing with our major
Federal tenants in the 11 regions around the Country, so they
are constantly understanding what their contracting needs are.
There is much consolidation going on, as well as, in the case
of the FBI and other agencies and DHS, major expansion. So we
sort of can predict where they are moving.
And based on market information that we are getting for the
national brokerage contract and our own information, we can,
you know, manage those flows, trying to keep them in
government-owned buildings that historically are more cost-
effective for the taxpayer, as well as where we need special
space or we need space quickly, the marketplace in our lease
program--which is actually half of our inventory--can address
that.
So we are constantly managing our own inventory, constantly
looking at our leased inventory to make sure that we understand
when are leases expiring, working with our client agencies to
understand what their space needs will be beyond that
termination date, and renegotiating on their behalf to meet
those needs.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. Are there facilities right now that you
would like to do but the financial burdens of the Country
really are kind of limited and prohibit you from doing that?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, Congressman Kuhl. There are constantly
an inventory of projects. These prospectuses before you are
actually our current focus in 2007, but there are unmet needs
that we are constantly sort of benching and preparing to move
into the program in terms of renovation or new construction.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. Could you tell me, there is a facility in
Buffalo, New York, I think it is a new Federal courthouse that
is on, I think, the list to be done. Could you tell me where
that rates as far as other projects that might be considered?
Mr. Winstead. Yes. I personally went up with the regional
administrator in New York to meet the judges in Buffalo, and it
is remarkable what that new courthouse will do for the downtown
area of Buffalo across from city hall. And we are moving to try
to get that funded. It is in the queue to move forward, but it
is not--I think there has been some Senate action on it, but it
is not a part of this program here. They were concerned about
that.
The existing courthouse up there, in my opinion, has been
recently renovated, it is very attractive, quite unusual older
building, and it is meeting their current needs, but they are
very anxious to obviously get beyond the site acquisition, into
design and completion of that new courthouse.
Mr. Kuhl. Any thoughts about time line for completing that?
Mr. Winstead. I know we are working very hard. It depends
upon when the funding is approved. I know that we are
constantly in touch with the courts and with the Buffalo
interests in that regard, but I can't predict exactly when the
construction dollars are going to be in the program.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Winstead. Congressman, I would be happy to get you a
briefing on it, get back to you.
Mr. Kuhl. That would be great. That would be great. Thank
you.
Mr. Shuster. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I am
going to. I think it would help the courts immensely if they
moved quickly on this study that we have requested, and I
believe they have agreed to it now. As we bring up new
courthouses, I know I will be hesitant to approve any new
construction until we figure out exactly how to utilize it. So
the courts need to move forward.
Mr. Winstead. Right. Well, I look forward to the GAO study
as well. I mean, we have looked at their new design guide. We
are working in trying to save design costs and utilization,
increase space and things of that nature, but that would be
very helpful to us.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Michaud, questions?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
three questions; they are all related. Within GSA, how is the
Border Crossing Station Program managed and is there an office
dedicated specifically for this program? And my last question
is how does GSA work within Homeland Security?
Mr. Winstead. Right. Congressman, we do have an office of
border station portfolio. They manage a huge increase for our
client, Customs and Border Protection. Essentially, we have
three offices. One is for the courts and one is for the border
station because it is a large part of our construction program.
You may see in this request for authorization, you will see six
new requested border station programs totaling about $95
million. That is on top of fiscal year 2006, where we had five
at about $211 million.
I had the occasion last week to meet with a coalition of
communities on our northern and southern borders that are very
interested in--it is called the Border Trade Alliance, I
believe--very interested in the efficiencies that can be gained
with throughput of traffic and commercial vehicles and these
border stations.
Obviously, we have very, very specific needs in containment
areas and all sorts of needs in terms of scanning freight, so
it is a very unique facility. On a per square foot basis, they
tend to be more expensive, and I know one question of the
Committee that came back to our staff before this hearing was
why do you have a variation between various border stations. It
is because of both the need and a case configuration site
specifics that might change some of those costs.
