[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NO ONE'S HOME:
           AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION

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

                                (118-23)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,
                         AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                             JULY 13, 2023

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure






                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





      Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation


                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-338 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024










             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                   Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman

Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 	       Rick Larsen, Washington,               
  Arkansas			         Ranking Member                       
Daniel Webster, Florida		       Eleanor Holmes Norton,                 
Thomas Massie, Kentucky		         District of Columbia                 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania	       Grace F. Napolitano, California        
Brian Babin, Texas		       Steve Cohen, Tennessee                 
Garret Graves, Louisiana	       John Garamendi, California             
David Rouzer, North Carolina	       Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia
Mike Bost, Illinois		       Andre Carson, Indiana                  
Doug LaMalfa, California	       Dina Titus, Nevada                     
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas	       Jared Huffman, California              
Brian J. Mast, Florida		       Julia Brownley, California             
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,	       Frederica S. Wilson, Florida           
  Puerto Rico			       Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey       
Pete Stauber, Minnesota		       Mark DeSaulnier, California            
Tim Burchett, Tennessee		       Salud O. Carbajal, California          
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota	       Greg Stanton, Arizona,                 
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,	         Vice Ranking Member                  
  Vice Chairman			       Colin Z. Allred, Texas                 
Troy E. Nehls, Texas		       Sharice Davids, Kansas                 
Lance Gooden, Texas		       Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois     
Tracey Mann, Kansas		       Chris Pappas, New Hampshire            
Burgess Owens, Utah		       Seth Moulton, Massachusetts            
Rudy Yakym III, Indiana		       Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts        
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon	       Marilyn Strickland, Washington         
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina	       Troy A. Carter, Louisiana              
Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey	       Patrick Ryan, New York                 
Anthony D'Esposito, New York	       Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska           
Eric Burlison, Missouri		       Robert Menendez, New Jersey            
John James, Michigan		       Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                   
Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin	       Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio              
Brandon Williams, New York	       Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan          
Marcus J. Molinaro, New York	       Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina     
Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida

                                ------   

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

                   Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman

Garret Graves, Louisiana	       Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member  
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,	       Eleanor Holmes Norton,              
  Puerto Rico			         District of Columbia              
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,	       Sharice Davids, Kansas,             
  Vice Chairman		                 Vice Ranking Member               
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina	       Troy A. Carter, Louisiana           
Anthony D'Esposito, New York	       Grace F. Napolitano, California     
Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin	       John Garamendi, California          
Mike Ezell, Mississippi	               Jared Huffman, California           
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)      Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)








                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
  Management, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Derrick Van Orden, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Wisconsin, prepared statement.........................    41

                               WITNESSES

David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, 
  U.S. Government Accountability Office, oral statement..........     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General 
  Services Administration, oral statement........................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    22

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Nina Albert, Commissioner, 
  Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration.    43

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              July 7, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``When the Lights Are On 
But No One's Home: An Examination of Federal Office Space 
Utilization''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, July 13, 2023, at 10:00 
a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive 
testimony on a hearing entitled, ``When the Lights Are On But 
No One's Home: An Examination of Federal Office Space 
Utilization.'' The purpose of the hearing is to discuss Federal 
real estate, including office space utilization, focusing on a 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) study which will be 
released at the hearing. At the hearing Members will receive 
testimony from the United States General Services 
Administration (GSA) and the GAO.

                             II. BACKGROUND

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

    In 1972 Congress authorized and established the Federal 
Buildings Fund (FBF) under the Public Buildings Act Amendments 
of 1972 (P.L. 92-313).\1\ The FBF finances new construction, 
alterations and repairs, building operations and maintenance, 
and leasing activities by charging commercially equivalent rent 
to tenant agencies which is then collected into the FBF.\2\ 
While the majority of the FBF is funded through agency rent 
payments to GSA, the FBF is not a true revolving loan fund.\3\ 
Instead, the funds are made available to GSA via annual 
appropriations bills.\4\ Outside of 2016, appropriators have 
not provided GSA full access to the annual revenues and 
collections in the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began 
using the FBF to offset other unrelated spending in the 
Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill.\5\ For example, in 2021, the FBF accrued $10.4 billion in 
revenue and collections, a majority of which was generated by 
five customers: the Department of Justice, Department of 
Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, Department 
of the Treasury, and the Courts.\6\ However, only $9.1 billion 
was appropriated to the FBF in 2021, limiting access to $1.3 
billion of rental receipts needed for reinvestments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 92-313, 86 Stat. 216.
    \2\ GSA, Federal Buildings Fund (last reviewed Feb. 1, 2021), 
available at https://www.gsa.gov/reference/reports/budget-performance/
annual-reports/2020-agency-financial-report/managements-discussion-and-
analysis/financial-statements-summary-and-analysis/federal-buildings-
fund.
    \3\ See 40 U.S.C. Sec.  592(c)(1).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, Federal 
Buildings Fund (2022), available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/
02_FY_2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final_
508cO.pdf.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, Federal 
Buildings Fund (2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
02_FY2024_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA FEDERAL REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO

    GSA currently manages 8,800 owned and leased assets, 
totaling over 370 million square feet, and 500 historic 
buildings.\8\ Of the 370 million square feet, 181 million is in 
leased space, which is comprised of over 6,659 buildings and 
costs more than $6 billion per year.\9\ While GSA continues to 
reduce the amount of leased space, more than half of GSA's 
operating leases (96 million square feet) will expire in the 
next five years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Press Release, GSA, Nina M. Albert Appointed Commissioner of 
GSA's Public Buildings Service (July 6, 2021), available at https://
www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/nina-m-albert-appointed-
commissioner-of-gsas-public-buildings-service-07062021.
    \9\ GSA, Inventory of GSA Owned and Leased Properties (Last 
reviewed Sept. 9, 2022), available at https://www.gsa.gov/tools-
overview/buildings-and-real-estate-tools/inventory-of-gsa-owned-and-
leased-properties.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, office occupancy in the Washington, D.C., metro 
area is still below 54 percent of pre-pandemic levels.\11\ 
Additionally, 30 percent of the Federal workforce is expected 
to be eligible to retire this year.\12\ There have also been 
increasing reports of ``shadow'' or ``dark'' space in Federal 
buildings and leases--unassigned, unused space.\13\ The 
concerns about ``shadow'' or ``dark'' space were further 
emphasized during the Subcommittee's Roundtable on ``The State 
of Federal Real Estate,'' on March 22, 2023, during which 
participants noted that 30 percent of Federal employees plan to 
retire within the next five years and nearly 30 percent of 
Federal employees with remote work agreements live outside 
their assigned region.\14\ Given these factors, Congress and 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have a 
unique opportunity, through legislation and oversight, to save 
the taxpayer significant money by directing GSA and other 
Federal agencies to improve utilization and significantly 
reduce the space they occupy and dispose of underutilized and 
unused Federal real estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Bailey McConnel, Chart of the Week: Office Occupancy Rates and 
Remote Work, D.C. Policy Center (Feb. 24, 2023), available at https://
www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/office-occupancy-remote-work-dc/.
    \12\ Angie Petty, 2023 Workforce Federal Contracting Trends to 
Watch, GovWin, (Dec. 7, 2022), available at https://iq.govwin.com/neo/
marketAnalysis/view/2023-Workforce-Federal-Contracting-Trends-to-Watch/
6981?researchTypeId=1&researchMarket.
    \13\ GSA, Unused & Underused Space (Last reviewed Mar. 4, 2022), 
available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/unused-
underused-space.
    \14\ The State of Federal Real Estate: Roundtable Before the 
Subcomm. on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
Management of the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. 
(Mar. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      III. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS

FREEZE/REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT

    In 2013, the Committee, followed by the Obama 
Administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
announced the ``Freeze the Footprint'' initiative, which 
directed Federal agencies to offset requests for new space with 
disposal of unneeded space.\15\ Subsequently, in 2015, the 
initiative progressed into ``Reduce the Footprint'' with 
targeted reductions to the Federal government's real estate 
profile.\16\ These efforts resulted in the shrinking of the 
Federal footprint, with an 8.2 million square footage reduction 
from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2020, but did little to assess 
actual space utilization, due to the focus on the official 
number of employees assigned to a given building.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Press Release, White House, Freezing the Footprint, (Mar. 14, 
2013), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/03/
14/freezing-footprint.
    \16\ White House, Reduce the Footprint, (Mar. 25, 2015), available 
at https://obamaadministration.archives.performance.gov/initiative/
reduce-footprint.html.
    \17\ GSA, Real Property Metrics, available at https://
www.performance.gov/real-property-metrics/; GAO, GAO-22-105105, Federal 
Real Property: GSA Could Further Support Agencies' Post-Pandemic 
Planning for Office Space Use (Sept. 2022), available at https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 2016 (P.L. 114-318)

    The Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016 codified 
the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) which was established 
by Executive Order in 2004.\18\ The FRPC is composed of the 
senior real property officers of the 24 Federal agencies 
covered by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act (P.L. 101-
576).\19\ FRPC's purpose is to develop guidance and ensure 
implementation of efficient and effective real property 
strategics, identify opportunities to better manage property, 
and reduce the costs of managing Federal real estate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Exec. Order 13327, (Feb. 4, 2004), available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-02-06/pdf/04-2773.pdf.
    \19\ See Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838; 31 U.S.C. Sec.  
901(b) (The CFO Act agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, 
Labor, State Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, 
United States Agency for International Development, General Services 
Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business 
Administration, and Social Security Administration).
    \20\ Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 
114-318, 130 Stat. 1608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ASSETS SALE AND TRANSFER ACT (FASTA) (P.L. 114-287)

    Enacted in 2016, FASTA established a temporary board--the 
Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB)--composed of non-
governmental experts to make recommendations to OMB on the 
sale, disposal, or redevelopment of high value, underused or 
unneeded Federal real property.\21\ OMB would then approve or 
disapprove of the proposals and, if approved, GSA would execute 
the recommendations.\22\ The Board is set to terminate in 2024, 
at which time permanent changes to disposal laws will begin, 
and agencies will be allowed to retain a portion of sale 
proceeds as an incentive to dispose of excess properties.\23\ 
FASTA also codified the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) 
government-wide database of real property and made it available 
to the public.\24\ Unfortunately, the Board has found it 
difficult to execute its mission due to a variety of long-
standing challenges, including limited access to funding, 
restrictions on the Board preparing properties for disposal, 
and limitations on the Board directing the best approaches for 
transactions to maximize the return.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ FASTA, Pub. L. No. 114-287, 130 Stat. 1463.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ GAO, GAO-21-233, Federal Real Property: Additional 
Documentation of Decision Making Could Improve Transparency of New 
Disposal Process (Jan. 2021), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/
gao-21-233.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPACE UTILIZATION CORRESPONDENCE

    On March 30, 2023, the Committee sent 14 letters to GSA's 
largest Executive branch tenant departments and agencies (see 
Appendix I) requesting documents related to utilization rates, 
telework policies, capital plans and details of any campuses. 
To date, the Committee has only received four responses which 
failed to provide all the documents requested.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Letter from Debra Wall, Acting Archivist of the United States, 
Nat'l Archives and Records Admin., to Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
Transp. and Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management of the 
H. Common on Transp. and Infrastructure (Apr. 13, 2023) (on file with 
Comm.); Letter from Andrea Brandon, Deputy Ass't Sec'y--Budget, 
Finance, Grants and Acquisition, Dep't of the Interior, to Sam Graves, 
Chairman, H. Comm. On Transp. & Infrastructure (June 20, 2023) (on file 
with Comm.); Letter from Philip McNamara, Ass't Sec'y for 
Administration, Dep't of Transp., to Scott Perry, Chairman, 
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
Management of the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (June 9, 
2023) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Patricia L. Ross, Ass't Sec'y, 
Cong. and Legislative Affairs, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, to Sam 
Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. On Transp. & Infrastructure (July 3, 2023) 
(on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       IV. GAO's EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION

    During the 117th Congress, the Committee requested GAO 
conduct a study on office space utilization rates across the 24 
CFO agency headquarters to better understand how the Federal 
government is utilizing its real estate portfolio.\27\ In order 
to assess space utilization, GAO collected building size and 
attendance data from all 24 agencies for one week each in 
January, February, and March of 2023. Utilization was then 
calculated by dividing in-office attendance by the building's 
useable square footage or capacity.\28\ GAO found that on 
average, 17 of the 24 CFO agency headquarters were at 25 
percent or less utilization.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Letter from Peter DeFazio, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure, et. al. to Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, GAO, (Nov. 
10, 2021) (on file with Comm.).
    \28\ Briefing from Staff, GAO, to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure (June 26, 2023, 11:00 am EST)
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAUSES OF LOW UTILIZATION RATES

    GAO identified three main causes for the extremely low 
rates of office space utilization: underutilization prior to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, outdated and inefficient building 
configurations, and the increased telework posture implemented 
as a result of the pandemic.\30\ Excess building space is not a 
new phenomenon and has been on GAO's high-risk list since 
2003.\31\ Built years ago, these headquarter buildings consist 
of administrative and storage space that is now outdated or 
unnecessary.\32\ Coupled with a more lenient telework posture, 
these layouts result in large amounts of underutilized, or in 
some cases unused, Federal office space.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ GAO, GAO-23-106203, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made To Achieve 
Progress Need To Be Maintained and Expanded To Fully Address All Areas 
(Apr. 2023), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106203.
    \32\ Briefing from Staff, GAO, to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure (June 26, 2023, 11:00 am EST)
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COSTS OF LOW UTILIZATION RATES

    The Federal Real Property Profile data suggests that the 24 
CFO agencies spend over $2 billion a year to operate and 
maintain Federal office buildings.\34\ While this figure 
includes office space across the country, and not just 
headquarter buildings, if the utilization rates are similar, it 
is indicative of Federal agencies maintaining unused space 
ultimately wasting taxpayer dollars.\35\ Additionally, there 
are also environmental costs associated with running these 
buildings. It is not possible to heat or cool only 25 percent 
of a building, so agencies must continue to pay the entire cost 
to operate their buildings.\36\ Finally, there is an 
opportunity cost for these underutilized buildings. The 
government is spending resources to maintain outdated space 
that could be directed to the agency's mission--moreover, if 
the building is disposed of the locality is able to generate 
tax revenue and improve the local economy.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHALLENGES WITH INCREASING SPACE UTILIZATION

