[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Lauren Lombardo, Deputy Policy Director
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. James Comer, U.S. Representative, Chairman.................. 1
Hon. Jamie Raskin, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member........... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robin Carnahan, Administrator, U.S. General
Services Administration
Oral Statement................................................... 4
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witness
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* GSA Report on Site Selection Decision re FBI HQ; submitted by
Rep. Mfume.
* Letter, November 18, 2022, to President Biden and
Administrator Carnahan from Urban League; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Carnahan; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Carnahan; submitted by Rep.
Gosar.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Carnahan; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Carnahan; submitted by Rep.
Krishnamoorthi.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx,
Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, LaTurner, Perry,
Timmons, Burchett, Luna, Edwards, Burlison, Raskin, Norton,
Lynch, Connolly, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Brown, Lee,
Crockett, Goldman, Moskowitz, and Tlaib.
Also present: Representative Ivey.
Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and
Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome everyone
here this morning.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JAMES COMER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM KENTUCKY
Good morning, and welcome, everyone, to this hearing on the
General Services Administration. GSA is intended to serve as
the Federal Government's supply closet, landlord, real estate
agent, motor pool, and IT support. Unfortunately, GSA has
fallen short in executing its mission. Just look at the sudden
announcement last week of the proposed FBI headquarters
relocation. It appears that at the 11th hour, a political
appointee was given the role of decisionmaker. She then changed
the criteria, reversed the recommendation of career experts,
then promptly left for a new job.
The process, or lack thereof, raises many questions that
need to be answered. And earlier this Congress, Chairman
Sessions and Ranking Member Mfume held a bipartisan hearing and
began an investigation into longstanding misrepresentations
with Login.gov. Their work is ongoing, but the services
Login.gov provides, or claims to provide, are very much
relevant in our fight against identity theft, a key component
in the massive amounts of fraud we saw in COVID relief
programs. So, if the Biden Administration is intent on pushing
Login.gov onto Federal agencies, we all need to have confidence
in its ability to protect the interests of the American
taxpayer.
GSA is facing a crisis of confidence, and it does so at a
point when the Biden Administration is attempting to harden its
radical policies in a number of different ways: the
electrification of the Federal vehicle fleet, spreading the
narrative of equity across every facet of the Federal
Government, and the disjointed effort to make telework the norm
in the Federal agencies. On the last point, GSA is at ground
zero regarding the amount of office space the Federal
Government leases and how much it actually uses. In Washington,
D.C., where most Federal agency headquarters are located, much
of the 21 million square feet of office space they occupy sits
empty.
According to the Government Accountability Office, 17 of 24
Federal agency headquarters buildings in D.C. were operating at
25 percent or less capacity as of March. Get this: the six
emptiest buildings average just nine percent capacity, and the
Biden Administration does not want to know or understand
whether its employees are coming into the workplace. We asked
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director earlier this
year in the same room how many D.C. area Federal employees were
going to the office. Simple question. She did not know. We have
since written to individual agencies to ask each of them
directly. Meanwhile, GAO's building occupancy data speaks
volumes. So, too, do the deserted daytime streets, reduced
Metro ridership, and diminished retail activity in downtown
D.C., and there are unused and underused Federal buildings
strewn across the Nation.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are spent
annually just to maintain government-owned properties that
should be sold off. A billion dollars or more could be saved
annually by terminating unneeded Federal office space leases--a
billion dollars. Unused Federal space was an issue prior to the
pandemic. Federal property management has long been on GAO's
high-risk list, but it has now become one that is just simply
too big and too costly to ignore.
The bottom line is this: the Biden Administration cannot
have it both ways at taxpayers' expense. You either bring
employees back to work to improve productivity and service or
you fully right-size the office space and hand taxpayers their
telework dividend, and we do not have time to wait around. Half
of GSA's building leases are coming up for renewal in the next
five years, so if employees are not going back to work, let us
act accordingly.
When I look at the activities GSA oversees--Federal
property, procurement, travel, and conferences--I see a lot of
opportunities for savings in Federal discretionary spending.
GSA is directly involved in how tens of billions of funds are
spent every year. It is the gatekeeper to the massive Federal
marketplace across a wide variety of industries. It oversees
thousands of Federal properties and hundreds of millions of
rented square footage. This Committee, at least my Republican
colleagues, want to know that GSA is carrying out its
responsibilities with the genuine interest of the taxpayer,
front and center.
And we want confidence that the current Administrator is up
to the task. After we received reports she was rarely in
Washington, we sought information. What we found was that
Administrator Carnahan did spend a great deal of her time away
from D.C., more than what official travel would require. At a
time when the White House Chief of Staff, himself, is stressing
the importance of in-person work, we want to know if agency
heads, including Ms. Carnahan, are leading by example. So, we
have a lot to talk about today. I am pleased that the GSA
Administrator is here today to explore these timely and
critical issues, and I look forward to her testimony.
At this time, I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JAMIE RASKIN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Chairman Comer, and thank you,
Administrator Carnahan, for rearranging your schedule to be
with us at our second attempt to have this hearing. The
Oversight Dems are committed to a transparent and effective
Federal Government that will provide exceptional service to the
American people. The GSA is in charge of the government's use
and provision of real estate acquisition services and
technology; it provides the services, and the products that
Federal agencies need to meet their missions for the people.
Administrator Carnahan assumed her role during the COVID-19
pandemic, and under her leadership, GSA was instrumental in
supporting the government's response to this crisis. From
ensuring the safety of Federal buildings to procuring essential
supplies and services, GSA was crucial to maintaining the
continuity of government. With the American Rescue Plan, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act,
Democrats have led the way to fund GSA and make the government
a leader in addressing the challenges of the new century.
Administrator Carnahan has delivered transformative action on
these priorities.
GSA has been at the forefront of integrating innovation
into government, reducing costs, and building a more resilient
workforce. It is preparing the Federal Government for the
future of work with its Workplace 2030 Initiative, using
Federal purchasing power to support small businesses in middle
class jobs and confronting the climate crisis by reducing
Federal greenhouse gas emissions, investing in sustainability,
and shifting to an electric vehicle fleet. GSA is also
improving access to government services for all Americans. It
is drawing lessons learned from the pandemic to better assess
the government's real property needs and helping Federal
agencies reduce their footprint, prudent actions that can save
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
While GSA has devoted significant resources to help Federal
agencies assess their space needs, both in the short and long
term, Congress has diverted billions of dollars away from GSA's
investments in Federal buildings, gravely undermining its
ability to reduce the Federal real estate footprint. The result
has already been an increase in cost as aging and dilapidated
buildings grow more and more expensive to repair. I look
forward to hearing more from the Administrator today about the
true costs of underfunding the GSA and how we can achieve
substantial cost savings by taking advantage of reduced real
estate prices, high vacancy rates across America, and the
advent of telework.
While Democrats are working with GSA on improving
government services to the people, extreme MAGA Republicans
spent weeks embroiled in ridiculous internal partisan combat
and Machiavellian games. This hearing was originally scheduled
for October 19, but our good Chairman had to cancel it the
night before. He may have been concerned that holding a hearing
to criticize the operations of the Federal Government on day 16
without a Speaker of the House, a vivid demonstration of the
GOP's inability to handle even its own internal operations,
would not make for a very convincing show.
So now we are facing yet another government shutdown in a
matter of days. This emerges again from the GOP Majority's
self-described chaos and division and clown show. The juvenile
antics and ideological extremism of the GOP conference left the
House unable to perform its most basic duties, including giving
this Agency the funding it needs to do its work. If my
colleagues are truly concerned about the importance of ensuring
effective government for the American people, they must start
by getting their own act together in the House of
Representatives.
With that, I look forward to hearing testimony this morning
from Administrator Carnahan on the GSA's important work, and
thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. I am pleased to introduce our witness
today, the Honorable Administrator Robin Carnahan.
Administrator Carnahan was confirmed by the Senate into her
current role leading GSA on June 23, 2021. She oversees
activities of over 11,000 GSA employees and critical services
for Federal Government agencies, ranging from acquisition
solutions to management of public and leased buildings. Prior
to her appointment as Administrator, she led the Senate and
local government practice at 18F, an organization within GSA
with a mission of assisting government agencies with technology
solutions. Administrator Carnahan also served the State of
Missouri as Secretary of State from 2005 to 2013.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), Administrator Carnahan,
will you please stand and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Carnahan. I do.
Chairman Comer. Let the record show the witness answered in
the affirmative. We certainly appreciate you being here today
and look forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Administrator Carnahan to please begin her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBIN CARNAHAN
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Carnahan. Well, good morning. Thank you, Chairman
Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the Committee. My
name is Robin Carnahan. I am the Administrator of the U.S.
General Services Administration.