But we do feel--and I have a brochure that will lay out
some of our stations in the northern part, on the Canadian
border, that I can leave with you. But I think it has been an
excellent program and I think, again, through the efficiencies
of our design, construction, and architectural team, that we
can deliver it very efficiently for, obviously, CBP, and we can
continue to do that. And I would be happy to provide you
specific information on any of the prospectus for any of the
specific projects, background information, if you would like.
Mr. Michaud. What about leased? Are all your border
stations leased, government-owned?
Mr. Winstead. Yes. We have the majority of them are, but
there are some situations where there are leased facilities.
And I know that some of them are unusual in that regard. There
are several cases where we essentially have the communities on
the border and some private interests involved in certain
passages, but the majority of them are government-owned,
Federally-owned border stations.
Mr. Michaud. I would appreciate it if you can provide that
for the Committee. I would be interested in seeing that.
Mr. Winstead. I would be happy to.
Mr. Michaud. And what elements of the Homeland Security
Department will be reassigned to St. Elizabeth?
Mr. Winstead. Yes. We are working very closely with DHS now
in that regard. They, as you know, have the Nebraska complex,
and although they haven't released a proposed plan, we are
working the NCR here. The National Capital Region is working
very closely with them to try to make sure that we take
advantage of the St. Elizabeth's Campus. Congressman, it is
about 176 acres. It is a large piece of ground with enormous
visual impact on Washington. If you would like a tour of it, I
would be happy to arrange it.
But it is very secure. It meets all the highest-end
security setback requirements. There are some historic
buildings that we will incorporate within the campus plan for
the Coast Guard and other potential tenants from DHS. But we do
feel that it is the last remaining piece of major secured real
estate, and Washington, I think, offers an excellent
opportunity for a campus for a lot of these high-end security
DHS functions.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.
Ms. Norton, do you have further questions?
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I note that
GSA and, it looks like, the State Department want or at least
have put in their own bids for Walter Reed Hospital. I can
certainly understand that given the hunger of the Federal
Government for land here. There are millions of square feet of
office space you need and, of course, you want to do as much in
the Nation's capital, especially since cabinet agencies should
be consolidated in the Nation's capital in particular.
I am wondering when we will know--well, first of all, I am
wondering if there is any chance that some of that, for
example, the part that borders Georgia Avenue, would be
utilized by the District of Columbia, which has set up its
own--according to, of course, Federal law--its own authority in
case they may have some part of the land and, of course, in
order for you to consult with the local authority.
The part of the land on 16th Street, of course, is very
residential. You would expect the State Department to want that
because there are embassies on 16th Street. Georgia Avenue is a
very commercial, and the hospital has some considerable setback
from Georgia Avenue. So what I am asking is whether you believe
that some kind of mixed development with the Federal Government
using the space it needs with the appropriate setback, but with
a curbside commercial space being possibly used by the District
of Columbia is a possible configuration.
Mr. Winstead. Delegate Norton, you have been such a partner
with our agency over the decades in terms of the District and
of our needs here. In addition, some of these innovative
projects such as St. Elizabeth's and the Southeast Federal
Center. I know that Mayor Williams this morning had a comment
in the paper regarding Walter Reed, that he has set up this
local redevelopment authority committee to help look at some of
these ideas, some of these mixed use ideas. Obviously, there
has been, from GSA's perspective and the State Department,
there are obviously needs in terms of embassy functions or
potential Federal office options.
I would hope that our NCR--we chatted about this when I
came to your office. We want to make sure that we have the best
planning perspective in how we can help that partnership with
the city, and it seems to me the most successful office
environment, as you know well, is this mixed use approach. I
just don't know, first-hand, what the whole campus utilization
would be.
I agree with you that 16th Street is much more residential
in character than Georgia Avenue with the investments made.