    The Federal government faces a variety of challenges in 
increasing the space utilization of Federally owned office 
buildings. Agencies are reluctant to start shedding space given 
the uncertainty of in-office attendance policies and 
telework.\38\ There is also cultural reticent in many agencies 
to give up ``earned space'' or share space as it is seen as 
``diminishing'' the importance of said office or agency.\39\ 
Further, many buildings across the Federal portfolio are 
outdated and may prove costly to reconfigure to meet today's 
needs with hybrid work.\40\ Finally, there is no set standard 
for utilization, a target goal of utilization to work towards, 
or a standard practice for measuring utilization and attendance 
across the government. Agencies have no real way to assess 
space needs until they can accurately assess how their current 
space is being used.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. WITNESSES

     David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical 
Infrastructure, GAO
     Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
Service, GSA

                             VI. APPENDIX I

    1. LNational Archives and Records Administration \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to Debra Steidel Wall, Acting Archivist, Nat'l 
Archives and Records Admin., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. LDepartment of Commerce \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Gina Raimondo, Sec'y, Dep't of Commerce, 
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. LDepartment of Homeland Security \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas, Sec'y, Dep't of 
Homeland Security, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. LDepartment of Defense \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Lloyd J. Austin III, Sec'y, Dep't of 
Defense, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5. LDepartment of Energy \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Jennifer Granholm, Sec'y, Dep't of 
Energy, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. LDepartment of Justice \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Merrick Garland, Sec'y, Dep't of 
Justice, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    7. LDepartment of the Interior \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Deb Haaland, Sec'y, Dep't of the 
Interior, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    8. LDepartment of Treasury \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Janet Yellen, Sec'y, Dep't of the 
Treasury, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    9. LDepartment of Transportation \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Sec'y, Dep't of Transp., 
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10. LDepartment of Health and Human Services \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Xavier Becerra, Sec'y, Dep't of Health & 
Human Serv., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11. LSocial Security Administration \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to Kilolo Kijakazi, PhD, Acting Commissioner, Social 
Security Admin., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    12. LDepartment of State \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Antony Blinken, Sec'y, Dep't of State, 
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    13. LDepartment of Veterans Affairs \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Denis McDonough, Sec'y, Dep't of 
Veterans Affairs, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    14. LDepartment of Agriculture \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and 
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp. 
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Thomas Vilsack, Sec'y, United States 
Dep't of Agriculture, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).


  WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NO ONE'S HOME: AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL 
                        OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
               Buildings, and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
    The chairman asks unanimous consent that the chairman be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The chairman also asks unanimous consent that Members not 
on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee 
at today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
    The chairman now recognizes himself for the purposes of an 
opening statement for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
    CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC 
              BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today to continue the subcommittee's discussion on the state of 
Federal real estate, and discuss the eye-opening work that the 
Government Accountability Office just completed.
    The subcommittee held a roundtable on the state of Federal 
real estate in March that highlighted the major challenges with 
the Federal Government's real estate portfolio. The buildings 
largely are old, in disrepair, and underutilized.
    Federal real property continues to be on the GAO's High-
Risk List for about 20 years. And, even before COVID, we had 
far too much empty space in our portfolio.
    Unfortunately, the ongoing telework policies have only 
exacerbated that problem. Here are some basic facts we 
highlighted in our roundtable: Federal occupancy in the 
Washington, DC, area alone remains below 50 percent of pre-
COVID levels. Nearly 30 percent of Federal employees live 
outside their assigned areas, and 30 percent of Federal 
employees are expected to retire in the next 5 years. More than 
50 percent of the General Services Administration's leases are 
expiring in the next 5 years, and we are receiving growing 
reports of ``shadow'' space in both owned and leased buildings. 
And shadow space is, I guess, a nice term for saying it is 
empty, there are not many people there. It is just simply 
mostly vacant or very much vacant.
    However, after being briefed by GAO on their latest report 
that they will testify on today, I have now been informed just 
how far off occupancy rates are and how difficult it is to 
calculate space utilization rates.
    I will defer to GAO to report their findings and look 
forward to further discussion. But I do want to highlight one 
key finding: A majority of the agencies GAO reviewed use 25 
percent or less of their headquarters building space--25 
percent. Let that sink in.
    And the taxpayer is paying for the remaining 75 percent of 
the agencies' unused space. The taxpayer is paying for all of 
it. But agencies are using 25 percent. The taxpayer is paying 
for 75 percent that is not being used. It is not as though the 
GSA can just close down, shut off the lights, and mothball the 
unused space to reduce costs. I wish that were the case.
    The taxpayer is, quite literally, paying to keep the lights 
on even when no one is home. And the lights are just the 
beginning of it, right? There is security. There are utilities. 
There is upkeep when nobody is there. And, if this trend is any 
indication of space usage in leased space, we are wasting 
literally billions of dollars each year.
    I have been a firm believer that, if agencies aren't using 
their space, they have got to give it up. They have got to give 
it up. Let's be clear. This goes beyond bringing Federal 
employees back to the office, because even pre-COVID, we knew 
space utilization was an issue.
    This subcommittee, GSA, GAO, and the private-sector experts 
have been discussing this for a very long time. We need to get 
a handle on this and push agencies--require agencies--if they 
won't do it, we are going to have to help them do it. And I 
don't mean help in the good way, right?
    We are from the Government, and we are here to help. But we 
have to examine how they are using their space, and there must 
be more accountability for agencies. There are people in charge 
of these places. If you are in charge, you have got to take 
care of business. And, if you don't want to, someone else is 
going to, and that someone is going to be us.
    I hope we can use the GAO report as a baseline to 
understand the current challenges so we can pass legislation 
that will meaningfully help the Government right-size its 
portfolio and either use or get rid of--maybe that's not the 
right term, ``get rid of''--let it go to the private sector. 
Let other people use it. Let some other agency use it. Let some 
other government-level--let the municipality--let the county--
let someone else use it. But it can't go unused and paid for. 
That is unacceptable.
    With that, this will conclude my opening statement.
    [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress 
 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
    Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to continue the 
Subcommittee's discussion on the state of federal real estate and 
discuss the eye-opening work that the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) just completed.
    The Subcommittee held a roundtable on the state of federal real 
estate in March that highlighted the major challenges with the federal 
government's real estate portfolio. The buildings largely are old, 
falling apart, and underutilized.
    Federal real property continues to be on the GAO's high-risk list 
and, even before COVID, we had far too much empty space in our 
portfolio. Unfortunately, the ongoing telework policies have only 
exacerbated this problem. Here are some basic facts we highlighted in 
our roundtable:
      Federal occupancy in the Washington, D.C. area alone 
remains below 50 percent of pre-COVID levels.
      Nearly 30 percent of federal employees live outside their 
assigned areas.
      Thirty percent of federal employees are expected to 
retire in the next five years.
      More than 50 percent of the General Services 
Administration's (GSA) leases are expiring in the next five years.
      And we are receiving growing reports of ``shadow'' space 
in both owned and leased buildings--space that is just simply vacant.

    However, after being briefed by GAO on their latest report--that 
they will testify on today--I realized just how far off occupancy rates 
are and how hard space utilization rates are to calculate. I will defer 
to GAO to report their findings and look forward to further discussion, 
but I do want to highlight one key finding--a majority of the agencies 
GAO reviewed used 25 percent or less of their headquarters buildings' 
space. Twenty-five percent.
    And the taxpayer is paying for the remaining 75 percent of the 
agencies' unused space. It's not as though GSA can just close down, 
shut off the lights, and mothball the unused space to reduce costs. The 
taxpayer is quite literally paying to keep the lights on even when no 
one is home. And, if this trend is any indication of space usage in 
leased space, we are wasting literally billions of dollars each year.
    I have been a firm believer that if agencies aren't using their 
space, they should lose it. And let's be clear--this goes beyond 
bringing federal employees back to the office, because even pre-COVID, 
we knew space utilization was an issue.
    This Subcommittee, GSA, GAO, and private sector experts have been 
discussing this for a long time. We need to get a handle on this and 
push agencies to examine how they are using space.
    There must be more accountability for agencies.
    I hope we can use the GAO report as a baseline to understand the 
current challenges so we can pass legislation that will meaningfully 
help the government right-size its portfolio and either use or get rid 
of unused space.

    Mr. Perry. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Titus, 
for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER, 
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 
                      EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank our witnesses, Ms. Albert and Mr. Marroni, 
for being here. They have participated in these discussions 
with us at the roundtable and in this committee. We have got 
the people who know this business and who can help us with it 
here at the table: the Commissioner of the General Services 
Administration's Public Buildings Service, and Mr. Marroni, the 
Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure at the Government 
Accountability Office.
    Mr. Marroni, I especially appreciate the time and effort 
that you and your team have devoted to the topic that we are 
discussing today. If it weren't for the 20 years of High-Risk 
Reports that you all have put out, we might not even be aware 
of the problem. So, thank you for that.
    As you heard the chairman say, with the expiration of the 
COVID-19 health emergency, the use of maximum telework for 
Federal employees ended, and the Office of Management and 
Budget directed agencies to update their post-reentry plans.
    The agencies have responded. Let's give them credit where 
credit is due. DOE, EPA, FDIC, the VA, FEMA, the Department of 
Education, and Department of the Treasury have all published 
their increased in-office work requirements.
    And let's also be clear about the purposes of this hearing. 
We need to remember that GSA doesn't set Federal work policies. 
They don't have the authority to demand that Federal employees 
return to their desk. GSA provides the real estate and the real 
estate services to civilian agencies and helps those agencies 
define their space. But it does not establish or implement 
Federal workforce policies.
    The frequency of Federal employees' in-person work 
schedules varies widely across agencies and even within 
agencies. And it is often determined by department heads or 
supervisors in those different categories.
    Even though some agencies are sorting through their in-
office policies, the truth is, we are still in the middle of 
this shift in the real estate market, and this could take a 
long time to play out. We need to recognize that.
    But returning to work is only part of the issue at hand. 
Within the next 3 years, half of GSA's almost 8,000 leases will 
expire, and the agency has insufficient capital to repair and 
modernize the 1,500 buildings that it owns.
    Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund, 
outdated and damaged facilities, frustrated tenants, expensive 
short-term lease renewals, insufficient funding for new 
construction, damage to buildings from extreme weather 
conditions that will get even worse with climate change, and a 
slow prospectus approval process all combine to make it 
challenging for GSA to modernize and right-size its portfolio.
    These are all concerns that were expressed in our 
roundtable, expressed by constituents, and expressed by you 
all. But we can't wait decades to sort this out, I agree with 
the chairman. Congress and this subcommittee specifically have 
a real opportunity now to improve space efficiency in our 
Government portfolio and dispose of underutilized real estate, 
both of which will save taxpayers sufficient money, a lot of 
dollars, a significant amount of dollars, and that is one of 
our priorities.
    So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, to 
working with Members on both sides of the aisle and the 
chairman to address some of these problems that I have laid out 
before.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Chairman Perry, thank you for having this hearing. And I thank our 
witnesses--Nina Albert, Commissioner of the General Services 
Administration's Public Buildings Service, and David Marroni, Acting 
Director, Physical Infrastructure, at the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), both of whom have participated in previous federal real 
estate hearings and roundtables hosted by this subcommittee.
    Mr. Marroni, I am particularly appreciative of the time and effort 
that you and your staff have devoted to the topic that we are 
discussing today. Were it not for GAO's 20 years of High-Risk Reports, 
Congress might not be aware of the challenges GSA has faced in 
maintaining its owned and leased portfolio.
    With the expiration of the COVID-19 health emergency, the use of 
maximum telework for federal employees ended and OMB directed agencies 
to update their post-reentry plans. Agencies have begun responding to 
OMB's direction, with the Department of Energy, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Investment Corporation, the 
Department of Veterans affairs, the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, the Department of Education, and the Treasury each 
publishing increased in-office work requirements.
    But half of GSA's almost 8,000 leases are expiring within the next 
three years and GSA has insufficient capital to repair and modernize 
the 1,500 buildings it owns.
    While some Members of Congress may use this hearing as an 
opportunity to express their frustration about the use of remote and 
telework amongst federal agencies, the truth is that the General 
Services Administration (GSA) does not set federal work policies and 
does not have the authority to demand that federal employees return to 
their desks. The frequency of federal employees' in-person work 
schedules varies widely and is often determined by department heads or 
supervisors. GSA provides real estate and real estate services to 
civilian agencies and helps agencies define their space requirements, 
but GSA does not establish or implement federal workforce policies.
    And even though some agencies are sorting through their in-office 
policies, the truth is that we are still in the middle of a shift in 
the real estate market that could take decades to play out.
    But we can't wait decades. What does GSA need? Authority? 
Accountability? Funding? How can Congress help GSA during these 
confusing times?