Making government work better for the people we serve and
saving money while we do it is our North Star. That is why we
are focused on three priorities. The first is optimizing and
modernizing the Federal Government's real estate footprint, the
second is making it easier, faster, and cheaper for agencies to
buy goods and services, and the third is delivering simple,
secure, and accessible digital services for the public. My
written testimony goes into greater detail about how we are
working to achieve these goals, but today, I just want to
highlight some of the opportunities and the challenges we are
seeing at this very unique moment to deliver better value for
the people we serve and save money for taxpayers. I know this
Committee shares those goals, and I would like to focus on ways
that we can partner together to get this done.
First, GSA is laser focused on rightsizing the Federal
footprint. Right now, agencies across the government are
rethinking how much space they actually need, and while GSA
does not make space decisions for agencies, we do work closely
with them to leverage our team's expertise to help agencies
plan and, whenever possible, to downsize. GSA has a great track
record of success in doing this. Since 2013, we have helped
reduce the Federal footprint by disposing of 12 million square
feet of owned space and giving up 18 million square feet of
leased space. We want to build on that record by continuing to
consolidate and dispose of unneeded property and leases, and,
in fact, we see an opportunity to reduce the government's
footprint by up to 30 percent. That would save $60 billion over
ten years.
Just last week, we announced 23 properties to get this
started to dispose of. This represents a potential of 3.5
million square feet of reduced space and cost avoidance. It is
not even counting what we get in the value of the sale, cost
avoidance of $1 billion over the next ten years. This is just a
start. We need your help to do even more. So, what is that?
What do we need?
First, GSA needs congressional support for our full Fiscal
Year 2024 budget request and for key legislative reforms to
speed up the process. Consolidating agencies and disposing of
buildings can only happen if we have modern functional space
for agencies to relocate into. The good news is that Congress
thought about that and came up with the plan many years ago to
do just that when it established the Federal Buildings Fund in
order to use agency rent payments to maintain buildings. The
bad news is that for the last 12 years, on average, roughly a
billion dollars from that fund has been used for other
agencies.
As GAO noted in their September report, the largest
impediment to improving Federal Building utilization is lack of
funding. Bottom line, we have missed opportunities to shrink
our real estate portfolio because we have not had the upfront
money to reconfigure and modernize facilities that we plan to
keep, even though we know that those investments will pay back
many times over through lower real estate costs. This is an
important moment for the American people to reap billions of
dollars into future savings, but it can only happen if we work
together. That is why we are asking Congress for a scoring fix
for the Federal Buildings Fund to ensure that the rent that we
collect is reinvested in our public buildings and saving
taxpayer money.
Now, GSA also works to make it easier, faster, and cheaper
for our agency partners to buy the goods and services they
need. While purchasing decisions, as you know, are ultimately
up to the agencies themselves, those that buy through GSA get
the benefit of knowing they are getting good value and
satisfying procurement rules. Last year alone, GSA helped
agencies save $6 billion by leveraging government's buying
power to get better prices. Our Fiscal Year 2024 budget
requests also includes several proposals to improve the
acquisition process. They are commonsense proposals, and we
look forward to working with you on those.
Additionally, GSA helps agencies deliver better digital
experience for the public. The fact is there are a lot of
common challenges that agencies face when it comes to
technology, so building shared technology services, the smart
way to address those challenges--that is why GSA offers things
like FedRAMP and Login.gov, and U.S. Web Design System, and we
are continuously expanding and improving those products to meet
agency needs. And that includes things like a National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Identity Assurance
Level 2 (IAL2) compliant identity verification option for
agencies through Login.gov that will start next year, and
launching a new text messaging notification system that could
save thousands of hours and millions of dollars for agencies
and the public. I also appreciate the Committee's support for
extending the Tech Modernization Fund. It is one of the
smartest investments we can make in government, and I want to
work with you all to get that done.
Finally, as you may know, last week GSA concluded its
congressionally directed site selection process for the FBI's
new headquarters campus. GSA determined that the site in
Greenbelt, Maryland to be the best for the FBI, the government,
because the site was lowest cost to taxpayers, provided the
greatest access to transportation for employees and visitors,
gave the government the most certainty on project schedule, and
also provided the potential to advance sustainability and
equity. I would encourage all of you to review the materials we
have posted online. It includes our decision-making official's
full 40-page decision document and her analysis that led to the
final decision.
We have always said from the beginning that we are
committed to a fair and transparent process. We mean that, and
we have put all of our documents online. I am proud of the
process that we ran. I stand behind the decision of our team
and of all the public servants who carefully followed that
process and selected the site most advantageous to the
government. I know it is a topic of great interest to the
Committee. I would be happy to discuss it further, and I thank
you for the opportunity to testify today, and for your
willingness to partner with GSA to make our government work
better for the people we serve, and to save money doing it.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. We will now begin our question
portion of the hearing, and I will begin.
GAO recently found that 17 of 24 major Federal agency
headquarter buildings in the D.C. area are at less than 25
percent occupancy with some less than ten percent full. GSA's
own headquarters was only 11 percent occupancy despite being
the government's primary real estate agent and property
manager. GAO notes that the Federal Government owns 511 million
square feet of office space and leases another 180 million
square feet from the private sector for use by Federal
agencies. That is almost 700 million square feet total of
office space available to the Federal Government, and the cost
of maintaining and operating out of that space is ridiculously
high. Administrator Carnahan, how much does it cost to operate
and maintain office space used by Federal agencies across the
government? Is the cost in the billions?
Ms. Carnahan. What I can speak to, Congressman, is the
Federal Buildings Fund, which I referred to in my statement,
and that is the fund that lease payments by government agencies
pay.
Chairman Comer. So it is in the billions, right?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Yes.
Chairman Comer. So according to GSA data from the Fiscal
Year 2022 Federal Real Property Profile, the total annual cost
of buildings owned, leased, or otherwise managed by the Federal
Government is over $25 billion. Federal agencies spend $2
billion annually to operate and maintain Federal office
buildings and $5 billion on rental lease payments.
Administrator, I think you agree with me that a huge portion of
Federal office space sits empty or underutilized. If we could
just reduce the amount of office space leased by ten percent,
we would save roughly half a billion dollars on lease payments
annually, correct?
Ms. Carnahan. I could not agree with you more that we have
a huge opportunity to optimize our footprint and are eager to
work with you to get that done.
Chairman Comer. Well, Administrator, the Federal Government
owns properties all over the Nation that are underutilized.
Many of these properties could be put to more productive use,
helping local economies. Selling these properties could yield
billions in sales proceeds and save hundreds of millions of
dollars every year in operation and maintenance costs, right?
Ms. Carnahan. That is true.
Chairman Comer. In fact, the GSA data in Fiscal Year 2022
said the limited disposal activity that occurred still netted
$36 million in sales proceeds and $22 million in averted
operations and maintenance costs. Administrator, given that the
Federal workers are teleworking to such a high degree, and
given how empty our Federal office buildings are, I assume GSA
is working to downsize the Federal Government's office space
footprint to realize these cost savings. So, what is the
holdup?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I am glad you asked that question. This
is a topic of great interest to me, and I think we are fully
aligned on what needs to happen. We need to optimize, which
means shrink and consolidate whenever we can to make sure our
buildings are both useful for communities where they sit, but
also save money for taxpayers.
Chairman Comer. Are the Federal agencies reluctant to give
up office space?
Ms. Carnahan. So, Congressman, I would love to talk a
little bit about what we are doing right now, if you give me a
minute to begin the disposal process. Last week, we announced
23 properties and facilities across the country that we intend
to begin the disposal process on. That will be 3.5 million
square feet of reduction, and get this: it is a billion dollars
in cost avoidance and deferred maintenance and other things,
not even counting the value that we will get with the sales.
So, this is just the beginning, and we want to do more than
that.
Chairman Comer. Is President Biden on board with this? Is
he pushing agencies to actually surrender space that they are
not using?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, we are working closely with the folks
at Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on all of this, and we
are working with agencies across the government to figure out
what their space in this actually are.
Chairman Comer. You know, the American people are fed up
with the wasteful spending, and it is not just Federal empty
office space costing billions every year. A nonprofit
transparency group recently found that Federal agencies spent
$3.3 billion on furniture over the past few years apparently to
furnish office spaces left mostly empty under maximum telework.
Some agencies spent hundreds of thousand dollars just on
updating empty conference rooms. Administrator, can you explain
why the purchasing of Federal furniture continued unabated
during the pandemic?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I cannot speak to specific items that
were purchased, but I can say that the government did not close
down. Agencies were continuing to work, courthouses continued
to operate, prisons were operating, the Defense Department was
operating, lots of agencies were in offices. I personally
visited Des Moines where throughout the pandemic they were
constructing a courthouse. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, San
Antonio, Texas, this work did not stop.