Both on the D.C. and Maryland side of Georgia Avenue is a major
commercial corridor and a major redevelopment area, and should
be, also transit-served, which is helpful.
So I think we will continue to partner with the city, with
the NCPC and other groups, State Department, in trying to look
at the needs and options--
Ms. Norton. But you don't know when a decision will be made
as to whether or not the Federal Government agencies, GSA and
State Department, who want the land will get the land. When
will that decision be made?
Mr. Winstead. Delegate, I believe NCR is currently working
on trying to set a time line for that. I can't--but I can get
to back to you on what our plans are.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would get back to me. I just want to
say--I am not going to take up the Committee's--
Mr. Winstead. I am sorry, Delegate Norton. I apologize. We
do expect by next month that decision. I apologize.
Ms. Norton. That is important information. But I do want to
say I don't think the Committee is going to have to think about
Walter Reed for a very long time. I really do not believe
that--although BRAC has said that the Walter Reed Hospital will
now be constructed at Bethesda, I don't, for a moment, think
that anybody is going to put down $1.5 billion to build a new
hospital at a time when we have such a deficit, and when we
have, if not a state of the art hospital--it was built in the
1970s--at least a going hospital that everybody was surprised
to see closed anyway. So I am not going to spend a whole lot of
time on that.
I just have a couple of questions.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. And this has been a perennial problem with GSA,
and it really goes back to what I was saying about the courts,
what the Chairman indicated when he talked about the plan, and
that is the locational policy of GSA and its handing off its
responsibility to other agencies. When I say the courts, it was
certainly not the courts alone.
GSA has been roundly accused of participating with agencies
in redlining, to just use the nasty word. Actually, GSA helped
me fight an attempt by an agency to redline when an agency
chose to put the FCC down where--which is now one of the up and
coming elegant areas of the city, and the FCC wanted to renege
on it literally after the building was built.
Now, here are people who had gone through a competitive
process--and I want to stress that this is a competitive
process, where you, the experts, say to the agencies, tell us
your needs, and then you put out an RFP and people have to come
in, and you do not award on the basis only of price, but you
have a competitive process that you choose the best place based
on the taxpayers' responsibilities and the agency's
responsibilities.
With that as a preface, I have some real concerns about
some leases, such as the Department of Justice consolidation
lease. I mean, we have been trying to consolidate Department of
Justice for decades, and the Department of Justice seems to
have a total veto over leases even after you go through a
competitive process. You canceled a recent Department of
Justice process after, apparently, the winning party had been
chosen.
The Chairman has pulled the FBI lease until we can all be
briefed because you seem to be into piecemealing the FBI,
whereas, the policy of the Federal Government is consolidation
to the greatest extent possible. And if you see an agency like
the FBI that is growing, you would think that the experts--and
goodness knows that is what you are--would look at whether or
not there would be a housing plan somewhere here, or somewhere
else, if that is not possible, that would consolidate the
agency. I think the Department of Justice is located in more
than 20 different sites someplace around the city and the
region.
So my question really goes to how you conceive of your role
once a determination has been made through the competitive
process that a site is in the best interest of the Federal
Government. How do you conceive of your role when the agency
may want to be elsewhere, such as wanting to be as near K
Street as possible, wanting to be in the hub nearer the mall,
when everybody knows that that space is virtually gone, not
wanting to go to new areas, despite the statutory provision
that says that the Federal Government has a responsibility to
go to an area first, because when it does, it opens up the area
and it renews the area almost instantly because other kinds of
commercial and housing comes in? That has been the statutory
role of the agency forever.
And yet, for example, I note there is an area of the
District of Columbia which has been cleared, it is literally on
the gateway to the District of Columbia in downtown Washington.
It is the last remaining large site in downtown Washington. We
call it NOMA, North of Massachusetts Avenue. You cooperate with
me to have an opportunity for Federal agents to come in and
find out about NOMA.