    Mr. Perry. I thank the gentlelady from Nevada.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Perry and 
Ranking Member Titus, for holding this very important hearing 
on the utilization of Federal office space.
    Managing Federal real property has been on GAO's High-Risk 
List for 20 years, as noted. Access to capital, the lack of 
reliable real property data for decisionmaking, and a 
cumbersome process for disposing of excess and underutilized 
real estate has made it challenging for GSA to carry out its 
mission.
    The Obama-era Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint 
policies decreased the size of GSA's portfolio from 8,925 
leases to 7,760 leases, and 190 million square feet to 180 
million square feet. That's great, but I think it shows how 
difficult it is to dispose of excess property.
    However, underutilization became even more widespread 
during the pandemic, even though eight Federal agencies made 
limited reductions to the amount of space they lease. As the 
COVID-19 emergency wound down, OMB required agencies to bring 
staff back into their offices and determine their future space 
requirements, but the in-office workforce is not reaching 
prepandemic levels due to increased and legitimate use of 
remote work.
    In this environment, where agencies are unsure of their 
long-term space needs, GSA faces significant challenges. GSA 
must decide when to lease space or to increase its owned 
portfolio and move as many agencies as possible in that owned 
space. These challenges present GSA with an opportunity, 
therefore, to improve the size, quality, and utilization of the 
Federal real estate portfolio.
    I look forward to learning how GSA is mitigating the 
financial liability of vacant leased space, whether GSA knows 
which of its buildings are cash positive, and whether GSA has a 
list of buildings that should be disposed of over the next 5 
years.
    The Inflation Reduction Act provides GSA with $250 million 
as well to convert facilities to high-performance green 
buildings. It is a great opportunity for GSA to build upon the 
previous success in greening our Federal facilities. However, 
we need to know which buildings GSA needs to keep.
    So, I hope to hear from GSA today about how these funds are 
being used and whether the long-term viability and potential 
profitability of a building is considered when GSA makes these 
investment decisions.
    This hearing is an opportunity to begin, or actually 
continue discussions, about what the Federal real estate 
portfolio should look like in the future and how Congress can 
help GSA meet some of its challenges.
    So, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how 
we can right-size the Federal real estate portfolio and save 
taxpayer dollars.
    With that, I yield back.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus, for holding 
this important hearing on the utilization of federal office space.
    ``Managing federal real property'' has been on GAO's High-Risk list 
for 20 years. Access to capital, the lack of reliable real property 
data for decision-making, and a cumbersome process for disposing of 
excess and underutilized real estate has made it challenging for GSA to 
carry out its mission.
    Obama-era ``Freeze the Footprint'' and ``Reduce the Footprint'' 
policies decreased the size of GSA's portfolio from 8,925 leases to 
7,760 leases and 194 million square feet to 180 million square feet. 
That's great but I think it shows how difficult it is to dispose of 
property.
    However, underutilization became even more widespread during the 
pandemic, even though eight federal agencies made limited reductions to 
the amount of space they lease.
    As the COVID-19 emergency wound down, OMB required agencies to 
bring staff back into their offices and determine their future space 
requirements. But the in-office workforce has not returned to pre-
pandemic levels due to increased and legitimate use of remote work.
    In this environment--where agencies are unsure of their long-term 
space needs--GSA faces significant challenges. GSA must decide when to 
lease space or to increase its owned portfolio and move as many 
agencies as possible into that owned space.
    These challenges present GSA with an opportunity to improve the 
size, quality, and utilization of the federal real estate portfolio.
    I look forward to learning how GSA is mitigating the financial 
liability of vacant leased space. Whether GSA knows which of its 
buildings are cash positive and whether GSA has a list of buildings 
that should be disposed of over the next five years.
    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides GSA with $250 million to 
convert facilities to high-performance green buildings. This is a great 
opportunity for GSA to build upon previous success in greening our 
federal facilities. However, we need to know which buildings GSA needs 
to keep.
    I hope to hear from GSA today about how these funds are being used 
and whether the long-term viability and potential profitability of a 
building is considered when GSA makes investment decisions.
    This hearing is an opportunity to begin discussions about what the 
federal real estate portfolio should look like in the future and how 
Congress can help GSA meet some of its challenges.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how to right-
size the federal real estate portfolio and to save taxpayer dollars. 
Thank you.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member of the full 
committee.
    The Chair would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank 
them for being here today.
    Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our 
lighting system to our witnesses.
    There are three lights right in front of you. Green means 
go, yellow means you are running out of time, and red means to 
conclude your remarks. It should be pretty self-explanatory. I 
think you get about 5 minutes, right, so, hopefully you have 
planned for that.
    The Chair asks for unanimous consent that the witnesses' 
full statements be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5 
minutes.
    With that, Mr. Marroni, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
for your opening testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND 
   NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. 
                GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

     TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 
   INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member 
Titus, and members of the subcommittee.
    Mr. Perry. Will you pull your mic closer?
    Mr. Marroni. All right. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking 
Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to 
be here today to discuss the preliminary results of GAO's 
ongoing work on the utilization of Federal headquarters 
buildings.
    In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal 
Government has a unique opportunity to reconsider how much 
office space it really needs. To get a sense of the magnitude 
of that opportunity, we assessed the extent to which 24 
agencies utilized their headquarters buildings in January, 
February, and March of this year.
    What we found was that all 24 of those headquarters 
buildings had extra space and that most agencies were using 
less than 25 percent of their headquarters capacity on average. 
While these figures are estimates, they point to a potentially 
large amount of unneeded office space within headquarters 
buildings and possibly beyond.
    We identified three main reasons for this low utilization. 
First, many agencies had more space than they needed even 
before the pandemic, one of the reasons Federal real property 
management has remained on GAO's High-Risk List now for 20 
years.
    Many headquarters buildings were built decades ago, before 
technology enabled the agencies to do more with fewer workers. 
But the buildings remained the same size, so, we end up with 
unneeded space.
    For example, we calculated that, for one agency, even if 
all of its assigned staff came into its headquarters building 
on a single day, it would still only use two-thirds of the 
building's capacity.
    Second, many headquarters buildings aren't configured in 
the best way. For example, some include storage areas and 
administrative spaces that simply aren't needed in the modern 
workplace. And some are configured with larger offices than are 
needed today.
    Third, agencies have embraced hybrid work. Telework and 
remote work existed before the pandemic, but those workplace 
flexibilities are used much more frequently now. As a result, 
there are simply fewer people coming into headquarters 
buildings than there were before the pandemic.
    So, why does this matter? Because low building utilization 
has significant costs, both to the Government and to the 
American taxpayer. For one thing, there are the financial 
costs. It costs billions of dollars each year to operate, 
maintain, and lease these buildings. Reducing unneeded space 
would save taxpayer money.
    In addition, holding on to unneeded office space has 
environmental costs. Office buildings take a significant amount 
of energy to run, whether people are at their desks or not.
    Finally, holding on to unneeded space has opportunity 
costs. Every dollar an agency spends on unneeded space is a 
dollar that can't be used for other priorities, and how much 
economic benefit do buildings used at a quarter of their 
capacity really provide to the local economy? Housing, hotels, 
and other uses could provide more local benefits.
    To be clear, figuring out how much office space agencies 
really need and shedding any they don't won't be easy or cost-
free. There are a number of challenges to doing so, including 
continuing uncertainty about agency in-office policies and a 
lack of consistent standards or targets for how agencies should 
measure utilization.
    That said, the status quo can't hold. Agencies have been in 
a wait-and-see mode for more than 3 years. They need to decide 
how much office space they really need and start moving in that 
direction. That is important for agency missions, for local 
communities, and the American taxpayer.
    In conclusion, underused Federal buildings have been and 
continue to be a costly challenge, and hybrid work has made 
that challenge more acute. The Federal Government now has a 
unique opportunity to reconsider how much office space it 
really needs. Agencies should take a hard look and act to 
right-size their real estate portfolios. Only by doing so will 
the Federal Government be able to take advantage of the current 
moment, optimize the Federal footprint, and save taxpayer 
money.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will 
be happy to take any questions you may have.
    [Mr. Marroni's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical 
       Infrastructure Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office
   Federal Real Property: Preliminary Results Show Federal Buildings 
   Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges and Increased 
                                Telework
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    I am pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work on 
federal agencies' office space utilization in headquarters buildings. 
The federal government owns 511 million square feet of office space, 
costing billions annually to operate and maintain. During the pandemic, 
federal agencies operated under a maximum telework posture, with many 
employees working away from the office. As the country emerges from the 
pandemic and agencies continue to offer telework as an option, the 
federal government has a unique opportunity to reconsider how much and 
what type of office space it needs.
    Even before the pandemic, federal agencies struggled to determine 
how much office space they needed to fulfill their missions 
efficiently. Retaining excess and underutilized space is one of the 
main reasons that federal real property management has remained on 
GAO's High-Risk List since 2003.\1\ In 2015, OMB issued its National 
Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property, which included the 
Reduce the Footprint policy. This policy required a number of agencies 
to set annual targets for reducing domestic office and warehouse 
space.\2\ The Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016 
established the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC)--a collection of 
24 federal agencies that occupy 98 percent of all federal real 
property.\3\ The FRPC is chaired by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and aims to reduce the costs of managing property. Although 
these efforts have improved the focus on real property management, 
federal agencies continue to have unneeded space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GAO. High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to 
Be Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas. (Washington 
D.C.: Apr. 20, 2023). Excess property is any property the agency 
determines it no longer needs to carry out its responsibilities. 
Underutilized property is property that an agency uses irregularly or 
infrequently, or property where agency purposes can be accomplished 
with only a portion of the property.
    \2\ OMB, National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property 
2015-2020: Reducing the Federal Portfolio through Improved Space 
Utilization, Consolidation, and Disposal (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25, 
2015). Subsequently, OMB published the Addendum to the National 
Strategy. See M-20-10 Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments 
and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2020).
    \3\ The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) is a statutorily-
recognized group of the 24 CFO Act federal agencies chaired by the 
Office of Management and Budget that occupy most of the federal 
government's buildings. Members include Senior Real Property Officers 
of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies, the Controller of the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Services 
Administration (GSA) Administrator and any other officials permitted by 
OMB's Deputy Director for Management, who chairs the Council. The CFO 
Act of 1990, as amended, established Chief Financial Officers to 
oversee financial management activities at 24 agencies, which are often 
referred to collectively as CFO Act agencies. The federal agencies 
include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 
Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 
Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, 
and Veterans Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Agency for International 
Development, General Services Administration, National Science 
Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel 
Management, Small Business Administration, and Social Security 
Administration 31 USC 901(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony today provides preliminary observations on our review 
of office space utilization in the headquarters buildings of the 24 
FRPC member agencies. My statement:
    1.  assesses the extent to which FRPC-member agencies utilized 
their headquarters buildings in selected weeks of early 2023;
    2.  describes the different types of costs of underutilized federal 
office space; and
    3.  discusses challenges that agency officials identified to 
increasing the utilization of their headquarters buildings.

    We collected information from all 24 FRPC member agencies related 
to the utilization of their headquarters buildings (see Appendix I for 
a listing of the buildings). Utilization is a ratio of a building's 
capacity and the extent to which an agency uses that capacity. 
Utilization differs from attendance because a building's capacity is 
based on the size of the building, not the number of people assigned to 
it. All assigned staff could go to a building, and it could still be 
underutilized if the building has more space than it needs.
    To determine the capacity of each building, we collected data from 
each agency on the number of usable square feet in each building--the 
portion of a building that is available for occupants, which includes 
offices, team rooms, and conference rooms.\4\ We verified that 
information by comparing it with data from GSA, which has ultimate 
control and custody for some of the buildings. We then calculated the 
capacity of each building by dividing the number of usable square feet 
by the GSA benchmark of 180 usable square feet per staff person.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ American National Standards Institute Building Owners and 
Managers Association Standard Methods of Measurement ANSI/BOMA Z65.1-
2017.
    \5\ Dividing the number of usable square feet by the alternative 
GSA benchmark of 150 usable square feet per staff person will yield a 
greater estimated capacity of each building, and thus yield a lower 
weekly utilization average. We used the 180 usable square feet 
benchmark suggested by GSA and OMB. We used a single benchmark 
consistently across agencies for our analysis. However, agencies may 
use a different benchmark in occupancy agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To determine the extent to which agencies are using the buildings, 
we collected daily attendance data at the headquarters buildings of all 
24 FRPC-member agencies for three nonconsecutive weeks in January, 
February, and March 2023.\6\ Agency officials said these represented 
normal weeks at that time, without any obvious reason why there would 
be a significantly higher or lower number of staff in the headquarters 
building than any other week.\7\ We chose to measure attendance in one-
week intervals because all 24 agencies said that their in-office 
presence had stabilized week-to-week. We focused on federal agency 
office space in headquarters buildings because of the availability of 
attendance data and because they represent office buildings with 
relatively consistent types of uses.\8\ We calculated the utilization 
of a building by comparing its capacity in usable square feet to the 
actual in-office attendance for the sample period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ We did not collect data on the number of staff assigned to each 
headquarters building or calculate the percentage of those assigned 
staff who came into the office during our sample period because the 
focus of our review was on building utilization, not attendance.
    \7\ We requested data from January 23-27, 2023; however, the 
Department of Homeland Security provided us data from January 30 to 
February 3 because of a network issue affecting computer login data. 
Also, Department of Housing and Urban Development officials noted they 
had ongoing renovation projects, which increased telework during the 
time we requested data.
    \8\ We previously found that few agencies track in-office 
attendance at non-headquarters facilities. GAO, Federal Real Property: 
GSA Could Further Support Agencies' Post-Pandemic Planning for Office 
Space Use, GAO-22-105105, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2022). DOD 
provided us data on attendance at the Mark Center in Alexandria, 
Virginia, not the Pentagon because it has administrative functions 
similar to those at civilian agency headquarters buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 24 agencies varied in the type and quality of the attendance 
data they collected and were able to provide to us. Agencies provided 
us aggregate summaries or raw data files of badging or computer network 
login data.\9\ We asked data reliability questions to each agency to 
ensure the data could be used for reporting purposes. The percentages 
we provide in this testimony are preliminary estimates of building 
utilization based on ongoing work and are subject to change. Based on 
our discussions with agency officials, responses to our data 
reliability questions, and where possible, a review of the data for 
omissions and errors, we determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of examining occupancy data and the 
buildings' space utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Agencies are not required to collect attendance data or in any 
specific format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We conducted site visits to six agency headquarters buildings to 
observe current building utilization, conditions, and agency efforts to 
adapt their office space. We selected these headquarters buildings to 
obtain a variety in size and age of the buildings. We interviewed 
federal and private sector officials to understand the costs of 
underutilized space and the challenges to increasing the utilization of 
agency headquarters buildings. We also gathered information at FRPC 
meetings in January and April 2023.
    The ongoing work on which this statement is based is being 
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
                               Background
    The federal government owns about 511 million square feet of office 
space, according to the Federal Real Property Profile--the government 
wide real property database maintained by the General Services 
Administration (GSA). GSA manages approximately 1,500 federally-owned 
buildings, which are used by various federal agencies (see figure 1). 
GSA also leases space for tenant agencies from private-sector owners. 
As of April 2023, GSA managed 7,685 leases, totaling nearly 180 million 
square feet of space.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200