Chairman Comer. My time is about to expire, but let me
conclude by saying agencies that truly require new furniture
can give their old furniture to other agencies or sell it off
to private parties. That would take some of the burden off
taxpayers. Now, I cannot imagine a big private business
spending lavishly on furnishings for an office building that no
one works out of. Shareholders would not stand for it, and we
cannot stand for it on behalf of the American taxpayer. There
needs to be a culture shift in the Federal Government that
looks toward cost savings and achieving agency missions in the
most efficient ways possible, and I hope GSA hears that message
loud and clear. I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, and I am going to call on
Congresswoman Norton to go first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. GSA is responsible for the efficient
and effective functioning of our government. When its budget is
slashed, the consequences are far reaching and, more often than
not, counterproductive. In fact, funding cuts to GSA translate
to increased expenses for the American people, such as those
caused by deferred maintenance of Federal property.
Administrator Carnahan, in Fiscal Year 2023, eight of the 17
major repairs and alterations projects that GSA requested in
the President's budget were resubmissions because the projects
did not receive funding when they were originally requested. Is
that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Correct.
Ms. Norton. And in fiscal 2024, 13 out of the 17 projects
were resubmissions. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Administrator Carnahan, is it correct that the
cost of resubmitted projects increased by $300 million due to
the delays caused by Congress' failure to fund them?
Ms. Carnahan. I think that would be the low end, yes.
Ms. Norton. House Republicans' Fiscal Year 2024 Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations bill, which
funds GSA, would cut $715 million from the Federal Buildings
Fund. This is $1.6 billion below the Administration's request
for the Fund. Administrator Carnahan, how does this lack of
funding lead to waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thank you for that question. I refer to
my statement to the Federal Buildings Fund and how crucial that
was for our ability to consolidate, sell buildings, and save
money. If you think about in your own life, if you are a
business and have two locations and decide it is time to shrink
into one, you usually need a little bit of money to maybe
upgrade and modernize or change and reconfigure the one
building that you are going to bring everybody into. That is
exactly what we are talking about here. You cannot get rid of
the old building that you know is going to save you a lot of
money if there is not a way to, upfront, have money to invest
in the improvement of the one you are going to keep.
And if you think about that, across our portfolio it is
happening over and over again. The single biggest impediment,
as the GAO said, to downsizing and consolidating and saving
billions of dollars for taxpayers is access to upfront money
that Congress intends to come from the Federal Buildings Fund.
Congress solved this problem, and it worked for decades. And it
has only been over the past 12 years that over a billion
dollars a year has been siphoned off to use for other things.
We are asking for that money to be able to then have long-term
planning to do what Chairman Comer and I totally agree needs to
happen, which is optimize our footprint.
Ms. Norton. The Republicans' bill also fails to include any
new funding for the Technology Modernization Fund, which is
critical to improving and securing Federal IT systems.
Administrator Carnahan, when Democrats' American Rescue Plan
provided $1 billion to the Technology Modernization Fund, is it
true that Federal agencies submitted proposals requesting more
than $3.5 billion in support for the technology modernization
projects?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. It has turned out to be one of the
smartest investments Congress could make in modernizing
technology, and it has been very popular among agencies because
it is a way to get money faster. Given that technology changes
so quickly, the speed of need is that they be able to get
access to money, and TMF helps with that.
Ms. Norton. What will happen to these projects if
Republicans succeed in barring funding to the Technology
Modernization Fund in Fiscal Year 2024?
Ms. Carnahan. I think the primary issue will be just delay.
We are living in a world where technology changes weekly, if
not faster, and the only way the Federal Government can keep up
is by having access to funding to respond at the speed of need.
The TMF does that, and if there is a decision made to stop
funding it, it will go back to the two or three or four or five
years that it sometimes takes to get funding for technology.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. They
have called votes, so we are going to ask two more questions on
each side, have two more questioners on each side. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Carnahan, thank you for being here today. I am going to touch
on a couple of things, be moving fast. Regarding the FBI, many
of my colleagues in the House and Senate, myself included, have
expressed serious concerns regarding the weaponization of the
FBI, and yet it is on the slates moving forward to give them a
brand new building. I am going to oppose that with every fiber
of my being. In fact, I think the FBI as an institution should
be taken down brick by brick by oppressive brick and rebuilt
from the ground up, literally.
Well, we are going to focus on GSA's interaction there. It
has been widely reported that the FBI and many Virginia
officials have voiced concerns regarding conflict of interest
during the selection and the process of relocation of the
building. On October the 12 of this year, Director Wray, whom I
oppose and think should be removed or resign, sent a letter to
you raising concerns about conflicts of interest by Nina
Albert, a senior political appointee at GSA, regarding the
selection of the ``Greenbelt parcel of land,'' which was owned
by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which
was the senior official's immediate prior employer, Ms. Nina
Albert. Nina Albert has now been hired as a deputy mayor of the
District of Columbia's Planning and Economic Development.
Administrator, have you conducted a review of these
allegations, and if so, what are your findings, ma'am?
Ms. Carnahan. Thanks for your question, sir. We have
conducted a review. When I received the letter from Director
Wray raising concerns about both the process and the site
selection authority that you mentioned, I referred it to our
legal counsel to dig into whether there was any merit to any of
the----
Mr. Higgins. Does the legal counsel work for you,
Administrator?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, sir. That is the legal counsel that I
rely on. So, I sent that to our legal counsel, had them review
the process, review Ms. Albert's participation, and they found
no merit in any of that. I will tell you that we have fully
vetted Ms. Albert because we knew of her prior employment at
WMATA, the Washington Area Metro Transit Authority. As you
know----
Mr. Higgins. You said you found no merit. Not to interrupt,
just following what you stated here, you said you found no
merit. Do the facts not match up with what was reported?
Ms. Carnahan. The suggestion that there was a conflict or a
potential conflict is what I was referring to. This is an issue
that we were aware of her former employer at the time she was
hired as the top public building official and real estate
expert at GSA. We knew that the FBI was going to be relocating
to one of the three sites that Congress directed us to make a
decision about. We asked our legal counsel at that time to make
sure that that was fully vetted and fine.
Mr. Higgins. When you say, ``legal counsel,'' is that one
attorney or is that a team of attorneys, and is that public? Is
this an attorney that the Committee can question because we
would certainly be interested in questioning the attorney that
came to the conclusion that there was no issues with the
situation that I have described. You apparently have accepted,
that okay, well, the attorney said there is no issue, so there
is no issue, but the Oversight Committee is not going to
readily accept that conclusion. So, please clarify your
position there for our future reference on this Committee. Do
you accept it? You said you referred it to legal counsel. You
referred to one legal counsel. Can you describe that? Is that
an office? Have they given you an official report? Can we
review that official report? Are you going to stand upon that
when we call you again next year and have that counselor in
front of us?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Sorry. I did not understand your
question, but, yes, we have hundreds of pages that we have
posted online about all of the decision-making process, and
that includes the review of our legal counsel, so you can view
our website.
Mr. Higgins. And in my remaining 30 seconds, I am trying to
drill down here on what you are referring to as your legal
counsel. Describe what that is to America.
Ms. Carnahan. So, there is an Office of the General Counsel
at GSA that has several hundred attorneys in it. I am not sure
how many were involved in the review of this, but the reference
that I am making was signed by the general counsel of GSA.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. So, suffice it to say that a team of
attorneys employed by GSA have determined that there was no
nefarious intent in the situation that I described regarding
the location of the proposed new FBI building?
Ms. Carnahan. The legal counsel of GSA, the general
counsel, looked into the questions that were raised by Director
Wray and found that they did not have merit.
Mr. Higgins. Very well. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman,
but I strongly advise that this Committee takes further action
to look into this now that the GSA's legal counsel has taken a
position. I yield.
Chairman Comer. We will do that. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. So, just following up on that. Ms. Carnahan, so
Director Wray brought the question forward--is that right--to
have legal counsel look at that, the potential of that
transaction?
Ms. Carnahan. No, sir. Director Wray sent a letter that
listed a few concerns that the FBI apparently had----
Mr. Lynch. But I said he raised the concern. You are saying
he sent a letter raising the concern. Do we have a difference
of opinion here?
Ms. Carnahan. Sorry. Repeat your question, please.
Mr. Lynch. Director Wray brought forward the question about
the bidding process regarding the new headquarters.
Ms. Carnahan. Director Wray sent a letter that listed some
concerns that they had with the process that we used to make
the site selection, yes.