And what did they find out? That once, Mr. Chairman, the
ATF decided to move--now, this is New York Avenue and Florida
Avenue. It couldn't be more central. Once the ATF decided to
build there, almost as if, magically, we have got hotels
planned, restaurants planned, the renewal of a whole area,
won't cost the Federal Government one dime, but all it had to
do was to find the best space for an agency. The ATF agreed to
that space. It did not want to go to the region, for example.
So when it saw--you know, let us see, what my choices are--
it agreed to that space. Spaces had precisely the effect that
Federal construction always has, and yet this block of land
around it--where, by the way, Mr. Chairman, the Federal
Government, the D.C. Government, and the private sector, for
the first time in Metro's history, have cooperated to build a
whole new subway station, new subway station that the Federal
Government only had to pay one-third of the price for, the only
one of its kind in the whole region where the private sector
and the locals have contributed in this way--vacant land where
the private sector is doing what you would expect them to do.
It is a new area.
Yes, we know those things are coming. Federal agencies
haven't been there before. Yes, it is very close to Union
Station. Yes, it is very close to downtown Washington. But,
yet, there will be reluctance because it is a new area.
My question to you is whether or not there is any single
agency which is going to this section. And, further, my
question to you is whether or not you have advertised this
section for any single agency so that RFPs could come in and
you could see and compare it to other RFPs in the city and in
the region.
Mr. Winstead. Delegate Norton, I appreciate your concern
and I understand it. You know, we do have authority under
Section 120 to direct under the delineated areas, the agreed
upon space and options and to procurement, both construction
and lease. Your problem--and I did chat with you when I came by
your office--in terms of the NOMA area is your commitment to it
and my commitment to it are the same. My concern is that we
will continue to make sure that it all of--
Ms. Norton. Well, answer my question. Have RFPs come in?
Mr. Winstead. There are a number of procurements underway
in that area, and I know that because of that it is--
Ms. Norton. Are these people bidding on the procurements
you are putting out? The people who own that land, are they
bidding or not?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, they are. There are options--
Ms. Norton. All right, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman.
I want to put on the record, because I am very concerned that
there is--these people tell me--because after GSA and I went
and had this whole big thing to say to the agencies, look here,
you then involve yourself in something that this Congress has
nothing to do with.
You then have to decide competitively what is the best
place. These people tell me that because they know they are a
little distance away from where agencies are used to going,
that they are putting in bids that they know that their
competitors could not possibly put in. In other words, they are
willing to be lost leaders in order to in fact get Federal
agencies to come to this space.
So they tell me--and they don't know what your bids are
from others and I don't know what your bids are from others.
All I know, that if developers in D.C., of which there are a
fair number who own space there, tell me they know they are
very significantly under-bidding, under-pricing their land
relative to everything in the region and everything in the
city, then I have real questions as to whether or not you are
engaged in redlining a central area of the District of Columbia
from Federal agencies going there and costing the taxpayers
more by either doing as you did for DOJ and saying, well, they
don't want it, so we canceled the lease, or otherwise not doing
the job of encouraging agencies to go there once you find that
that is the best place for the taxpayers and for the agencies.
Mr. Winstead. Delegate, I understand your concern, and our
commitment is the same. We will continue to communicate with
the developers and understand their options. We think this
area, with the investment of the new Metro there, which was, by
the way, historically unique in its funding base. You actually
had contributions through TIFs to bring that in place. It was
brought online and completed faster than any system in the
Metro system.
It is a very--it is a brilliant corridor in terms of office
options for GSA, and we will continue, as I mentioned to you in
a meeting, continue to make sure that we are engaged in
information and both the options that exist there as well as,
obviously, the procurements that are out there that this area
is a part of. And I will be happy to continue to report to you
on that. I know that our NCR realty specialists are reaching
out through the DCBIA in a lot of these forums, real estate
forums, where a lot of these areas of growth and opportunity
are presented and are being educated--
Ms. Norton. Mr. Winstead, just let me say this.