    GSA provides guidance and tools to assist agencies with office 
space planning. In particular, GSA established a benchmark of 150 to 
180 usable square feet per employee.\10\ Use of the benchmark is not 
required. These benchmarks and agency efforts generally assume that 
assigned employees would work at the office most days during the week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Usable square footage represents the portion of a building 
that is available for occupants, which includes offices, team rooms, 
and conference rooms. Gross square footage is a more inclusive measure 
of all areas on all floors of a building, which includes additional 
spaces like bathrooms, lobbies, and mechanical rooms. See GAO, Federal 
Real Property: Measuring Actual Office Space Costs Would Provide More 
Accurate Information, GAO-20-130 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Telework During the Pandemic
    The use of federal real property was greatly impacted by the March 
13, 2020, national emergency declaration related to COVID-19 and the 
release of subsequent guidance aimed at slowing the transmission of 
COVID-19.\11\ Federal agencies responded by adopting a maximum telework 
posture, allowing many employees to work remotely off-site for 
necessary agency operations. As a result, many federal employees 
shifted to remote work and telework, including employees who had not 
historically done so. In June 2021, OMB issued a memo directing 
agencies to create plans for bringing staff back to their agency 
offices to perform their work.\12\ All of the 24 FRPC member agencies 
said they completed their initial return to the office transitions at 
some point during 2022. The national emergency declaration related to 
the pandemic was terminated on April 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Proclamation No. 9994, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,337 (Mar. 13, 2020). 
Off of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No 20-16, ``Federal Agency 
Operational Alignment to Slow the Spread of Coronavirus COVID-19'', 
(Mar. 17, 2020). This guidance followed preliminary guidance from the 
Office of Personnel Management required agencies to review continuity 
of operations plans to ensure telework was fully incorporated. Off. of 
Personnel Mgm't, CPM 2020-04 ``Preliminary Guidance to Agencies during 
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)'' (March 3, 2020).
    \12\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No. 21-25, ``Integrating 
Planning for A Safe Increased Return of Federal Employees and 
Contractors to Physical Workplaces with Post-Reentry Personnel Policies 
and Work Environment'' (June 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Guidance on Space Planning and Telework
    In July 2022, OMB asked the FRPC agencies to collect evidence-based 
data to estimate their space needs.\13\ The OMB memo stated that when 
determining future physical space requirements, agencies should 
consider the agency's mission and customer needs, its current and 
future workforce, and how any decisions might impact local communities. 
In April 2023, the Administration released additional guidance 
directing agencies to describe their telework plans, monitor 
organizational health and performance issues, and identify indicators 
that support decision-making related to the work environment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No. 22-14, ``Fiscal Year 
2024 Agency-wide Capital Planning to Support the Future of Work'', 
(July 20, 2022).
    \14\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No 23-15, ``Measuring, 
Monitoring, and Improving Organizational Health and Organizational 
Performance in the Context of Evolving Agency Work Environments'' 
(April 13, 2023). The memo indicated that there was an expectation that 
agencies would increase meaningful in-person work at federal offices, 
while still using flexible operational policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Most of the Federal Agencies Used An Estimated 25 Percent or Less of 
       Their Headquarters' Capacity During Selected Weeks in 2023
    Our review of three selected weeks during January, February, and 
March 2023 found that 17 of the 24 federal agencies used on average an 
estimated 25 percent or less of the capacity of their headquarters 
buildings. On the higher range, agencies used an estimated 39 to 49 
percent of the capacity of their headquarters on average. Utilization 
is a ratio of a building's capacity and the extent to which an agency 
uses that capacity. We calculated utilization based on the size of a 
building in terms of usable square feet compared to how many people 
entered the building per day.\15\ Figure 2 divides the 24 agencies into 
four distinct groups (quartiles) based on the agencies' average 
utilization of their headquarters buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Utilization differs from attendance because a building's 
capacity is based on the size of the building, not the number of people 
assigned to it.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: GAO analysis of data from 24 federal agencies. GAO-23-106200

      Note: The percentages are preliminary estimates of building 
     utilization based on ongoing work and are subject to change. 
Utilization is a ratio of a building's capacity and the extent to which 
   an agency uses that capacity. Utilization differs from attendance 
because a building's capacity is based on the size of the building, not 
 the number of people assigned to it. All assigned staff could go to a 
 building and it could still be underutilized if the building has more 
space than it needs. The quartile percentage represents an average but 
  percentage ranges of space utilization vary by federal agency. The 
 Department of Defense provided us data on attendance in a government 
 facility (Mark Center) located in Alexandria, Virginia, which we had 
identified as its administrative headquarters. The Office of Personnel 
 Management indicated that additional non-agency staff occupy space in 
 its headquarters building, and its numbers include those work spaces 
                            and attendance.

    We identified three primary causes for the low space utilization in 
federal headquarters buildings.
      Excess space is a longstanding challenge. Federal real 
property management has been on GAO's High Risk List since 2003 in 
large part because the federal government retains more space than it 
needs.\16\ We also found in 2023 that recent efforts to reduce unneeded 
federal space have faced challenges.\17\ At a meeting of the FRPC in 
January 2023, more than half of the agency officials in attendance 
acknowledged that their headquarters buildings had excess space prior 
to the pandemic. For example, we calculated for one of the headquarters 
in the lowest use quartile that if all assigned staff entered the 
building on a single day, it would still only use 67 percent of the 
building's capacity based on its usable square feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ GAO-23-106203.
    \17\ GAO. Lessons Learned from Setbacks in New Sale and Transfer 
Process Could Benefit Future Disposal Efforts, GAO-23-106848 
(Washington, D.C., June 8, 2023).

      Building configurations do not support a modern 
workplace. The headquarters buildings we visited were built decades 
ago. They were configured to support a workplace model that included 
numerous areas no longer needed in the modern workplace, such as some 
administrative and storage spaces. In some cases, agencies also 
configured their spaces with larger office spaces than are currently 
needed. Department of Treasury officials also said that the historic 
nature of its headquarters complicated its ability to reconfigure to 
support higher utilization. Officials from several agencies thought 
portions of their building could not be easily configured to office 
space. Consequently, officials voiced concerns about including these 
areas in an office space capacity analysis. For example, VA officials 
said the agency's basement (89,000 usable square feet) housed its 
cafeteria, mail, and other operations with little availability for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
office space.

      Agencies have embraced hybrid work. All 24 agencies said 
that their in-office workforce has not returned to pre-pandemic levels 
due to increased use of telework and remote work. Some agencies said 
that workplace flexibilities, such as episodic telework and remote 
work, existed before the pandemic but are used much more frequently 
now. The amount of hybrid work varies by agency because mission needs 
vary, which can determine whether work can be done remotely. For 
instance, agency officials noted that classified work requires staff to 
work in the office.
          Underutilized Federal Office Space Has Various Costs
    Maintaining unneeded space has financial, environmental, and 
opportunity costs.
Financial Costs
    Office buildings are expensive to operate, maintain, and lease, and 
any reductions in space would reduce these costs. The Federal Real 
Property Profile data for 2021 indicates that the 24 FRPC agencies 
spend about $2 billion a year to operate and maintain owned federal 
office buildings. In addition, agencies may postpone maintenance and 
repairs to assets in their portfolios for various reasons, which over 
time can create a backlog of costly deferred maintenance and 
repairs.\18\ Disposing of underutilized buildings in need of repair 
would reduce these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ GAO and others have reported on issues with managing repairs 
and maintenance in federally owned facilities, which are costly to the 
federal government. Federal agency financial reports have reported $76 
billion in deferred maintenance and repair costs in 2021, an increase 
of about 50 percent since 2017. See GAO. Federal Real Property: 
Agencies Attribute Substantial Increases in Reported Deferred 
Maintenance to Multiple Factors GAO-23-106124 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, allowing unneeded leases to expire would directly 
reduce costs. Federal agencies spend about $5 billion annually to lease 
office space from the private and government sector. As of April 2023, 
more than half of GSA's leases (4,108 out of 7,685), which account for 
more than 83 million square feet of space, have expiration dates 
scheduled for calendar years 2023 to 2027.
Environmental Costs
    Office buildings also have environmental costs, and any reduction 
in office space could reduce those costs. Emissions--and their 
associated monetary costs--are still generated with underutilized space 
because agencies continue to operate buildings even when staff are not 
in the office. While it is difficult to estimate the environmental 
impact of any individual building, commercial buildings in the country 
overall consume 35 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. and 
generate 16 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to 
the Department of Energy.\19\ For example, GSA renovated and reduced 
its current real estate footprint. According to a GSA presentation, 
these efforts reduced its energy consumption by 50 percent, saving $6.5 
million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. About the Commercial Buildings Integration Program. 
(Washington, D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity Costs
    Underutilized federal office space involves opportunity costs--the 
loss of potential gain from alternative uses of the resources 
involved--to both the federal government and the local economy. The 
federal government could apply resources for an unneeded building to 
other priorities, such as reducing the deferred maintenance on 
remaining buildings. In the local economy, unneeded federal properties 
and land could be put to productive use. For example, the private 
sector successfully converted an unneeded post office in Washington, 
D.C., into a hotel. Selling a federal building to the private sector 
increases the local tax base, as federal buildings are generally exempt 
from local taxes.
     Agencies Face Challenges To Increasing Utilization of Federal 
                         Headquarters Buildings
    During our interviews and site visits, agency officials described 
some challenges to increasing the utilization of their headquarters 
buildings. During the April 2023 Federal Real Property Council meeting, 
federal agency officials that were in attendance ranked those 
challenges. Most federal agency officials placed the budget resources 
needed to reconfigure space and concerns about future in-office 
attendance policies as the top challenges (see figure 3).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Source: GAO analysis of agency comments. GAO-23-106200

Budget Resources to Reconfigure Space
    Agency officials ranked the need for additional budget resources to 
reconfigure their spaces to support a hybrid office as the top 
challenge to increasing utilization of their headquarters building. 
Specifically, they said they would need to transform traditional office 
configurations into hybrid offices, allowing for more efficient use and 
better support of office sharing. For example, USDA officials said that 
updating their two-building headquarters to support higher density and 
office sharing would require millions of dollars of investments. In 
addition, some headquarters buildings are only partially updated. For 
example, Department of Housing and Urban Development officials said the 
agency made capital investments to update one wing to support modern, 
hybrid work (figure 4). However, the rest of the building has an 
outdated hallway-office configuration that does not support 
collaboration and shared spaces.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200

Concerns About the Future of In-Office Attendance Policies
    The second top challenge, as ranked by agency officials, involved 
concerns about the future of in-office attendance policies. Although 
agency officials said their in-office attendance remained stable, many 
worried that policies or habits could change. If they consolidate to 
meet current demand, the agency may no longer be able to provide space 
for all headquarters personnel if policies change or more staff decide 
to return to the office. Agency officials said media reports about 
back-to-the-office mandates could make such consolidations seem 
premature. Recent congressional bills and an OMB memo have indicated 
that there may be additional policy changes. Our September 2022 report 
reflected similar concerns. In the report, agencies reported that they 
were uncertain of the number of people who would regularly need access 
to permanent office space.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ GAO-22-105105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges To Sharing Headquarters Space With Other Agencies or 
        Internally
    While only two agency officials ranked a reluctance to share 
headquarters space with other agencies as the top challenge to 
increasing utilization, most listed it as a challenge. GSA officials 
said that maximizing utilization could require some agencies to either 
share their headquarters with other agencies or move their headquarters 
functions into another shared space. One official said their leadership 
is reluctant to share headquarters space with other agencies because it 
could lower their perceived standing as a cabinet-level agency.
    Eight agency officials also ranked inner-agency silos as the first 
or second biggest challenge to increasing headquarters utilization. For 
example, the Department of Energy noted that groups of seats in its 
headquarters are assigned to departmental elements based on their 
funding, customers, and workspace needs. Some agency officials said 
that individual bureau leadership protected spaces assigned to them, 
including offices, conference rooms, and specialized spaces like secure 
rooms. They said no current mechanism exists to share those spaces more 
broadly throughout their agencies. During our site visits, we observed 
building spaces subdivided into smaller bureau-level divisions that can 
lead to inefficient utilization. For example, USDA showed us a segment 
of their headquarters used for agency-wide workspace sharing, while the 
workspaces in the rest of the two buildings were assigned to individual 
bureaus (see fig. 5).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200

No Standard for Utilization or Target for Full Utilization
    Agency officials also indicated that the lack of consistent 
standards for how agencies should measure utilization or what is 
considered full utilization for federal office space made maximizing 
space challenging. For example, one agency official said the biggest 
challenge to improving utilization was uncertainty about measuring 
utilization in a high telework environment. Currently, each agency 
establishes its own measures and standards for office space 
utilization. We found that agencies use a mix of badge swipes, network 
logins, self-reporting, or guard tracking to measure attendance at 
their headquarters. These differences feed into additional differences 
in how agencies measure building capacity. Not all agencies agreed with 
our approach to measuring utilization because they use different 
metrics for office space planning. For example, some agencies attribute 
a certain square footage per staff person, while others count physical 
workspaces. Agency officials questioned if pursuing 100 percent 
utilization based on attendance made sense due to likely fluctuations 
in daily attendance. Agency officials also said that they have not yet 
developed new utilization metrics to respond to the rise of hybrid 
work. One agency official said that a lack of standard methods and 
measurements can allow agencies to remain in a wait-and-see mode until 
there was consensus on how to proceed.
    In conclusion, the pandemic has lowered the utilization of 
headquarters office space and may have added to the amount of unneeded 
space that existed prior to the pandemic. While all agencies have 
resumed in-person operations, it is clear that the federal workplace 
has evolved as agencies have embraced hybrid and remote office 
environments. This moment presents a unique opportunity to reconsider 
various aspects of the federal government's real property portfolio and 
how best to align the portfolio with future needs.
    We shared a draft of our written testimony with all 24 federal 
agencies and OMB. The General Services Administration and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs provided comments, which are reprinted 
in appendixes II and III. Several agencies provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated as appropriate.
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
            Appendix I: The 24 Agency Headquarters Buildings

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Sources: Google Maps and GAO. GAO-23-106200