Mr. Lynch. ``Yes'' would have been good. Yes, that is
exactly what I was asking you. So, he was not trying to hide
something. He was trying to get an answer on some questions,
right?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Yes, okay. I know that GSA and the Federal
Government hold troves of sensitive data, from Social Security
Numbers to classified national security information, and so our
cybersecurity posture is extremely important in protecting all
that information. Congress in the American Rescue Plan
appropriated an additional $1 billion for the Technology
Modernization Fund that you spoke about earlier. And we do hear
complaints from agencies about the speed at which that money is
deployed for modernization of some of the legacy technology
that is out there and that poses a vulnerability. Can you give
us an update on how that money has been deployed? If there is
any delay there, or is it just because of the number of
requests across agencies?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thanks for the question. The Technology
Modernization Fund I truly think is one of the smartest things
that has ever been passed by Congress. It is. We need to have
modern technology to serve the American people, and we need to
have folks who understand technology help make decisions about
how that money is spent. So, when I arrived, the team that was
running the TMF was pretty small, and that did not involve and
include a lot of seasoned technologists. We have built up that
team. We brought people in from the private sector to help run
that operation, and it is completely transformed. The amount of
projects that have gone through are much, much higher speed.
There have been 47 projects that have gone through with $770
million that have passed through and been committed, so I am
really proud of the work that team has done.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Sounds like that when we got off the
ground, that was a little delay because of the small number of
people that were administering that. Do you have any examples
of projects that are areas in which that funding has been
deployed?
Ms. Carnahan. I do. While it has not, sort of, formally
divided up into buckets, that is mainly focused on
cybersecurity, and a thing called Zero Trust has been one of
the primary areas of focus, and that, of course, is something
that all agencies need, also shared services. And what I mean
by that are, if you think about how government interacts with
people, it is very similar, whichever agency you are dealing
with, right? It can be, you know, identity, it can be logging
in, it can be transferring money.
So, we do shared services, and that is a thing that can
save a lot of money and provide better service, and then we do
citizen-facing services there. And so, for example, a lot has
been done with the VA and the Department of Agriculture in ways
that help veterans be able to access benefits quicker and help
farmers be able to apply for loans and get things done quicker.
We are doing a lot with National Archives at the moment. We
have also helped Homeland Security, but it is agencies across
the government. In fact, now every single Cabinet agency has, I
believe, done some work with TMF.
Mr. Lynch. Great. There is a keen concern about Department
of Health and Human Services and the sensitivity of Americans'
health information. Has any resources been dedicated to solving
that vulnerability?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, protecting folks' personal information
is a high priority. I can look into and get back to you about
what projects we have worked on with HHS.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the
previous order, the Chair declares the Committee in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair. We will plan to reconvene 10
minutes after votes.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come to order.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx from North Carolina for 5
minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Carnahan,
in the post-pandemic era, many businesses in the private sector
are downsizing office space since so many employees are working
remotely or adopting hybrid schedules. It has been reported
that about 52 percent of companies are planning to reduce their
office space over the next three years. These same changes are
also affecting the Federal Government. As I am sure you are
aware, the Government Accountability Office noted that 17 of 24
major Federal agencies' headquarters in D.C. are less than 25
percent occupied. How much does GSA spend annually to maintain
and operate office space for Federal agencies?
Ms. Carnahan. Thanks for that question, Congresswoman. We
talked about this a little bit in the first session. We have a
Federal Buildings Fund where agencies that have space in
buildings or have leased space pay rent effectively.
Ms. Foxx. Right.
Ms. Carnahan. And so that amount every year is around more
or less $11 billion.
Ms. Foxx. Eleven billion dollars. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. And that is just rental payments.
Ms. Foxx. Rental.
Ms. Carnahan. That is different than your question, which
was about how much we spend.
Ms. Foxx. To maintain.
Ms. Carnahan. Right. So, what happens is that Federal
Buildings Fund actually is shorted every year in what we are
allowed to spend. So, typically what will happen, about half of
our portfolio is leased and half is owned. And so, for the
leased portion, that rent just immediately goes out the door
and pays the owner of the building, right, in whatever the
community the building is in, and the other half is meant to go
back into maintenance of the buildings.
Ms. Foxx. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. What has happened over the last 12 years is
that portion has been basically siphoned off to pay for other
things.
Ms. Foxx. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. So, that is why we have not been able to
reinvest in buildings as much as people are paying rent.
Ms. Foxx. Okay. That is not my issue. If 70 percent of a
major Federal agency headquarters are only 25 percent occupied,
I believe we can find substantial savings by downsizing office
space. Would you agree?
Ms. Carnahan. Absolutely.
Ms. Foxx. All right. With potentially billions of dollars
wasted each year on underused assets, what is GSA doing to save
taxpayers money?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Thanks for that question. We take this
very seriously. I could not agree with you more that we have an
opportunity to really save billions of dollars for taxpayers.
So, what we do----
Ms. Foxx. Okay. So let me follow up. So how are you
determining when it is necessary to downsize office space?
Ms. Carnahan. So, our team has done a portfolio-wide
review, national portfolio review to figure out which buildings
we should keep and which buildings we should dispose of. I
think that this is a huge first step. We announced last week
already that 23 of those are going to be put up through the
disposal process. Just those 23 buildings is a reduction of 3.5
million square feet of space and a potential and cost
avoidance. And again, this is not even talking about the value
when we sell it, of for over a billion dollars, so we are eager
to work with you all to get this done.
Ms. Foxx. Ordinary Americans, small businesses, and
corporate America cannot afford to pay for space they barely
use, let alone help the Federal Government pay for its unused
space. So how quickly is GSA going to push agencies to
consolidate office space based on the study you just mentioned?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, we are working with agencies all the
time as they are rethinking how much space they need, and so
that is an important thing that the team does every day. In the
end, by the way, we do not force them to make a decision. They
have to decide based on their mission, how much space they
need. We try to give them alternatives. You know, one of the
things that we are seeing nowadays is when people are in
offices, they want to work a little bit differently, right?
There is collaboration space, there are meeting rooms, there
are other kinds of configurations rather than individual
offices that make more sense, and so we are really working with
the agencies on that.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I have one more question I want to
squeeze in. If D.C.-based Federal employees, including
yourself, choose to telework a majority of the time from lower-
cost areas in the country, should they continue to receive the
additional 32.49 percent locality pay increase for the D.C.
area?
Ms. Carnahan. So, the issue of locality pay is something
that our H.R. department thinks about all the time to make sure
that the taxpayers are getting the value, and that people are
getting what they----
Ms. Foxx. So how much would taxpayers save if teleworking
employees were paid the wage that corresponds with their actual
location of work?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I think that is a question I will have to
ask for OPM because I think they are better suited to be able
to answer that.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to
pursue these issues that have been brought forth by Ms.
Carnahan and see what Congress can do to force these agencies
to downsize and save taxpayers money.
Chairman Comer. Absolutely, we will. That is the mission
statement of this Committee and look forward to working with
you, Dr. Foxx, on that. Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to hear,
Ms. Carnahan, that you do not force agencies. So, you act as
sort of the procurer of space, whether rented or purchased on
behalf of Federal agencies. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. So Federal agencies are tantamount to being
your client?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, sir. We collaborate with them. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Right, and you try to make happy clients,
presumably?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, we work on that very hard. I would----
Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say that the FBI is not a
happy client right now?
Ms. Carnahan. We will see how happy or unhappy they are,
but, yes, I have received letters from the director that
indicate he is unsatisfied with the----
Mr. Connolly. Right. Let us stipulate you have got an
unhappy client right now, and let us probe why. So, revisions
were made to criteria that had been established in July of this
year. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And what happened was you changed the
weighting of those criteria, which, I will editorialize,
certainly seem to favor one party over another, but you changed
the weighting. That is correct?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I am----
Mr. Connolly. That is pretty simple. You changed the
weighting that existed previously to something different in
July?
Ms. Carnahan. We did, and I----
Mr. Connolly. And at that time, you replaced a career civil
servant who was overseeing the expert panel of three with a
political appointee. This Nina Albert. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. We replaced someone with the top real estate
professional at the----
Mr. Connolly. Yes, let us not editorialize. She is a
political appointee. She was. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct, and the top of real estate--
--
Mr. Connolly. And is she still at GSA?
Ms. Carnahan. She is no longer at GSA.
Mr. Connolly. So right after she did the overturn of the
panel of expert witnesses that unanimously chose a different
site, the one in Springfield, Virginia, she left the Agency. Is
that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. She is now the deputy mayor in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Connolly. I know what she is. She left the Agency was
my question.
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct. She is now deputy mayor.
Mr. Connolly. That is right. So, in this process, did GSA
diminish the weighting of proximity and FBI mission category
from 35 to 25 percent?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I do not have all of those numbers in
front of me, but there was----
Mr. Connolly. Let us stipulate the answer is yes.
Ms. Carnahan. Okay.
Mr. Connolly. And by the way, you changed the name to make
it maybe less favorable to the FBI, from FBI mission as a
category to proximity. Did at that same time, GSA diminished
the weighting of the transportation category from 25 to 20
percent?