Mr. Winstead. All right.
Ms. Norton. Unless you do what realtors do, people in your
position, for the private sector and market this part of the
area, these people are not going to want to go there.
Mr. Winstead. I understand.
Ms. Norton. And they are going to force you if you look
like GSA has always looked, like it will do anything to please
the agency.
Because, Mr. Chairman, this Committee hasn't done the kind
of oversight on this issue. We have complained about it.
And I think what you are doing--if you are going to leave a
huge section of the District of Columbia in downtown Washington
vacant, where there is a subway stop, where the private sector
has already pioneered--
Mr. Chairman, this is where XM Radio has located and
pioneered. We are not talking about some God-forsaken part.
If you are going to leave that, I think you invite further
oversight of this Committee as to how you handle RFPs, and
particularly if we find that, all of a sudden, RFPs for people
like the DOJ are vacated--whoops--for no reason--there it goes;
there it was--particularly since you have a number of agencies
coming up. You know, some of these people are not going to want
to go to St. Elizabeth's. The President has made it clear,
though, that this is a secure agency we are building here.
But you are going to find people saying, well, we don't
want to go to this new place. If they don't want to go to New
York Avenue, imagine wanting to go across the river. Where are
they going? And once they get there, they will find it is just
fine. But if they don't have somebody besides me trying to
convince me, if they don't have the experts in the field
talking about what happens when a Federal Government builds a
building.
All you have got to do is look at Southwest. Look at
downtown Washington. If you think downtown Washington got to be
the way it is somehow because people decided let us make a
beautiful downtown, then you don't understand the role of the
Federal Government.
One more question, Mr. Chairman. I am on the Homeland
Security--
Mr. Shuster. I just want to mention we are going to have a
vote at about 11:15, 11:30, so if you can have a final
question, and we will try to get through as much as we can of
the markup also.
Ms. Norton. We have a markup?
Mr. Shuster. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will go to the markup. I
just want to say--
Mr. Winstead. I will get back on the--
Ms. Norton. And I want to say the notion of your role in
this interagency committee on security, I would like to know
the difference between your own security guidelines and what
that interagency security came up with.
Mr. Winstead. I would be happy to get that back to you.
Mr. Shuster. All right.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Winstead. Thank you, Delegate Norton.
Mr. Shuster. Commissioner, just one question briefly, if
you answer it. The design guide, allowing the--and I think Ms.
Norton brought this up before--was it a good idea to give it to
the Federal courts to design their own buildings? And is there
any thought at the GSA of taking that back? Because I
understand GSA decided to give it to them, and it would seem to
me you would do a better job of that oversight.
Mr. Winstead. Mr. Chairman, there has been repeated editing
efforts on the design guide. We have the most recent input back
from the courts' design guide and we had opportunities,
actually since I have been at GSA the last six months, to input
into that document to ensure that our designers and architects
and their team are working that it is the most efficient
guidelines, and the courts have been receptive to that. They
are actually working with them. We have a meeting on April the
11th, Mr. Chairman, with the facility committee of the courts
and the chairman of that, Judge Roth, to actually discuss the
design guide and its impact--
Mr. Shuster. But to discuss GSA taking back that or not?
Mr. Winstead. Well, we haven't approached that yet, but we
will bring it up at that meeting.
Mr. Shuster. All right. Okay, well, thank you very much for
being here with us today. Appreciate it and look forward to
talking--
Mr. Winstead. Thanks for all your support and for the
Committee's support.
Mr. Shuster. I would also like to ask unanimous consent
that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time
as our witness has provided answers to our questions that may
be submitted to him in writing, and unanimous consent that
during such time as the record remains open, additional
comments offered by individuals or groups may be included in
today's record. Without objection, that is so ordered.
If no one else has anything to add, the Subcommittee is in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8278.018