                 Table 1: Agency Headquarters Buildings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Main Headquarters
             Agency                  Building Name          Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for International          Ronald Reagan       1300 Pennsylvania
 Development.                      Building.           Ave NW
Department of Agriculture.......  Whitten and South   1400 Independence
                                   Buildings.          Ave SW
Department of Commerce..........  Herbert Hoover      1401 Constitution
                                   Building.           Ave NW
Department of Defense...........  The Mark Center...  4800 Mark Center
                                                       Dr., Alexandria,
                                                       VA
Department of Education.........  Lyndon Baines       400 Maryland Ave
                                   Johnson Building.   SW
Department of Energy............  Forrestal Building  1000 Independence
                                                       Ave SW
Department of Health and Human    Humphrey Building.  200 Independence
 Services.                                             Ave SW
Department of Homeland Security.  7th and D Streets.  300 7th Street SW
Department of Housing and Urban   Robert C. Weaver    451 7th Street SW
 Development.                      Building.
Department of Justice...........  Robert Kennedy      950 Pennsylvania
                                   Building.           Ave NW
Department of Labor.............  Frances Perkins     200 Constitution
                                   Building.           Ave NW
Department of State.............  Harry S. Truman     2201 C Street NW
                                   Building.
Department of the Interior......  Stewart L. Udall    1849 C Street NW
                                   Building.
Department of the Treasury......  Treasury Building.  1500 Pennsylvania
                                                       Ave NW
Department of Transportation....  William T. Coleman  1200 New Jersey
                                   Jr. Building.       Ave SE
Department of Veterans' Affairs.  ..................  810 Vermont Ave
Environmental Protection Agency.  William J. Clinton  1200 Pennsylvania
                                   Building.           Ave NW
General Services Administration.  ..................  1800 F St. NW
National Aeronautics and Space    Mary W. Jackson     300 E Street SW
 Administration.                   Building.
National Science Foundation.....  ..................  2415 Eisenhower
                                                       Ave
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...  White Flint         11555 Rockville
                                   Buildings #1 & #2.  Pike, Rockville,
                                                       MD
Office of Personnel Management..  Theodore Roosevelt  1900 E Street NW
                                   Building.
Small Business Administration...  ..................  409 3rd St. SW
Social Security Administration..  Arthur J. Altmeyer  1500 Woodlawn Dr.,
                                   Building.           Baltimore, MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: GAO summary and analysis of information from 24 federal
  agencies. GAO-23-106200

     Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration
              U.S. General Services Administration,
                                          1800 F Street NW,
                                         Washington, DC 20405-0002,
                                                      July 5, 2023.
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro,
Comptroller General of the United States,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 20548.
    Dear Comptroller General Dodaro:
    The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the 
opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) draft report, Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due 
to Longstanding Challenges and Increased Telework (GAO-23-106200). In 
particular, the report underscores that in order for GSA to better 
optimize the Federal real estate footprint, agencies need access to 
resources to modernize and reconfigure space. For GSA, that means 
having full and on-going access to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) to 
make critical improvements in federally owned buildings and consolidate 
out of leased space.
    Ways of working in offices have changed following the pandemic and 
will continue to change--particularly as organizations continue to 
leverage new technology and appropriate hybrid working arrangements. As 
a result, calculating appropriate building utilization rates will be an 
ongoing challenge as standards and methodologies for measuring 
utilization (both at GSA and in industry) remain unsettled.
    That said, GSA recognizes the unique opportunity that these 
emerging working arrangements and technologies present to right size 
office space requirements and reduce long-term real estate costs. The 
GSA team stands ready to help agencies optimize their real estate 
portfolios. However, to do this effectively and expeditiously, GSA 
needs full access to annual collections in the FBF and streamlined 
authorities to reconfigure space and dispose of unneeded real estate 
assets. Those tools will help GSA to catalyze opportunities for 
consolidation and co-location and accelerate optimization of the 
Federal real estate portfolio. As the draft report points out, funding 
is needed to reconfigure existing facilities to better support new ways 
of working and support consolidations out of leased space into the 
owned inventory. Since fiscal year 2011, the FBF has been underfunded 
by almost $13 billion, and the primary impact of that underfunding has 
been on the New Construction and Repairs and Alterations accounts, 
which are both integral to supporting consolidation activities. The 
lack of full access to the FBF has resulted in missed opportunities for 
consolidations and co-locations and continues to delay efforts to 
reduce the Federal Government's real estate footprint and save money.
    Thank you again for your work on this matter and for giving GSA the 
opportunity to provide feedback. If you have any questions or concerns, 
please contact me or Gianelle Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office 
of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

            Sincerely,
                                             Robin Carnahan
                                                     Administrator.

cc:  David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, 
GAO
     Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
                    Department of Veterans Affairs,
                                                Washington,
                                                      July 3, 2023.
Mr. David Marroni,
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 
        20548.
    Dear Mr. Marroni:
    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report: Federal Real Property: 
Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges 
and Increased Telework (GAO-23-106200).
    The enclosure contains general comments to the draft report. VA 
appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report.
            Sincerely,
                                         Tanya J. Bradsher,
                                                    Chief of Staff.

Enclosure
                               __________
                                                          Enclosure
                  Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    Comments to Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report,
 FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY: Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due to 
             Longstanding Challenges and Increased Telework
                            (GAO-23-106200)
General Comments:
    While the report cites low utilization rates, it does not identify 
what the ideal utilization should be, how it should be measured or 
whether there is a recommendation for a more consistent government-wide 
methodology for measuring.
    It is longstanding Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy to 
use 200 usable square feet (USF) per person, rather than the 180 USF 
per person stated in this GAO report. The GAO's methodology lowers VA's 
utilization rate.
    VA also recommends the below grade spaces and spaces under 
renovation at 810 Vermont Avenue headquarters be excluded from office 
utilization calculations. The below grade spaces house close to 89,000 
USF of primarily storage and support spaces like the cafeteria, mail 
and IT operations (with very little office space). The spaces under 
renovation are unoccupied and not available as office space. When one 
excludes the below grades and space under renovation and uses the 
utilization rate of 200 USF per person, VA's average daily occupancy 
increases to 22% from GAO's estimate of 14%. Even using the GAO's 180 
USF per person, VA's occupancy rate would be approximately 20%.
    The report should recognize efforts made since the start of the 
COVID-19 pandemic to reduce office space in the National Capital Region 
(NCR). For VA, that includes a reduction of 242,000 USF/282,000 RSF 
(Rentable Square Feet) of leased office space in the NCR since quarter 
4 of fiscal years 2020. The reduction represents a 16% reduction in the 
VA Central Office portfolio and an annual lease cost avoidance of $15.5 
million. The GAO report contains no recognition of the substantial 
progress that the VA has achieved in addressing the problem being 
analyzed.

Department of Veterans Affairs
July 2023

    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Marroni.
    Next, Commissioner Albert, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
for your opening testimony.

   TESTIMONY OF NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
         SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Ms. Albert. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Nina Albert, and I am the Commissioner of the 
Public Buildings Service at the General Services 
Administration. I appreciate the committee's invitation to 
discuss opportunities to improve building utilization as well 
as right-size the Federal footprint.
    In GSA's role as the Government's largest civilian real 
estate provider, we help agencies develop real estate solutions 
that best support their missions and which deliver best value 
to the American people.
    I had the honor of appearing before this subcommittee in 
June of 2022 and again in March of this year at the chairman's 
roundtable discussion.
    Today, I am prepared to talk about how office owners and 
occupants are evaluating space utilization and how strategies 
to right-size the Federal footprint can be accelerated by GSA's 
gaining full access to the Federal Buildings Fund and by 
streamlining GSA's authorities to maintain and dispose of real 
property.
    The pandemic highlighted the need for operational 
resilience, and many agencies have since realized that they can 
adapt their workplaces to more efficiently and cost effectively 
carry out their missions.
    Since 2021, as directed by OMB memos M-21-25 and M-23-15, 
agencies have been evaluating how work environments can be 
improved to enhance mission delivery for the future, including 
evaluating the impacts of telework and other operational 
policies.
    As these evaluations are completed, GSA is prepared to 
leverage its expertise to help agencies optimize their real 
estate needs. However, support for GSA's fiscal year 2024 
budget request, which proposes key legislative reforms as well 
as $2.3 billion for its capital program, is critical to both 
modernizing as well as right-sizing the Federal footprint.
    Deferring these authorities or limiting the investment in 
essential infrastructure further exacerbates our problems and 
delays consolidation plans. It also forces the Government to 
lease out of necessity while still carrying space we no longer 
need. All of these things increase costs to the Government, 
especially when we are forced to make emergency repairs.
    For example, in our fiscal year 2024 budget request, 13 out 
of 17 major capital projects are resubmissions from prior 
years, and this is now costing the Government $300 million more 
than if it had been funded when originally requested. It is far 
more fiscally responsible to fund this work rather than to 
delay these projects.
    To that end, GSA's 2024 budget request also includes a 
legislative proposal modeled after the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund scoring fix, which was championed by this committee, to 
ensure that GSA receives full access to the annual collections 
that are deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. We would 
like to work with you to advance this proposal this year.
    GSA is also requesting to increase its prospectus threshold 
from $3.6 million to $10 million. The higher threshold will 
allow GSA to more quickly tackle routine projects, reduce 
repair costs, and save an estimated $50 million a year in cost 
avoidance.
    Finally, as GSA works to right-size its real estate 
portfolio, there will be properties that are no longer needed 
and that should be disposed of. To help accelerate the 
disposition of underutilized real property, GSA's fiscal year 
2024 budget request includes a legislative proposal to expand 
the allowable uses of the Expenses, Disposal of Surplus Real 
and Related Personal Property appropriation.
    The expanded authority is not a request for additional 
funds. Instead, the proposal allows GSA to use existing funds 
on analyses and activities that support agency identification 
and preparation of real property for disposition.
    In summary, GSA and Federal agency alignment around real 
estate optimization has never been better. With approximately 
half of our leases expiring within the next 5 years, we can 
seize this opportunity, but only if we are able to make the 
necessary investments in the buildings that the Federal 
Government will continue to own, because these are core assets, 
as well as accelerate the disposition of properties that are no 
longer needed.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, 
and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [Ms. Albert's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
             Service, U.S. General Services Administration
    Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Nina Albert, and 
I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the U.S. 
General Services Administration (GSA). I appreciate the Committee's 
invitation to discuss opportunities to achieve long-term cost savings 
by right-sizing the Federal real estate footprint and by improving our 
real estate assets to align building utilization with mission delivery.
    I had the honor of appearing before this subcommittee in June of 
2022 and again in March of this year at the Chairman's roundtable 
discussion. Today, I am prepared to talk about how office real estate 
owners and occupiers are evaluating space utilization, and how 
strategies to right-size of the Federal footprint can be accelerated by 
GSA gaining full access to annual collections that are deposited into 
the Federal Buildings Fund and on streamlining GSA's authorities to 
maintain and dispose of real estate.
    The pandemic highlighted the need for operational resilience and 
our ability to work with customer agencies to support their many 
different mission needs and types of work. And many agencies--including 
GSA--have since realized that they can adapt their workplaces to more 
effectively and cost-efficiently carry out their missions. As the 
Government's largest civilian real estate provider, GSA will play a key 
role in helping agencies to redefine their space requirements and in 
facilitating the Federal Government's transition to what is likely to 
be a smaller real estate footprint.
    Since 2021, as directed by OMB memos M-21-25 and M-23-15, agencies 
have been evaluating how work environments can be structured to enhance 
mission delivery while strengthening their organizations for the 
future--including evaluating the impacts of telework and other 
operational policies on agencies' performance of their missions. As 
these evaluations are completed, agencies will have a better 
understanding about their approach to the workplace and future space 
requirements. Once these new requirements are in hand, GSA is prepared 
to leverage its expertise and experience to help agencies optimize 
their real estate needs. However, support for GSA's full fiscal year 
(FY) 2024 budget request--including legislative reforms and the 
agency's $2.3 billion request for capital program investments--is 
critical to help address these concerns.
    GSA's proposed FY 2024 projects include essential infrastructure 
work and necessary alterations--not only to improve building 
operability, but also to improve agency utilization and mission 
achievement. If left unaddressed, these projects can lead to issues 
which may negatively impact the ability of our customer agencies to 
carry out their missions, to the detriment of the citizens and 
communities they are seeking to serve. Deferring this work does not 
eliminate the need for the work; rather, continued delays further 
exacerbate these problems and repairs often turn into more costly 
repairs or replacements, with the potential for system failures that 
result in cascading impacts to occupant agency missions. It also delays 
consolidation plans, forcing the Government to carry space that is 
being underutilized. All of these things increase costs to the Federal 
Government, especially when we are forced to make more costly emergency 
repairs or delay consolidations. In the most extreme cases, these 
delays have led to forced temporary relocations until the repairs were 
able to be completed.
    For example, in FY 2023, 8 of the 17 Major Repairs and Alterations 
line item projects that GSA requested were resubmissions from a prior 
year's budget request that were not funded when previously submitted. 
Many of these unfunded projects would have directly supported increased 
building utilization. The collective total cost for those 8 projects 
was $122 million above the amounts needed when originally submitted in 
prior fiscal years. In FY 2024, 13 out of 17 Major Repairs and 
Alterations projects proposed are resubmittals; collectively, the total 
costs for those projects is now $300 million higher than the aggregate 
projects cost when submitted in prior fiscal years. In addition to 
funding requests for building operations, maintenance, and alterations, 
GSA's FY 2024 budget request includes a proposal to ensure that GSA is 
provided full access to the annual revenues and collections that are 
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. GSA is also proposing an 
increase to the prospectus threshold from $3.613 million to $10 
million. Taken together, these proposals work to reduce timelines for 
project delivery, support improved building utilization rates, and 
provide better services to Federal agencies and the communities they 
serve.
    Support for GSA's full FY 2024 budget request--including the $2.3 
billion requested for capital program investments and the $50 million 
requested to support the Consolidation Activities Special Emphasis 
Program--will enable GSA to help address many of the long-standing 
concerns raised by this Committee. This will also allow GSA to invest 
in Federally-owned properties and optimize their configuration and 
performance to reduce the reliance on privately-owned space, ultimately 
helping GSA to deliver the best value in real estate to our partners 
across government.
    It is critical that GSA receive full access to the Federal 
Buildings Fund in order to reinvest in the Federally-owned portfolio. 
There are significant opportunities across the GSA portfolio where 
consistent and adequate funding can be used to drive real estate 
savings. For example, in FY 2024, GSA collected approximately $10.7 
billion in agency rental payments and other revenues that were 
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. Of that, approximately $5.7 
billion (or just over half) will be passed through as rental payments 
to private sector lessors. While leasing will always be a vital element 
of GSA's real estate strategy, even a 20% reduction in the overall 
amount spent on private sector leases represents potentially $1 billion 
annually in avoided rent costs. With full access to its annual 
collections, GSA could properly invest in Federally-owned properties 
and make this transition successful.
    In order to reduce the timeline for project delivery and provide 
better value to Federal agency customers, GSA is also proposing an 
increase to the prospectus threshold in section 3307 of Title 40 from 
$3.613 million to $10 million. The higher threshold will allow GSA to 
more quickly tackle many routine repair projects that exceed our 
current threshold. This proposal also helps to reduce repair costs and 
prevent smaller repair projects from growing into larger, more 
expensive replacements. And the higher threshold will allow Congress to 
remain engaged on the most costly and complex transactions. As noted in 
the FY 2024 budget request, GSA conservatively estimates that 
increasing the prospectus threshold will yield over $50 million in 
annual rent cost avoidance.
    As GSA works to optimize and consolidate its portfolio, there will 
be some properties that are no longer needed in the Federal inventory 
and which should be disposed of. To help accelerate the disposition of 
underutilized real estate, GSA's FY 2024 budget request includes a 
legislative proposal to expand allowable uses of the Expenses, Disposal 
of Surplus Real and Related Personal Property appropriation, 
permanently authorized under section 572(a) of Title 40. The expanded 
authority will allow GSA to better assist agencies in identifying and 
preparing real property for disposition prior to the agency declaring a 
property excess. This will allow GSA to help agencies right-size their 
portfolios by providing the resources and support necessary to assess, 
prepare, and accelerate underutilized property for disposition using 
the Disposal Fund rather than agency base resources with repayment of 
costs through disposal proceeds.
    GSA has a long track record of optimizing space utilization. As one 
example involving our own space, in the past 12 years, GSA has 
successfully executed two separate consolidations of the Federal 
Acquisition Service and National Capital Region offices from numerous 
other locations across the Washington, DC, area into our headquarters 
facility at 1800 F Street. These moves have yielded significant 
operational benefits to the agency, and they have also resulted in a 
350,000 square foot reduction in the amount of space we occupy--
reducing energy consumption by 50% below our previous baseline, and 
saving $24 million in rent payments annually. These consolidations were 
catalyzed in part by funding that GSA received in the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act.
    GSA and Federal agency alignment around the opportunity to right-
size the Federal real estate portfolio into one that is a high-
performing, more efficient, and physically smaller than today's 
inventory has never been better. Portfolio-wide, GSA has helped to 
reduce the footprint of tenant agencies housed in office buildings in 
GSA's custody and control by disposing of almost 12 million owned 
square feet and reducing 14 million square feet of leased space since 
2013. With approximately half of the value of our leased portfolio 
expiring within the next five years, we can seize this opportunity--but 
only if we are able to make the necessary investments in our owned 
portfolio.
    I would like to thank this Committee again for its willingness to 
address these issues and for being a critical partner as we work to 
modernize and right-size Federal facilities. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today and I look forward to answering 
any questions the Committee may have at this time.