Ms. Carnahan. I do not have, as I said----
Mr. Connolly. Let us stipulate the answer is yes.
Ms. Carnahan. Okay. All right. All right.
Mr. Connolly. Did GSA increase the weighting of equity and
cost categories from 25 percent to 40 percent?
Ms. Carnahan. So, your question is to----
Mr. Connolly. Another category.
Ms. Carnahan. Two categories. There is----
Mr. Connolly. Cost and equity.
Ms. Carnahan. Cost is a category, equity is a category, and
those I know were both increased.
Mr. Connolly. Big change. Okay. So, even with this weighted
change that clearly favored one party over another, the three
panel of experts, two from GSA, one from the FBI, unanimously
nonetheless chose a different side. Is that not correct?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And your appointee, this Ms. Nina Albert, who
is no longer with the Agency and parachuted in, unilaterally
overturned and redirected the evaluation of these new weighted
criteria that the three expert panel had reviewed and
evaluated. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I would like to just clarify one thing
that you said and that you use the word ``overturned.''
Mr. Connolly. Well, it looks like she overturned it to me.
I read the report. A lot of personal pronouns in there, by the
way, ``I,'' ``I,'' ``I.'' And it seems that, irrespective of
the professional judgment, with the change to the criteria that
clearly favored one side over another, nonetheless, the
Virginia site was unanimously selected. And because of her, I
will say, in my opinion, arbitrary overturn of their findings,
you ended up picking one side over the other, and that raises
serious questions about the process.
Now in the end of your testimony today, you have a full-
throated reaffirmation of your faith in that decision and that
individual in making that decision. And I would just say to you
I think you really risk damaging the credibility of the Agency
and its sense of fairness and lack of political interference in
decision-making. I think there is a lot at risk here. And, Mr.
Chairman, we are going to be asking for an Inspector General's
report, and I hope you could join me in that effort to look at
this process and how it can be so contaminated as to skew the
ultimate decision. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, and let me say I
share Mr. Connolly's concerns about the way GSA chose the new
FBI headquarter site. The decision implicates hundreds of
millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars and economic impact for
the surrounding community, yet GSA altered the original
selection criteria to reduce the weight given to the site's
ability to enhance FBI's mission effectiveness. The decision-
making process itself was altered. GSA installed a political
appointee who overruled the decision of a panel of career
officials originally charged with making the selection. She
then promptly left the Agency, just does not seem right.
It is now clear to me why these major changes were made in
the 11th hour. So, I invite the gentleman from Virginia and
anyone else on the Committee with concerns about the process to
join me in following up on today's hearing with a request to
the GSA Inspector General to review GSA's actions in this
matter.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I would gladly join with you in
signing such a request, and I also want to just add to the
point you made, if I may. In making this decision, ironically,
the Springfield site is already owned by the Federal Government
and would not cost any procurement money. The Greenbelt site is
owned by Metro, as you pointed out, I think in your opening
statement, and will have to be purchased by the government.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Very good. Look forward to
working with you. You have more knowledge of this issue than
anyone. I think this will be a good bipartisan issue for the
Committee. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jordan from Ohio for 5
minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Carnahan, was Director Wray wrong when he
said that he did not agree with the process that was followed
in selecting the site in Maryland?
Ms. Carnahan. I asked my general counsel to look into all
of the concerns that were raised in Director Wray's letter, and
they found those to be without merit.
Mr. Jordan. He says, ``We have concerns about fairness and
transparency in the process and GSA is fair to adhere to its
own site selection plan.'' So, he did not just say there were
problems, you did not follow your own rules, and you say that
is not true?
Ms. Carnahan. Our general counsel found that we did follow
all of the rules.
Mr. Jordan. What do you say? You are the boss.
Ms. Carnahan. I agree that we followed all of the rules.
Mr. Jordan. So, Senator Kaine is wrong as well when he
says, ``irrevocably undermined and tainted, and this decision
must be reversed.'' He is wrong as well?
Ms. Carnahan. Look, there are a lot of people who are
interested in where this site goes. We ran the most fair and
transparent----
Mr. Jordan. Well, I am interested, too. I do not want to go
to either place. I do not think we should be rewarding the FBI,
the same FBI that said pro-life Catholics were extremists, the
same FBI that retaliated against whistleblowers, the same FBI
that censored Americans. That is not Jim Jordan. We know this.
We have seen the main perspective about what happened at the
Richmond FBI. We have had whistleblower testimony in front of
Congress telling about how they have been retaliated against,
and we know they censored Americans. The Fifth Circuit told us
that. So, I do not want it to go to either place. Frankly, if
it goes anywhere, it should go to Huntsville, where they
already got all kinds of all kinds of land, all kinds of space,
and all kinds of operations, but I am concerned about this
process.
How long did Ms. Albert have the position where she could
overrule the three-person panel? How long was she in that
position?
Ms. Carnahan. So, Ms. Albert was the head of the Public
Building Service for GSA. She was in that position for, I
think, two years. We made the decision----
Mr. Jordan. How long has she been at GSA?
Ms. Carnahan. I believe she started in July 2019. Sorry,
2021.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. So, she was there a couple of years?
Ms. Carnahan. Uh-huh.
Mr. Jordan. That she recently left?
Ms. Carnahan. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. And she left before the decision was made
public. Is that right?
Ms. Carnahan. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. So, you say that Senator Kaine is wrong
in his assessment and Director Wray is wrong in his assessment
as well?
Ms. Carnahan. We ran a fair and transparent process,
Congressman. That was my directive to our team. We did that in
the extreme. Every document that we have used to make any of
these decisions is available online. I would encourage you to
look at those.
Mr. Jordan. And correct me, maybe I am wrong, but did not a
three-person panel look at all of this and they made a
decision, and then that was overruled by Ms. Albert, who had
been at GSA for all of two years and then she left. After she
overruled, she left before you guys make the decision public.
Isn't that how it played out?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I want to just focus on a term that you
are using, and that is ``overruled.'' The normal process for
GSA when it makes site selections is to have a panel that makes
some recommendations. They look at a lot of things and they
recommend, but we then have the senior real estate professional
at the Agency make an ultimate decision. In fact, sometimes
those decisions are different. The interesting thing is----
Mr. Jordan. How often have they have been different?
Ms. Carnahan. The most interesting thing is in this case--
--
Mr. Jordan. How many times has this happened where the
panel suggests one thing, recommends one thing, and then one
individual who is in this position that Ms. Albert had comes in
and overrules? How often does that happen?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, let me tell you the most relevant time
that----
Mr. Jordan. No, no, that is not what I asked. I asked how
often has it happened.
Ms. Carnahan. So, I will have to get back to you on that
number, but there is a very relevant situation.
Mr. Jordan. Is it rare? Is it often? Is it all the time?
Can you give me that?
Ms. Carnahan. In this particular project, it happened
because in 2014, when all sites were looked at originally,
there was a panel. It down-selected dozens of sites to three.
Mr. Jordan. Uh-huh.
Ms. Carnahan. All three were in Maryland.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. The site selection authority over that, the
equivalent of Ms. Albert decided that was not right and picked
two in Maryland and one in Virginia, the site in Springfield.
So, in this project, there is a history----
Mr. Jordan. That still begs the question I am asking. So,
you have had it happened twice in the same project. How often
does it happen anywhere else? That is an important answer for
us to have. And when we are evaluating how you did this,
particularly in light of what the Chairman and Mr. Connolly
just said, and I assume the Ranking Member agrees with this,
too, there is going to be an Inspector General investigation on
all this. So, we would kind of like to know that answer.
Ms. Carnahan. We will----
Mr. Jordan. It is a pretty important factor if it only has
happened twice and it happened on the same issue, this FBI
headquarters, which many of us on this side do not want going
to either Maryland or Virginia, frankly, in light of what the
FBI has been up to regarding the American people, that is
pretty important. And I agree with the Chairman. I think an
Inspector General investigation is exactly what is needed to
get to the bottom of this. And if we find out this hardly ever
happens, but happened twice with the FBI headquarters, holy
cow, that, I think, tells us something in and of itself. I know
my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we have seen
some very strange, indeed bizarre bedfellows jumping in
together in this cause. We get some people who started out by
saying they want to dismantle the FBI, brick by brick and
destroy the Agency. Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Jordan,
seems to have made a career of trying to disassemble the FBI.
He wants to the FBI headquarters in Huntsville, Alabama,
apparently. And then we have got some disappointed applicants
from Virginia who are trying to attack the whole administrative
process by which they were entered into it in the first place
back in 2014, as Ms. Carnahan just explained.
So why don't we try to get back to the law here and what
the administrative process really is because the administrative
process came up with a very clear result that the Greenbelt
site that was chosen by the site selection authority has the
lowest overall cost to taxpayers, number one. Number two, the
Greenbelt site is the most transit accessible site due to its
short walking distance to the metro and commuter rail. It
offers the greatest opportunity for the government's investment
to positively affect the Washington region through sustainable
and equitable development and so on. There are five criteria
set forth, and the site selection authority chose the Greenbelt
site.