    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you both for 
your testimony.
    We will now turn to questions for the panel.
    The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes.
    Starting with Mr. Marroni, in this report that I am showing 
here [indicating Mr. Marroni's prepared statement]--and I 
particularly found a lot of interest in this page right here, 
this little graph down here [indicating figure 2 in Mr. 
Marroni's prepared statement], which shows the different 
quartiles and usage. It is, quite honestly, devastating.
    Mr. Marroni, you found some agencies, on average, had a 
utilization rate as low as 9 percent. So, that is 91 percent 
not being utilized, and, at best, 50 percent. And while 
agencies complained about uncertainty regarding future 
occupancy, they all admitted their attendance had stabilized 
post-COVID. One agency indicated that, even if, as you 
testified, 100 percent of their staff came to work, only 67 
percent of the building capacity would be used.
    Federal workers need to come back to the office, for sure. 
But it is accurate to say that, even if there were higher 
attendance numbers than pre-COVID, we are paying far more for 
space than needed.
    Can you tell us which agency indicated that only 67 percent 
of their building capacity would be used with 100 percent 
attendance?
    Mr. Marroni. So, that is the Small Business Administration 
headquarters. That is our calculation based on our assessment 
of their usable square----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Yes. Can you--did you press the 
mic button?
    Mr. Marroni. The button is on.
    Mr. Perry. OK.
    Mr. Marroni. I will bring it closer to me.
    Mr. Perry. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. Marroni. So, that was the Small Business 
Administration. To be clear, that was our calculation based on 
our assessment of their usable square feet and----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And can you inform the committee 
of the average square footage that you use to make the 
assessment?
    Mr. Marroni. Yes. The usable square footage was roughly 
228,000 square feet--usable square feet.
    Mr. Perry. Right. And I think it bounces somewhere between 
180 and 250 or something like that?
    Mr. Marroni. In terms of the benchmark----
    Mr. Perry [interposing]. Right.
    Mr. Marroni [continuing]. Agencies use----
    Mr. Perry [interposing]. Right.
    Mr. Marroni [continuing]. To plan, it can be as low as 120. 
Some use 150, 180. It ranges. So, this is----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. So, you are probably--this is a 
conservative estimate I would want to use.
    Mr. Marroni. Correct.
    Mr. Perry. One of the challenges that GAO highlights is 
that there are no standards for how agencies should measure 
utilization, right? Agencies say, well, we don't have anything 
that we can--they kind of make it up. And like you said, it 
varies.
    I think that they agree that there needs to be a benchmark, 
although no one wants to have someone else set it for them. I 
get it. Historically, GSA and the committee have used the basic 
calculation of dividing the number of people assigned to a 
building into the total usable square footage of the building, 
and I am not sure that is very--you've got hallways, you have 
closets, bathrooms, et cetera. I don't think it captures actual 
utilization.
    Is there a standard or benchmark on actual utilization that 
you would recommend?
    Mr. Marroni. So, we don't have a specific benchmark we 
would recommend. We use the 180 because that is a GSA 
benchmark. It is not a requirement for all agencies to use 
that. But we think, especially now that we have a more hybrid 
work environment, those existing measures, even the 180, may 
not make sense going forward. So, we think it is important for 
that to be defined governmentwide, what are our standards for 
measuring utilization, and what are targets that agencies can 
aim for in terms of maximizing their utilization?
    Mr. Perry. OK. And your review selected 180 usable square 
feet per person as a metric for determining the utilization, 
yet GSA's standard is 150. So, that is 30 more. That means the 
actual utilization rates you found are even worse if you used 
GSA's standard.
    What utilization rate should we be aiming for in federally 
owned leases to lease spaces?
    Mr. Marroni. What level of utilization?
    Mr. Perry. Yes.
    Mr. Marroni. So, that, I think, is part of what needs to be 
defined, too. One hundred percent is not necessarily what you 
are aiming for, but it is higher than 25 percent.
    Mr. Perry. OK. Yes. Without a doubt. Without question.
    Are there some that you can think of that should be 
exempted from a set standard right off the bat, or are there 
any that should be exempted that do special things that might 
not fall into that category?
    Mr. Marroni. When you are talking about office space, so, 
the kind of space we are talking about at these headquarters 
buildings, I think you can set a standard--I don't know if 
there is a single number--you would always want 180 square feet 
per person kind of a number, but I do think you can lay out 
parameters.
    I don't think there is a specific agency I would, off the 
hand, say they should not be subject to a standard. There are 
always going to be exceptions that you can build into your 
policy, but we do think there needs to be some standard, some 
measure that is across the agency.
    Mr. Perry. OK. In the remaining time, in GAO's review, the 
GSA's headquarters building was among the group of the lowest 
utilization.
    Commissioner Albert, what is GSA--I mean, you guys are kind 
of leading the charge. You are planting a flag. It is important 
that you set a standard. What are you guys doing about it?
    Ms. Albert. So, I actually think we are a fantastic example 
of what we are doing right, but also what some of the 
challenges are.
    So, since 2012, GSA used to have two headquarters buildings 
in Washington, DC, one at 7th and D, and our flagship at 1800 F 
Street. We also used to have six leases. After the Freeze the 
Footprint and Reduce the Footprint, we took that to heart. We 
consolidated those six leases into our headquarters. Then, 
right before the pandemic, we consolidated our two buildings 
into one, into the headquarters.
    So, since 2012, we have reduced our own footprint by more 
than 40 percent, which we have tracked what those savings are 
to our agency over the 10 years to be more than $300 million.
    Mr. Perry. Which is awesome, Commissioner, but----
    Ms. Albert [interrupting]. For 1800 F now, the utilization 
is very low.
    Mr. Perry. My time has expired, and I want to be respectful 
of the other members of the committee, but I would just end my 
conversation with this: Still plenty of work to be done per the 
report.
    And, with that, I yield and recognize the gentlelady from 
Nevada, the ranking member, Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for your all's testimony.
    Now, in my opening statement, I mentioned some of the 
problems that you all are having post-pandemic. And you 
addressed some of those, Ms. Albert, especially the funding 
issue, where you are shortfunded. Plus, the Federal Buildings 
Fund keeps being robbed by appropriations, and so, setting it 
off and walling it off, kind of like the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund, seems like a good idea. Put that money where it is 
supposed to go.
    One of the things, though, that I didn't mention but I 
think we should talk about are the political problems. And 
there certainly are political problems. I think about it. 
Members want certain buildings in their district, the earmarks, 
or a rose by any other name. There is competition between 
Members for the placement of a building. Just let's look at 
FBI, for example. There are changing priorities because it 
takes so long, so, the agencies may need something different, 
or parties may switch, and then priorities may change, may 
start to talk about moving to Alabama, for example.
    There is the culture among agencies that they want their 
own building or they want a new building. There are buildings 
available on the Mall, but we are talking about new museums in 
new buildings as opposed to repurposing old buildings. So, that 
is kind of part of the culture.
    I have been here long enough to remember all the disaster 
with the VA hospital out from Denver. I know that is kind of 
separate from you, but it still illustrates the point.
    I would ask both of you: How do you deal with these 
political problems when you try to make these important 
decisions?
    Ms. Albert. Well, Mr. Marroni has ceded his time to me.
    Well, I think that, frankly, proper communication is key 
and most important, because moving out of real estate or 
repositioning real estate takes time, and that time affords us 
to communicate well and to develop alternate plans. That 
doesn't always work. What might be the right decision from a 
real estate perspective may have other consequences.
    And so, in those cases, we just have to navigate and try to 
find that win-win that makes sense for the agency, for the 
local community, and then also for the taxpayer. We are 
constantly navigating that. But, like in all situations where 
there are differences of opinions, I think that communication 
and developing a plan that everybody agrees to becomes of 
utmost importance. And there are many examples of that.
    But I will say that, once a decision is made, whatever 
direction it goes in, there needs to probably be a compensating 
or a mitigating answer to whatever got left on the table.
    So, for example, if a new courthouse is built, we need to 
have the courage then to let go of the courthouse that wasn't 
renovated. So, again, if a decision is made, everybody will 
accept that decision, whatever it may be. But there is an 
alternate and mitigating opportunity to continue to save 
taxpayer money. And that is, then, what we need to focus our 
plans and agreement to, rather than allowing that other 
facility to lay fallow, to cost taxpayer money, and to be 
underutilized.
    Mr. Marroni. I would say, in terms of targets that I 
mentioned earlier, having targets for each agency in terms of 
how they are going to maximize the utilization of their space 
would be a good way--if there are political considerations 
coming into play on whether this facility or that facility 
should stay, having targets, at least agencywide, would allow 
some objective measure.
    I also think the importance of making a good financial 
argument for facilities that should stay or should go is 
important to show a good return of investment.
    And then good communication, good collaboration to try and 
come to a solution is important as well.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Well, thank you. I am not sure this problem 
will ever be solved, but those are good suggestions for dealing 
with it.
    Also, in listening to the chairman's questions and your 
all's answers and reading your testimony, it seems to me that 
one of the main problems is just unreliable data. Data from one 
agency to another is different, of one year to another is 
different. So, would we be better off just having some uniform 
data collection plan across all agencies so we can compare 
apples to apples and really know what is happening?
    Mr. Marroni. Well, data certainly is a concern. That is 
part of our high-risk area, too. That has been there for years 
at this point. I think improving the quality of real property 
data is essential and having standards--particularly when we 
are talking about utilization--for how we measure utilization 
is really important so we can do an apples-to-apples 
comparison.
    For this work, there was data at headquarters we could use, 
but it varied in quality, and there wasn't a single benchmark. 
So, these are estimates as a result. It would be better if 
there were clearer standards for how to measure.
    Ms. Albert. I think, prepandemic, the need to measure 
occupancy was not something that was of high importance. And I 
would say that that is true within the public sector as well as 
in the private sector.
    Badging data is probably the most reliable and ubiquitous 
form of measuring occupancy of buildings on any given day. 
However, that technology and that equipment is not installed in 
every building across the United States, and that has costs to 
it.
    So, I think that this area of exploration about what needs 
to be measured, what utility that data has for making real 
estate decisions, I think, is an important topic of 
conversation now. But I will just say that, from an industry 
perspective, it is a relatively new frontier that we are all 
crossing. And GSA has long been a leader in real estate, and 
so, we are happy to be a partner in determining what the 
methodology is for calculating utilization and also determining 
what data really needs to be measured so that it can be useful 
for all of us.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 
Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for your testimony, Director Marroni.
    When I asked about the main causes for office space 
underutilization prior to and following the COVID-19 pandemic, 
you cited outdated and insufficient building configurations and 
increased telework.
    My first question is for Commissioner Albert. If there are 
outdated and insufficient building configurations, as GAO 
reports, why is that data along with operating costs of 
building repairs and the number of Federal employees and 
contractors in each building not shared with Congress or all 
made available through the Federal Real Property Report, and 
how is this committee supposed to comprehend the extent of 
waste in Federal buildings if the data available is 
insufficient or incomplete?
    To me, it seems difficult to measure the efficiency of 
Federal buildings when key data is not collected.
    Ms. Albert. Well, thank you very much for your question.
    The Federal Real Property Profile database is specifically 
an inventory. So, it is basically a count of how many buildings 
there are across the United States. There are complexities to 
getting that database just by itself, just number, location, 
and address across all these buildings across the United 
States. We are still working on perfecting that database.
    However, that particular database is not an asset-
management tool. It does not incorporate, as you suggested, 
building condition, building liabilities, and inefficiencies. 
It doesn't go into that level of detail. That level of detail, 
in many cases, is managed by us for our own portfolio, or 
managed by individual agencies.
    GSA has reported that our backlog of deficiencies is close 
to $11.9 billion. When we have looked at the sum total of the 
amount of investment needed to get the existing portfolio up to 
what I call a state of good repair, meaning safe, operable, 
available to agencies, we are looking at an $11.9 billion 
investment. That is deferred maintenance. And that is why we 
are so concerned with getting full access to the Federal 
Buildings Fund, because it was when we stopped getting access 
about 12 years ago that this mounting liability number has been 
growing and growing.
    Prior to 12 years ago, when we had full access to the 
Federal Buildings Fund, we were able to keep our liabilities to 
about $1 billion a year, now it is $11 billion in total.
    So, yes, I agree with you that we need to keep working on 
that Federal Real Property Profile database and perfecting it. 
But it is not an asset management tool, and we would be happy 
to work with the committee on sharing what we know to be 
individual asset performance standards right now.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    I will continue with the topic. You spoke in your testimony 
about the importance of ensuring projects are fully funded to 
better save the taxpayer money. However, all this committee 
seems to receive are proposals for discrete large projects with 
limited context on how they fit into larger efforts to 
consolidate and reduce space.
    How is the GSA utilizing data to identify and set 
priorities to better serve the American taxpayer?
    Ms. Albert. So, GSA works closely with agencies. Many 
times, we have a good sense of what their real estate portfolio 
needs are, where they have excess space. We have some 
visibility into that. And so, we work closely on a regional 
basis, as well as on a national basis, with agencies to craft 
their real estate strategy.
    It is not contained in a database per se, but it is 
contained with real onsite knowledge of that building condition 
and dynamics of what the agency is needing and whether or not 
our building can suit their needs or if a lease strategy is 
something that makes more sense.
    It is more of an art than a science in many cases. 
Obviously benchmarks are useful tools to identify whether or 
not the request is reasonable. Specifically, every real estate 
request is typically in response to an agency-driven need that 
gets evaluated both for cost and others.
    And we try to make that information transparent to the 
committee. And, if there is more information that you require, 
we are always happy to make sure that you understand, on a 
prospectus-level project, what the rationale is for it.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Marroni, can you start with answering the question 
about other data? I noted in your report, you focus on the 
headquarters, but you weren't able or did not go to regional 
offices or as far afield even as Washington State, or Alaska, 
or Hawaii.
    Why not? Is there a limitation on your ability to do that 
in order to get a different picture?
    Mr. Marroni. So, there were two----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Pull that 
microphone right to your face.
    Mr. Marroni. How is that?
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Better.
    Mr. Marroni. Good. So, two reasons we focused on 
headquarters and not the larger Federal real property 
footprint. First, data availability. In the headquarters 
buildings, there was attendance data we could use for our 
calculations. It varied in quality and type, but there was 
enough there that we could come up with these estimates. In the 
field, as we reported previously, there is just much more 
limited data available to make our calculations. So, one, it 
was a data-availability issue.
    And then the second reason is headquarters buildings 
generally have similar functions. It's office space for folks 
working on policy and working on administrative issues. Once 
you get out into the field, the variety of uses of Federal 
property are from labs to offices to secure facilities, and 
comparing utilization across those may not make as much sense. 
So, that is why we decided to focus in on the headquarters 
buildings.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Second, on the use of leased 
space, are you able to do any sort of calculation on the use of 
leased space? For instance, both my offices in the district are 
leased, for example.
    Mr. Marroni. So, most of these headquarters buildings we 
looked at are owned, although some of them are leased 
facilities. So, the numbers you have here include both of those 
types. Again, just in headquarters, we didn't see significant 
differences in utilization whether the buildings were owned or 
leased.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Great.
    Commissioner, can you talk a little bit about the Federal 
Buildings Fund? You mentioned that you used to have $1 billion 
a year for that fund, and now you don't.
    Why is that, and what can we do about that?
    Ms. Albert. So, GSA collects, last year, for example, $10.4 
billion in rent from other agencies. Those agencies' budgets 
are appropriated, and rental list space is included in their 
budget appropriation. The way that the Federal Buildings Fund 
was designed was to collect that rent, and then have automatic 
authority to reinvest that money into maintaining buildings.
    And so, about 12 years ago, that authority--so, I call that 
a revolving fund. That authority was limited, and about $1 
billion a year has been siphoned from the collections that GSA 
collects and redirected elsewhere.
    That shortcut----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. By the 
appropriations committees?
    Ms. Albert. Correct. That $1-billion-a-year haircut to our 
budget every year, most of it--half of it, at least--has come 
out of our repair and alterations budgets. So, that is telling 
why our buildings now, today, are in the condition that they 
are.
    What we are proposing is a fix to the Federal Buildings 
Fund so that it acts more like what the committee passed 
recently for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is a 
scoring rule fix, which would allow us and allow the 
appropriators to appropriate the full amount of the Federal 
Buildings Fund without hitting their appropriations caps.
    And so, that is what we would like to work with the 
committee on. That is what we are looking to work with the 
appropriators on.
    Here is what it does----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes.
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. The important part is why do this, 
in this time now, when everyone is talking about reducing the 
footprint? It does cost money to save money. So, we need to 
move agencies from one location to another. That costs money.
    Where they are moving to needs to be improved, either in 
our own buildings, or into even a leased space. There are 
improvements or changes that need to be made to the physical 
footprint to accommodate a new agency and how the new agency 
functions. All of those activities take money.
    From a management perspective--I am an infrastructure 
manager, basically. The most important tool for an 
infrastructure manager is to have reliable and adequate 
funding, because it takes 4 to 5 years to effectuate these 
plans. And so, I need to be able to rely on a known budget 4 or 
5 years in advance. And that is what is complicated when we are 
living on a year-to-year budget cycle and would like to 
structure the FBF more like a----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. So, does the 
opposite hold true as well? To move people from space to space, 
the space you are moving them from as well, you need to improve 
that before it becomes able to be disposed of?
    Ms. Albert. Yes. The FBF funds can be used for all of these 
types of move activities.
    I will give an example, too. When we dispose of a building 
and take sales proceeds, that comes into the FBF. And that 
allows funding of other agency moves. There are lots of 
examples of that. But access to the Federal Buildings Fund is 
incredibly important in order to effectuate consolidation.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks for explaining that. I 
appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the 
subcommittee, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
this.
    I was at the roundtable several months ago in March, and I 
was as shocked then as I still am. I think, as a new Member of 
Congress, recognizing the work that goes into holding our real 
estate portfolio, when we often think that that is a private-
sector issue and knowing that we have hundreds of millions of 
square feet that are underutilized is shocking to, I would 
imagine, myself and a taxpayer.
    And when I hear that there is going to be some 
consolidation, I am appreciative of that, that I think you all 
recognize that we are wasting taxpayer dollars left and right. 
And the general question that I would imagine and that I do get 
is it feels like we want more money to waste money. And that is 
maybe a private-sector thought, but I want to figure out a way 
to save our taxpayer dollars.
    And I think that there is going to be, I think, probably 
some hard choices to be made within the portfolio to say, we 
can no longer do this.
    And, really, I know pandemic levels have exacerbated the 
problem. All the reports are showing that can we get people to 
work? But this even started years before that, and recognizing 
that we have to make some changes.
    And if this was a private portfolio, at some point, we 
would just close the doors and have to forgo those buildings. 
Little harder in the public sector when we are running the 
show.
    And so, I hope that we can give you all guidance, and I 
hope that you will respond with better data, better information 
gathering to share with us so we can make the right choices for 
the American people.
    And, with that, I would like to ask Mr. Marroni: Your 
report shows the time for action is now. That is what you have 
stated. We know that even before COVID, space utilization was 
bad, and it was wasting those taxpayer dollars, as I said 
before.
    So, can you maybe--you touched on it a little bit. What are 
your recommendations today on the next steps to right-sizing 
the Federal portfolio?
    Mr. Marroni. So, a couple things.
    First, agencies do need to make decisions now, soon, on 
what office space they need and how that is affected by 
attendance policies and office attendance. They need to decide 
on that, and then decide, OK, how much space do we really need, 
and then taking into account how can they go about doing that. 
Do they need a standalone headquarters building anymore? Are 
there ways to consolidate? Are there bureaus within their 
department where they can share space and, therefore, have 
better utilization? So, that----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. But we're not starting 
that process right today, right? We should have been doing this 
years ago, so, is that happening already?
    Mr. Marroni. There is some consideration of that already. 
In fact, OMB, last year at this time, put out a memo asking for 
agencies to submit--to restart the capital planning process, 
agencies have submitted their plans to OMB. And some agencies 
have started to announce both their attendance policies and 
also starting to put out information about their real estate 
plans.
    So, there are efforts there. And there have been efforts in 
the past. Last decade, there were efforts to reduce the Federal 
real property footprint as well. So, it is not that this has 
not happened at all. It is just, post-pandemic, we have a 
particular need now to refocus and potentially make some hard 
decisions about what space we need.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. And do we have an expected timeline? 
When should those be finished? When should we expect that we 
will get the answers, not ``we are working on it, we are 
working on it''?
    Mr. Marroni. Right. So, I think that is important for the 
agencies to say what is their timeline. For OMB, there is part 
of that--for OMB to say what are our targets? Where are we 
aiming for in terms of the utilization? It is going to--once 
that decision is made, there is time it takes to consolidate 
space, to dispose of space.
    So, there is a tail to this as well, which is why decisions 
soon are important.
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Great. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Albert, it is my understanding that more than 
5,000 individuals work for the Public Buildings Service.
    What is the utilization rate for PBS occupied space?
    Ms. Albert. So, PBS, because we are in buildings across the 
country as building managers, I don't know what the exact 
utilization is, but we tend to be in buildings because we are 
serving the building.
    We function as a hybrid organization. So, depending on what 
the job description is, is what dictates how often people are 
onsite. As you can imagine, we have construction managers and 
architects, so, those people aren't coming necessarily into an 
office every day. Instead, they are going onto the job site.
    So, we have quite a range of different activities. And 
people's hybrid posture or how they work is reflected by the 
activities that are required of them.
    I would like to take a moment to answer maybe or just shed 
some light onto what is going on right now in activities.
    So, we are the manager of real estate; i.e., we are looking 
at the supply side of real estate: what is the quality of the 
buildings, how much are they being used, what are the 
opportunities for consolidation. So, what is the supply side of 
real estate.
    The agency is determining and deciding what is the demand 
side and how much space they need. And then the body of work is 
to marry those two.
    That work is ongoing. There is no deadline. It is actively 
ongoing all the time. There have been many consolidation 
projects that have been in motion for years.
    St. Elizabeths, which Representative Norton is very 
familiar with, has been a consolidation effort for over 15 
years, and we are now coming to the end of realizing that 
consolidation plan. And there are many agencies that are 
exercising and continuing to refine what their consolidation or 
what their real estate plans are.
    Our job as GSA is to manage real estate when agencies 
contract, which is the state that we are in now generally, but 
there are other agencies that are expanding. And so, it is not 
a net total of decrease that we are looking at. It is agency by 
agency, how are we meeting agency needs?
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you.
    My time has expired, and I yield back.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Albert, thank you very much for this last explanation 
that you shared with us. You are on the supply side. The demand 
side, you have to deal with. And, therefore, you are in a very 
difficult situation, which you have explained to us, at least 
in part, today, and I thank you for that.
    You cannot control your destiny. Your destiny is really 
controlled by the other Government agencies that are making a 
decision based on their needs, their budgets. And their budgets 
are often--well, always, presumably, controlled by us. And we, 
frankly, jerk them around. And so, over time, they are growing; 
the next year, they are declining, and the like.
    In that context, you are proposing in your 2024 budget 
request certain reforms. One of those reforms apparently deals 
with how you transition property presently held by the 
Government to some other purpose. And it is in that area that I 
would like to just focus for a moment and then your comments.
    In eliminating excess facilities across the country to cut 
costs, do you take into account the social economic impact of a 
building being disposed of, or shuttered, in a community? How 
do you address that issue, and what is the effect of it?
    Now, the decision may not be totally yours in that you are 
the receiver of a decision by some agency to reduce its 
footprint, but do you take into account the social economic, 
and how would you address that if, in fact, you have to dispose 
of a building?
    Ms. Albert. Yes. So, I think that the decision by the 
agency, as you say, is theirs, and we are the service provider. 
But, once that agency has made their decision--very often, by 
the way, it is difficult to get the agency to make that 
decision. But we are in a new day, and I think that more 
accelerated moves can be anticipated.
    Having said that, once that decision is made, GSA, before 
it determines to dispose of property, goes through an internal 
process first to see if there are other Federal Government 
agencies that are interested in that site before we would even 
consider disposing of it.
    But, most importantly, if that decision is made to dispose 
of property, that is what triggers the outreach to communities 
to identify: Are there alternate uses? Are there uses that that 
local government has for the site? And we are now, under this 
administration, developing the tools for measuring economic 
impact, which have not been applied in the past.
    That is where my expertise comes in, to try and identify 
how to do that responsibly, and how--especially when--right now 
is a very complex time for communities, because we are in 
contraction mode almost across the country. And communities are 
having to reposition how they think about the value of coming 
into downtown DC, for example, and remain vibrant.
    And so, a lot of communities are thinking about 
repositioning towards hospitality, entertainment, and other 
things other than office. And that is what the community needs 
to tell us how our asset can best support their goals.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
    I think it is extremely important that, in addition to what 
you have described, that there is a timing element and that the 
decisions flow in a way that leave the community--should there 
be a decision to dispose of property--in the best possible 
position. And I can understand or at least appreciate somewhat 
the complexity that you are faced with, that you don't control 
the demand side.
    One final point that I want to make: I think we need to be 
very, very careful to avoid the one-size-fits-all. Mr. Marroni, 
you have basically marched down this so many square feet per 
Federal employee. I think we better be very careful that that 
not be the criteria, because there are dozens, if not hundreds, 
of different demands.
    My final point would be that we need to be very, very much 
aware here that the GSA is the supply side. It is the demand 
side that is driving this problem. I will let it go at that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Van Orden.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Ma'am, it is good to see you again. We sat at a roundtable 
together. I asked you some very pointed and specific questions 
then. You were not prepared to answer them for me then. It has 
been a while now, so, I am going to ask you the same questions.
    How many people are under your purview?
    Ms. Albert. There are approximately 5,600 people.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. Excellent. So, there are 5,600 people. 
So, it is 11 o'clock, 11:01 on July 13th, a Thursday. How many 
of those people are at work right now?
    Ms. Albert. Everybody is at work.
    Mr. Van Orden. How many people are physically located in a 
building that I am paying for?
    Ms. Albert. I could not answer that question.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. So, that is exactly what you told me a 
while ago, and that is completely unacceptable, ma'am. You have 
had a long period of time to get that answer, so, we write 
checks here, because that is what Congress does.
    And, if you are incapable of answering that question, I 
don't know that you are capable of holding the position that 
you are in. So, there are four GSA buildings in the State of 
Wisconsin--four. One of them is in my district. It took me over 
2 months to get a phone, as a Member of Congress, in that 
office.
    And my guys are still having issues getting passes so that 
the people that work for me and work for the 750,000 
Wisconsinites that we represent can actually go to work. And 
that is on you.
    And this is just not OK. It is not. I am afraid to address 
you again publicly and bring in the word ``incompetent.'' Your 
testimony, again, is a pile of gobbledygook. It doesn't make 
any sense.
    I need a phone so my constituents can call me. I need an 
office so they can visit, so that we can actually problem-
solve. And that is on you, and you are failing. You are.
    Do you have any reasonable excuse for not being able to 
answer the most basic question of how many of your employees 
are physically located in a place where they can help American 
citizens? Do you have any excuse for that, not being able to 
answer that--yes, OK. Go ahead.
    Ms. Albert. We don't attribute being able to do our jobs to 
whether or not we are sitting in an office. Construction 
managers are not in an office. They are out on a job site.
    Mr. Van Orden. They are.
    Ms. Albert. So, there is a mix----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. How many construction 
managers----
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. On a daily basis----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Right now--how many 
construction managers right now are at a job site?
    Ms. Albert. I don't have a tally.
    Mr. Van Orden. You can't answer that question.
    Ms. Albert. I am not aware----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Why?
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. Where----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Because you don't track it.
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. Everybody is right now.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes, you don't.
    Ms. Albert. Right.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes. And I am a retired Navy Seal. I knew 
where all my people are at all times, everywhere. And I managed 
folks in three different combat zones simultaneously, and I 
could tell you within a 10-meter square where they were at in 
combat. And you can't tell me where administrative personnel 
are located in the country? And we are giving you how much 
money?
    That is, ma'am, that is completely unacceptable. And if you 
could, because I asked you to give me this answer--and I wrote 
it down--it is in my notes. And if you are not taking notes 
from a Member of Congress that is asking you very specific 
questions, because I got no answers back from you, if you are 
not doing that, you are failing. And I am not going to accept 
this any longer. I am not going to do this.
    This committee is remarkable. The power that this committee 
has does not--it is not commensurate with the responsibilities 
that we have. We should be able to fire you right now. Like--
no, we should be able to fire you right now because you are 
failing, and you have been blowing me off now for a long period 
of time.
    I want specific answers. How many people, where are they 
at, what are they doing every day? Because we have got a 
checkbook and you don't.
    Ms. Albert. If I could just--we would be happy to answer 
your questions.
    Mr. Van Orden. Well, then, ma'am, you should have done it a 
long time ago.
    Ms. Albert. But may I also just say, in terms of failing, 
we are not failing. The last 3 years----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Where is my phone?
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. Our projects have been delivered 
on time----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Why can't my people go to 
work?
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. And on budget.
    Mr. Van Orden. Why can't my people that are being paid by 
the American taxpayers walk into an office in a single GSA 
building in my district, why can't they go in there without 
being searched like they are a terrorist? Why?
    Are you happy to answer that question?
    Ms. Albert. Sure. There are security protocols for each 
building----
    Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. Sure, there are, ma'am.
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. That apply to all Federal 
buildings and it is--that is the requirement of the agencies 
that are in those buildings.
    Mr. Van Orden. Who is in charge of that agency, ma'am? 
Would that be you? It would be.
    Ms. Albert. Security of a building is run by Department of 
Homeland Security. We have a partnership with the Department of 
Homeland Security----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Who owns the building?
    Ms. Albert [continuing]. To provide security in buildings.
    Mr. Van Orden. Ms. Albert, who owns the building? Who is--
who is--who is actually responsible for that building is you.
    My timed is expired.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, DC, 
Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Albert, Commissioner Albert, the Court Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia is a 
Federal agency that supervises individuals in DC on probation, 
parole, and supervised release.
    For the last 20 years, the CSOSA's main facility has been 
located within one block of the DC Superior Court. As is the 
case with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for DC and the DC 
Public Defender Service, proximity to the court is important 
for CSOSA to carry out its mission and for the individuals it 
serves.
    CSOSA's lease expires in 2026. I believe it is important 
for CSOSA to remain located near the court after its lease 
expires. Does GSA understand the importance of CSOSA remaining 
near the court and support CSOSA locating CSOSA near the court?
    Ms. Albert. Thank you for that question.
    CSOSA is doing a tremendous amount of work with us right 
now. They are looking at consolidating multiple locations, and 
we are determining what their real estate strategy is. They 
have expressed the importance of the location and proximity of 
their facility to other mission-essential locations, and we 
will make sure that they are supported as they need to be.
    Ms. Norton. I appreciate your looking closely at that and 
they seem to be asking for that, as well.
    Commissioner Albert, at the roundtable in March, I asked 
you about GSA's plans for the Department of Energy's Forrestal 
Building and for the old DHS headquarters once everyone moves 
to St. Elizabeths.
    You stated that GSA was systematically going through the 
portfolio to understand agencies' plans and reposition assets 
to support the needs of the agencies and the local community. 
When does GSA anticipate announcing plans for the old DHS 
headquarters and the DOE's Forrestal Building?
    Ms. Albert. Thank you for that question.
    So, you have been a champion of the DHS consolidation, 
particularly at St. Elizabeths.
    As you know, in our 2023 budget authorization, we were able 
to move three additional headquarters and consolidate them at 
St. Elizabeths, or three additional projects. And we are asking 
in our 2024 budget request for the last component to be able to 
be consolidated at St. Elizabeths.
    And so, we are hoping that if we get that appropriation, we 
will be able to move the last DHS component off of what we call 
the Nebraska Avenue Complex site.
    If everything goes according to plan and we get funding 
this year for this last component, we believe that we will be 
out of the Nebraska Avenue Complex in 2028. And prior to that, 
we would be working with the District of Columbia and with the 
community to determine what the best strategy is for making 
that site available.
    Ms. Norton. What percentage of the portfolio do you have 
left to review?
    Ms. Albert. Of the--you mean GSA's portfolio?
    Ms. Norton. Yes.
    Ms. Albert. Well, it is ongoing. I don't know. We are--we 
have gone--what we do is we go through multiple passes. So, we 
have gone through one pass in its entirety, and this fall, we 
will have gone through that second--it is to confirm what we 
know or what we think we know with the regions and with the 
agencies. That will happen through the rest of this calendar 
year.
    Ms. Norton. Commissioner Albert, you also stated that GSA, 
and, here, I am quoting you, ``would be delighted to work with 
DC on repositioning assets that have historic utilization, 
rising costs, and are not a long-term strategic goal for 
private use.''
    Have you begun conversations with the District of Columbia 
on repositioning these assets?
    Ms. Albert. So, we are in contact with the District of 
Columbia. We understand what their strategies are for 
revitalizing and maintaining a healthy downtown core. We have 
not spoken about specific assets because we haven't completed 
our work yet with the agencies on how they might want to 
reposition.
    Having said that, we understand what the district is trying 
to do with its downtown. And we are trying to make sure that 
strategically, our assets can contribute to the vitality of 
downtown.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [presiding]. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    Are there any further questions from members of the 
subcommittee? I don't believe that we see anybody else arriving 
today.
    But I do want to thank the witnesses for being here because 
this will conclude our hearing.
    I think you have been asked some pretty poignant questions, 
some direct, some indirect, some more hostile than others. But 
I do believe that this committee is committed to getting the 
answers, and I hope that you will be forthright and come with 
those answers that we have asked today, because I think the 
taxpayers, the American taxpayers, deserve to be saved their 
taxpayer dollars if the utilization continues to rise. And it 
is our due diligence then to do the best with the public 
buildings that we have and that real estate portfolio continues 
to serve the needs that the American taxpayers deserve.
    So, seeing none, this concludes our hearing. I would like 
to, again, thank you for spending the morning with us.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record 
of today's hearing.
    And without objection, so ordered.
    This subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