Now, my friend, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Connolly, pounced on the
deliberations of the panel, so what we need to look at is,
well, what is the relationship between the panel and the site
selection authority. Now, if I understand you correctly,
Administrator Carnahan, back in 2014, the panel then
unanimously advanced three sites, all of which were in
Maryland, but the site selection authority overruled the panel
in their language. Of course, it is not an overruling because
it was not a decision in the first place. It is just a
recommendation.
But the site selection authority said thank you for your
advice, I am going to add one more candidate from Virginia,
which is the Springfield site, and then we are going to advance
that to have all three looked at. Then the panel comes back and
says, well, we happen to like the Springfield site, but the
site selection authority which is charged with your decision-
making power over this exclusively, and everybody agrees that
is what the process is, says, no, the Greenbelt site is the one
that conforms to these five criteria.
Now, we have got to have some way of making these
decisions. Otherwise, the Congress of the United States is
going to be involved in every occasion in which you are making
a decision about where to place a Federal agency or department.
How often does this process take place with a panel and a site
selection authority? Is that a rare occasion, or does that
happen frequently?
Ms. Carnahan. So, thanks for that explanation, Congressman.
Most sites selections are not of this great of interest,
frankly, to Congress.
Mr. Raskin. It is a headquarters, right.
Ms. Carnahan. It is a headquarters. So, for a headquarters
like this, this is a very normal process where there is a panel
of some type that makes recommendations and an ultimate decider
who is the site selection authority.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. And then sometimes, the site selection
authority agrees with the panel. Sometimes it disagrees with
it. It disagreed when Springfield, Virginia was put into the
competition, and then the site selection authority disagreed
with it again when it decided that Greenbelt was the way to go.
Well, what about this idea that there is somehow some kind
of conflict of interest in the site selection authority because
the site selection authority worked for WMATA, which is an
agency that serves Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C., or
that there is some kind of conflict of interest because the
site selection authority has a career in government and became
the deputy mayor, not of Greenbelt, Maryland, but of the
District of Columbia. Do you see a conflict of interest there?
Ms. Carnahan. No, sir, and we fully vetted Ms. Albert's
relationship with WMATA when she joined GSA, and subsequent to
the FBI Director bringing up concerns, we had legal counsel
look through that again and found no conflict. These, as you
said, are public entities with no financial interest in any
way.
Mr. Raskin. All right. I want to apologize to you that this
hearing, which should really be about how we can serve the
taxpayers of America better, has been derailed for a whole
coalition of partisan, political, and parochial purposes today.
But in any event, you are doing a good job, and thank you for
sticking with the administrative process and with the rule of
law, such as it is. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I have to defend
my friend, Mr. Connolly. I believe he is acting in a bipartisan
way, not a partisan way. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Carnahan, some of
the questions that I have about the whole situation with
Federal properties has to do with workforce, which you really
do not have any control over, the low productivity that we are
now seeing in Federal workforce because of the failure of so
many employees to actually report to the office. My friend and
the Chairman, Mr. Comer, pointed out that it found that 17 out
of 24 Federal agency headquartered buildings were less than 25
percent occupied.
Now, what I want is for people to come back to work, and if
we do not need them, we need to reduce our workforce. But if
people are not going to come to work, then we need to reduce
the workforce. One way or another, we need to consolidate some
of these holdings, determine what we really need, and then
divest our portfolio of the balance. Have you given any thought
to that or even repurpose? And I will come back to that in a
moment.
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Yes, sir. This is exactly what we are
working on. I mentioned that we have a national portfolio
review that has been done, and we last week announced that we
want to dispose of 23 properties just as a downpayment to get
started on this. They are scattered around the country. It is a
reduction of 3.5 million square feet of space, which is a lot,
and a cost avoidance of over a billion dollars.
Mr. Palmer. Yes. Well, there are other opportunities, too.
You could convert those facilities for other uses, and we did
that with the Old Post Office.
Ms. Carnahan. Correct.
Mr. Palmer. Prior to that, I think we were losing about $6
million a year maintenance costs maintaining, basically, an
empty building, and then this Committee approved a contract
with the Trump organization to convert it to a hotel, and then
we turned that around by $9 million a year to a plus $3 million
per year in revenue. So, are we looking at opportunities for
conversion in that regard?
Ms. Carnahan. So, there are some conversions like that.
There are other examples also in Washington. The Hotel Monaco
was another one where we call it an out lease.
Mr. Palmer. Right.
Ms. Carnahan. Where we have a long-term lease with someone
to run----
Mr. Palmer. You have got the Hotel Monaco, and you have got
the Trump Hotel, which was a great success, but there are
probably other buildings that can be used for other purposes,
but I do want to address something. This is a little personal,
I hate to do it, but this whole issue of telework really
concerns me because it impacts productivity so much, and you
have got to have a collaborative effort that you just do not
get teleworking. From March 2022 to March 2023, you were
working out of, I think, Missouri 121 days. That is 46.5
percent of the work days in a calendar year. You traveled 34
days. I think that is fine, but there was another 64 days that
you did not appear in person in your office. That is 71 percent
of the calendar work days. Do you not need to be in your
office?
Ms. Carnahan. So, thanks for that question. Look, GSA has
leaned in to telework for 20 years through multiple
administrations, and the result----
Mr. Palmer. I understand that, but not like now. Not like
now.
Ms. Carnahan. And the result that we have seen over this
period, in the last ten years, we have been able to shrink our
footprint, our real estate by 43 percent.
Mr. Palmer. But that is not the question.
Ms. Carnahan. And save $300 million.
Mr. Palmer. I understand. And this is why I set this up and
said I am really going to ask about something that is out of
your purview. But when you talk about shrinking the footprint,
that does not address the issue of are you getting the job done
and has productivity increased or gone down. And, ma'am,
productivity in the overall workforce in the United States is
at levels lower than what we have seen in 40-something years.
So, I think we have got a couple of problems here, one of which
you are trying to address. And I am very appreciative of what
you are trying to do, notwithstanding the FBI building, which I
am all in for, for moving to Huntsville, but this whole issue
of a dispersed workforce.
And then you add to that, at a time when we are $33.6
trillion in debt, and we are paying 32.49 percent locality pay
for people who are not here, and, I mean, you spent 121 days of
your calendar work days in Missouri. It is just so frustrating
to me, for us to do some things that are pretty good, like
divesting our portfolio of properties, but then see our
productivity go down and continue to spend money when we just
cannot afford to spend any more money.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, do I have time to respond? Yes. I care
a lot about productivity. This is the thing that we track
closely. And I will tell you that in the last three years
alone, our business volume has gone up 38 percent. In the last
ten years, it has gone up 82 percent, and we also track
customer satisfaction scores. So, the same as you would see in
a private sector, it is on a scale of one to five, our customer
satisfaction score during that period has gone from 3.0 to 3.9
percent. So, I pay a lot of attention to these things. I want
to make sure that we are giving good value to the American
people, and we are delivering on our mission. That is what I
commit to you, sir, and to the American People.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I began this by acknowledging
that she does not have control over the workforce issues, but,
you know, I grew up on a farm, and we kind of understood when
the bees leave the hive, they are not making honey. And the GSA
may be doing great work working remotely, but I do not think
that is true across the entire Federal workforce, and you
cannot do anything about it. All you can do is dispense with
the property. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank the Ranking
Member for calling us together on this. Administrator Carnahan,
it is good to see you. To say the very least you have a tough
job, and a job that oftentimes goes without a lot of thanks.
So, I want to, at least on behalf of this Member of the
Committee, thank you for the way you have proceeded in leading
the GSA and for your willingness to be very transparent and
open before this Committee and other committees about a lot of
things that we are all interested in but do not always
understand.
I had hoped that we would spend most of the day talking
about consolidation of Federal properties, the disposal of
Federal properties, and the occupation rates or the lack
thereof, and what kind of cost savings could be gleaned for the
American taxpayer. I am particularly interested and would like
to get at another time a detailed sort of orientation about the
disposal of lease space and rent space and the plan that you
have put together that will save $60 billion over the next ten
years. It is very, very important, and I want to come back to
cost in just a moment to make another point.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to say something about this matter
that has come up a couple of times about relocation. And I
would like to ask unanimous consent that GSA's 40-page decision
document be entered into the record of this Committee in this
hearing. And I would ask also unanimous consent that the
support letter and the reasons for the very strong support
across the country, particularly by the National Urban League
and the National Action Network, also be entered into the
record without objection, I hope.