   Prepared Statement of Hon. Derrick Van Orden, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Wisconsin
    I write today to express frustration over the General Services 
Administration (GSA)'s incompetence in addressing two situations 
involving my former District office at Federal Courthouse in Eau 
Claire, Wisconsin. Both of these issues were simple and should have 
been resolved easily. Despite a very pleasant and helpful experience 
with our GSA representative (McKinley Noster), ultimately the 
incompetence of the GSA on a national scale has prevented my staff and 
I from being able to serve our constituents of Wisconsin's Third 
District. The GSA's failure to address these problems in a reasonable 
and timely manner has forced the taxpayers of Wisconsin's Third 
Congressional District to have to pay an additional $300 per month in 
rent for a new district office.
                  I. Inability to fix screening issue
    The first issue that my staff and I encountered from the onset was 
the GSA's failure to address the security screening process for the Eau 
Claire federal courthouse. Members of my staff were the only 
individuals who regularly work in the building that were required to be 
screened by security. The security in that building was a private firm 
that is contracted through the U.S. Marshals Service.
    When I inquired with GSA how to get my staff passes similar to the 
other employees in the building, we were told to provide their names 
and driver's licenses. After the GSA submitted these forms of 
Identification, I was told they were still not sufficient.
    It later came to my attention that the Marshals Service requires a 
formal background check for any individual to be able to bypass the 
screening process. I became aware of this after a GSA employee named 
Camilla Kadish directed a member of my staff to speak with the entity 
that performs background checks for the House of Representatives.
    Given that the House of Representatives does not conduct background 
checks, this answer was completely unacceptable. The process for my 
staff and I to enter our own office took upwards of ten minutes each 
time and included removing belt, shoes, placing all objects in a 
scanner, walking through a metal detector and being waved by another 
metal detector device.
    As a Member of Congress trying to enter my own office to serve my 
own constituents, I should never have been subjected to these delays. 
Moreover, when my office was persistent in attempting to rectify this 
situation, the GSA was incredibly unhelpful. The issue remained 
unresolved the entire time my office was based at the Eau Claire 
Federal Court House.
                II. Inability to resolve Asbestos issue
    To make matters worse, my staff was notified by a contractor on 
Friday, May 5th that some remodeling work would begin the following 
Monday, May 8th due to an ongoing asbestos infestation that made our 
district office a hazardous workplace. As a result of the remodeling 
work, the contractor informed our staff that some minor disruptions to 
our office would be experienced. They went on to clarify that beside 
some possible noise disruption, the remodeling would not prevent my 
staff from continuing to work under normal operations.
    When the work began on Monday, May 8th, it created a major 
disruption to our office staff and ultimately displaced them due to 
construction work taking place directly inside our office suite. Our 
staff followed up on Friday, May 12th and assessed they would be unable 
to return to the office the following Monday, May 15th.
    As of writing, work still remains on this remodeling. This months-
long displacement impeded us from best serving our constituents and 
forced us to take action and ultimately break our lease and seek an 
alternative office space.
                            III. Conclusion:
    The work we do is vital to ensure our constituents are able to get 
the assistance they need with matters involving federal agencies. The 
GSA's inability to resolve the screening and asbestos issues actively 
inhibited my staff's ability to effectively carry out this mission. 
This is unacceptable and outrageous. The result of this is that the 
taxpayers of Wisconsin's Third Congressional District must bear the 
cost of the GSA's incompetence. I will not accept this outcome and will 
demand accountability for those personally responsible.