Chairman Comer. Without objection on both items, so
ordered.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. A couple of things. Madam
Administrator, I want to go back to something that was
mentioned earlier that I think bears repeating, and that is
that the Virginia location was never a part of the original
plan for the relocation and that this has gone on for 15 years,
with House and Senate Committees working in tandem, Democrats
and Republicans, to address the overwhelming need to replace
the FBI headquarters and to establish a level playing ground
for a competitive bidding process, which we have, and to make
sure that we find a way to protect and to support the men and
women that are working there.
As many of you may not know, there has been a net around
this FBI building for a while because of falling debris. There
was an employee there just a week or so back that had the
ceiling and parts of it fall on their desk while they were
working. It is not a digitally friendly building in terms of
its conversion to do and be what it has to be to compete and to
guard against threats that take place in this country. And
without this sort of new emphasis and new opportunity, we risk
the chance that we could fall further behind. This is mind
boggling to me, but I would think, if nothing else, we have to
make sure that this particular Agency is empowered to do what
it has to do.
Now, a couple of quick things about this selection. Madam
Administrator, Greenbelt, Maryland is the most accessible of
all of the locations. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. That is what was found by the site selection
authority. It is right on a metro line and a transit line, and
the site in Springfield was about half a mile walk.
Mr. Mfume. And Greenbelt provides, by that same committee,
the greatest scheduled certainty. Is that correct? Did you know
it?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct because it does not require
relocating existing tenants.
Mr. Mfume. And Greenbelt offers the greatest opportunity
for the government's investment to positively impact the
greater Washington, D.C. area, both on the Maryland side and
the Virginia side. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume. And Greenbelt has the lowest overall cost to
taxpayers. The total project to acquire and to build the
building was, I think, at some point estimated to be $26
million. That has gone up over time, but in comparison to the
Springfield, Virginia site, it significantly dwarfs it in terms
of costs savings. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume. Is it correct that the Senate has set aside over
$300 million for this project, that money is already there
through appropriations?
Ms. Carnahan. There is some money that has already been
appropriated.
Mr. Mfume. Yes, I think it is $375, but we will get it
accurate. And is it true that the aggregate savings by having
this building built and located where you have, and your
committee has decided saves $1 billion to American taxpayers?
Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. I am not sure where that number comes from,
but we did determine it was the lowest cost for taxpayers.
Mr. Mfume. And I will share with you and the Committee how
that number was derived, but it is significant cost. And so if
we are really concerned and really conservative here about
making sure that we are spending taxpayers' dollars efficiently
and effectively, and we have wasted, as we have, 15 years of
trying to make a decision, and if our law enforcement agency,
the FBI, is outdated in terms of its capability because of
limitations of its current space, it just seems to me that the
best thing here is to find a way to take advantage of what has
been a very, very, very transparent process. It has gone
through every sort of disclosure, and everybody has looked at
it, and not everybody is happy with it, but at some point in
time, we cannot please everybody.
So, I want to thank you, Madam Administrator. This was not
meant to be the topic of the hearing, but it is important, for
the record at least, that we all understand how we got to where
we are. And I hope that the Chairman will indeed bring you back
again for some of these other questions.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, thank you. GSA's Office of Evaluation
Scientists is spending taxpayer money conducting a study at
OPM's request to determine the effectiveness of Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training on Federal workforces.
First of all, you know about how much that is going to cost?
Ms. Carnahan. I do not.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could you comment on what you are
trying to determine there, what your metrics are, what the goal
of this stuff is?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I am not familiar with the study that you
are referring to, but happy to learn more and circle back with
you. I assume it is about just generally Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA), but I do not know
specifically.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will try again. Maybe you can answer
this one. Academic Research has found the DEIA and anti-bias
trainings to be expensive with no gain. Why is the Federal
Government spending taxpayer dollars on a new evaluation to
prove that its DEIA trainings are any different instead of
relying on already available research?
Ms. Carnahan. So, again, Congressman, I apologize that I am
not familiar with the study, but I am happy to circle back with
you----
Mr. Grothman. Sure.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. And your team about it.
Mr. Grothman. I will give you one final question then move
on to something else. What is the purpose of rigorous DEIA
training in the Federal workforce? What is the purpose of it?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, I can speak for myself. The American
taxpayers and all of Americans deserve a government that
represents them, and government is better when it represents
all the people. And so, understanding that and making sure that
we are reflective of that in our values of agencies, I think,
is important. As to the study that you are talking about, I
will tell you I am not sure what the scope of it is, but I will
definitely look into it.
Mr. Grothman. Well, I will switch to telework here.
Occupancy rates for the Federal office buildings are very low.
With GAO noting 17 of 24 major agencies are less than 25
percent occupied, which is kind of amazing, why are taxpayers
footing the bill to maintain millions of square feet of office
space when less than a quarter of it is being used in many
cases?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, Congressman, I agree with you. We need
to figure out how to optimize and shrink the Federal real
estate footprint. The GAO report also said the biggest obstacle
to GSA being able to do that is access to the Federal Buildings
Fund. That is the fund that all of the rent payments that
agencies pay to the government goes into, but it has been
diverted off in the last 12 years, a billion dollars a year to
spend on other things. So, what we are asking for from this
Committee and from the Congress is to fix that and make sure
that the funds that are paid for rent are used on public
buildings, not for other things.
Mr. Grothman. Where else they are using it for?
Ms. Carnahan. That is a question for the Financial Services
and General Government (FSGG) Committee, but they allocated
otherwise within that Appropriation Subcommittee.
Mr. Grothman. I will ask you to expand a little on that
because when you say some of the major agency headquarter
buildings, only 25 percent is used. Do you have an idea how
long this has been going on?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I do not have occupancy rate numbers,
historic occupancy rate numbers, but what I can say is all
agencies right now are thinking through how much space they
need and thinking about how we could potentially consolidate.
GSA has a history of doing that ourselves. Over the last ten
years, we have moved out of two different spaces in the
Washington area, one, an expensive lease in Arlington and
another a federally owned building in the District, and
consolidated everyone into our headquarters building. That
saved $300 million dollars for taxpayers straight up and shrunk
our footprint by 43 percent. So, we know how to do this. What
we need is the flexibility and the certainty about funding to
be able to get it done.
Mr. Grothman. I guess that most Federal workers on the
general schedule get an additional 33-percent pay bump for
having to work here in town, which just has to be incredibly
expensive. Because of that, have you ever considered moving
some of these agencies to a place where they would not get this
bump?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, again, I do not decide what agency
missions are to decide where they need people. I can speak
about GSA. Seventy-five percent of our workforce is outside of
Washington and 75 percent of our assets are outside of
Washington, so that is what we deal with every day. And so, our
teams are scattered around the county, and, frankly, I think
that is good for the American people and good for delivering
the kind of service focus aspect.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So, you would encourage other agencies
to maybe take advantage of this, particularly as we are
shuffling around where we put employees with all this empty
space. I am not sure how far away from Washington, D.C. you
have to be not to get the additional bump, but would it be
better to be 40 or 50 miles into Maryland or into Virginia?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, I will have to check on that. Again, we
are not the ones who set those rates, and I do not know what
those schedules look like, but the notion that--folks need to
go where their missions are, right? That is what we have done
at GSA, and I assume that is what other agencies are focused on
at this moment as well.
Mr. Grothman. Right. My good friend, Congressman Zinke, was
doing that in Interior before he had to leave. Okay. Thanks.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown from
Ohio for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point
out the mere fact that someone has to ask why or what the
purpose of DEI training is, is the very reason we need more of
it. And until we get to a place of parity and equity for people
that look like me, Black and Brown people in this country, then
we should continue to invest in diversity, equity, and
inclusion training in this country.
So, Mr. Chairman, under President Biden and Administrator
Carnahan's leadership, the General Service Administration, or
GSA, is providing the essential services of maintaining the
Federal Government's properties, procuring goods and services,
and acquiring IT systems on its behalf, and admittedly, as we
seen today, this is no small feat. Administrator Carnahan, I
want to commend you on your transformative leadership at GSA,
bringing the Federal Government into the 21st century, and
effectively managing millions of square feet of Federal
property and hundreds of thousands of vehicles owned and
operated by the government.
I was pleased to hear about the Workplace 2030 Initiative
in which GSA is preparing for the future of Federal work and
the GSA's groundbreaking plans to center the climate crisis by
transitioning to a fully electric Federal fleet and pivoting to
climate conscious construction materials. I am also excited
about GSA's efforts to strengthen, support, and sustain women-
and minority-owned businesses through President Biden's whole-
of-government approach based in equity. GSA's equity
initiatives are supporting majority/minority communities across
the country, including in Ohio's 11th congressional District.
In 2022, GSA released its Equity Action Plan.