                               Appendix

                              ----------                              


Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public 
        Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

    Question 1. As I understand, GSA plans to eliminate excess 
facilities across the country to cut costs.
    Question 1.a. Commissioner Albert, has the GSA conducted an 
analysis of the socioeconomic status of areas where GSA is shuttering 
assets vs. where they are moving?
    Answer. Engaging with the local community is a crucial part of the 
disposal process--particularly because it helps GSA to fully understand 
the opportunities for repositioning a particular property, as well as 
challenges to disposition of the property.
    GSA has conducted an analysis of the socioeconomic benefits to 
local communities after former Federal properties have been returned to 
the private sector or reused for other public purposes. During the past 
five years, Federal property disposals resulted in 80 properties 
(totaling 1.79 million square feet) transferred for a Public Benefit. 
This resulted in $10.68 million of annual local tax revenues created. 
This analysis highlights the substantial benefits that can result from 
the transfer of surplus Federal properties to new owners. Additionally, 
35 properties (totaling 2.58 million square feet) were repurposed for 
another Federal use. Furthermore, environmental remediation was 
conducted on 304 acres prior to disposition.

    Question 1.b. Is the agency best using its assets to uplift 
communities in need? Or is it once again leaving behind communities 
that have been left behind?
    Answer. GSA remains focused on providing outstanding value for our 
agency customers and for the American people. As noted above in 
response to the first question, GSA prioritizes community engagement 
throughout the transfer of surplus Federal properties to new owners 
(which, as our analysis shows, provides substantial benefits to local 
communities) and aims to make smart real estate decisions that support 
our agency partners in delivering on their missions--ultimately with 
the goal of benefitting the communities they serve.

                                    
                               [all]