Administrator Carnahan, I understand you established a
position of Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Equity, for
which I applaud you. So what additional ways is GSA centering
equity in the totality of its work?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thank you for that question. As I said,
equity is important to us because it is reflective of the
American people. We want to have a government that reflects our
people, that makes the government better, and it serves all the
people better. One of the things that we have really focused on
recently is recruitment, and we have focused on HBCUs as a
prime source of talent that we can bring into the government.
We are also very focused on small- and women-owned and small
disadvantaged-owned businesses. We are really proud of the
amount of our procurement that we can do with these small
businesses. It makes a difference in communities where we all
want to support that, so it is a way we can give good value to
the American taxpayers and also support communities.
The final thing I just want to mention is a thing called
the Good Neighbor Program, and that really is about how we work
with communities to make sure things like building sitings are
actually good for the communities. There was a great example
recently in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The new courthouse was
going up, and we worked closely with the community to figure
out what part of town made sense for them for economic
development purposes to put that courthouse because they knew
it would be an anchor in a new neighborhood and drive economic
development. So, we think of equity as a center of a lot of
what we do, equity and procurement, when we are talking about
small businesses, and equity in siting when we are talking
about where we put Federal assets.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Additionally, something I am
particularly focused on is making sure diverse vendors and
businesses get a shot at opportunities, which historically have
been contracted to large, predominantly white corporations. So,
Administrator, how is GSA providing equitable opportunities for
small and disadvantaged businesses and investors? Can you give
us some specifics on that?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. So, our small business spend number is
the highest it has ever been. Our total spend at GSA was about
$20 billion, and I think somewhere in the 40 percent range was
small businesses. And so, we take this very, very seriously
because we know we can get basically a double win, both a good
value for taxpayers and having the economic benefit for those
communities that we want to support.
Ms. Brown. Thank you again, and I do not need to remind
you, Administrator, that GSA oversees about $75 billion in
annual contracts to businesses and vendors across the United
States. It is critical this funding be awarded in an equitable
way, recognizing the importance and worth of Black and Brown
businesses, underserved communities, and women-owned
initiatives. When our small businesses in underserved
communities thrive, we all succeed. So, thank you again for the
amazing work that you have been doing, and thank you again for
coming before this Committee, Administrator. And with that, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison from
Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Greetings, Mrs. Carnahan.
Ms. Carnahan. Good to see you.
Mr. Burlison. You know, being a Missourian, I am sure you
are aware of Cerner, the former company out of Kansas City. I
worked as a consultant for them and others for 20 years and saw
really a revolution happen after COVID of employees being able
to work from home, and the concern from the private sector was
that productivity would decline. Remarkably, it did not. It
actually improved. And so, I was encouraged to hear that you
keep count of or an account of the productivity from some of
these agencies. And I wanted to hear from you if you can
elaborate on what systems or methodologies and software that
you might be using to actually account for the productivity.
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thanks for the question, and we are just
focused on GSA when it comes to our productivity numbers.
Mr. Burlison. So just your Agency specifically?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. I know that OMB and others will be
looking at those numbers and gathering them from other
agencies, but GSA has, as I said, leaned into telework and
remote work for 20 years, like through multiple
administrations. And we have been very intentional about making
sure we see the results of that, both reducing our footprint,
saving money, but also better business volume. And as I said,
business volume has gone up 82 percent in the last ten years,
37 percent in the last three years, which was the most remote
the Agency has ever been, and our customer satisfaction scores
have gone up. So, for us, those are the metrics that really
matter and we pay close attention to.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. And so, your own office that you
occupy, your office space for GSA, given the remote work that
you are now implementing, is there any plans to reduce the
footprint of GSA's office space?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. We are thinking about that all the time
and talking to other agencies about how we can either, you
know, share a space, move out of that space, and have somebody
else in that space, and so there are lots of conversations
going on. One of the other things just to note in the short
term is we are using an entire wing of our building for the
Presidential transition, which GSA is tasked to do every year,
and sometimes it is very expensive if you go out and rent space
for that. But we decided that we could use our own space and
convert that and be able to save a lot of money in that way
because the building was not fully occupied.
So, we are being very thoughtful about this and, as I said,
have a history of consolidating our own, both here in the
Washington area where we got out of an expensive lease and got
out of another building, to consolidate into that headquarters
and save $300 million. So, we want to do more of this.
Mr. Burlison. I had a question about some of the Biden
rules that have been implemented and the impact that you might
be experiencing. So, I know one of them was to require project
labor agreements going forward. How has that impacted your
decision-making process? How has it impacted the costs for some
of the construction? And then finally, do you have a waiver
process? How do you go about that?
Ms. Carnahan. So obviously, we are all in for trying to
make sure there are good American domestic jobs, union jobs
whenever we can, and using the government's buying power to
reflect that. In some places, that is easier than others, but
in all places, you can make sure that there are certain, you
know, contractors that are doing right by their workers. And
so, we do have teams that think about this, ask about this. If
it is unavailable, then there are waiver processes, but----
Mr. Burlison. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. As a first choice, we want to
use that.
Mr. Burlison. So, I mean, you come from rural Missouri----
Ms. Carnahan. We give a preference, if any.
Mr. Burlison. Yes. Your family comes from rural Missouri,
and so you are aware that there are some pockets that just will
not have that presence, so it is good to hear that there are
some waiver opportunities. My other question has to do with the
electric vehicle mandate, and, you know, again, being from
rural Missouri, my question has to do with, you know, what are
the increased costs for the agencies that are now converting to
electric vehicles? Is it, on average, over 10,000 a year per
vehicle? Is that a safe estimate?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. So, I can get all those numbers for you
about what the cost differentials are.
Ms. Carnahan. But the thing that it is important to note
that all of this, you mentioned the word ``mandate,'' and that
is not exactly how we are thinking of it. It is really mission
driven. So, for agencies that have a use case where an electric
vehicle could make sense for them, we are helping them get
those, so we are not forcing these on any agencies. Agencies
are deciding that they want to do it, and we are helping them
procure them at good costs.
Mr. Burlison. And within rural America, you will provide
waivers for places where there are no EV stations or it does
not make sense?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. So again, the agency decides what its
mission needs are, right? And then, they come to us and we help
them get vehicles at the best price, so we are not telling them
who in their agency needs what kind of vehicle. They are making
those decisions, and we are helping them buy.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This country is riddled with
division and inequity that are entrenched in our policies,
laws, and institutions. These entrenched disparities leave so
many of us out of the conversation, out of opportunity, and out
of the room where the fate of our communities are decided.
Before my Republican colleagues get triggered by the word
``equity,'' I want to remind them that this conversation is
about many of the things they claim to support: the power of
local voices, the inclusion of rural communities, and the well-
being of people in their districts as well as mine. Members of
underserved communities, many of whom have endured generations
of discrimination and disinvestment, still confront significant
barriers to realizing the full promise of America. Black and
Brown people, indigenous people, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA)
people, disabled people, and others are so often forgotten or
intentionally left behind. The Federal Government has a
responsibility and a duty to make every effort to remove these
barriers, and they must take a whole-of-government approach to
do so.
Administrator Carnahan, I want to ask you a few questions
about some of the initiatives GSA is focusing on to advance
equity. How does GSA's Good Neighbor Program support local
community goals, economic recovery, and environmental justice?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thanks for that question. I am really
proud of the Good Neighbor Program. It is something that you
would expect the Federal Government to do this all the time,
but, historically, has not always happened. And so it really is
about, I think, intentionality, about figuring out how we can
be positive drivers in communities. There has been a long
history of Federal Government taking activity that has divided
communities, whether it is in transportation access or highways
going through neighborhoods, but we know that the part that we
play, which is siting decisions that impact communities, ought
to be done talking to communities. They are the ones who know
what they need and where they can make urban planning decisions
that can transform neighborhoods. So that is what we do.
I will say that one area in particular that we are focused
on is in the tribal land. We got a significant amount of money
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to invest in border
crossings at the Northern and Southern borders. Some of that
goes through tribal lands, and so to make sure that we are
dealing with those nation-to-nation relationships in ways that
are appropriate, but also get good value for taxpayers.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much. And so, GSA expanded this
program significantly in 2022, correct?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes.
Ms. Lee. Awesome. How else is GSA ensuring its public
building footprints is contributing to the prosperity,
environmental justice of local communities?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, as I mentioned, we were very serious
about siting decisions that we make. I mentioned earlier today
that in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for example, your home state,
there was a new courthouse that was put up, and it was in
collaboration with that community that area of town was decided
on because it was an area that had not been always invested in,
and it was going to be an economic anchor in that part of the
community. And so that is how we can make a big difference is
the Federal Government. We use our power both in buying things
but also placing assets to help communities grow.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. GSA is also conducting the first of its
kind evaluation to assess the effectiveness of equity efforts
across American Rescue Plan programs. Administrator, has this
evaluation provided any insight so far, and how will its
findings be used to improve other programs?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I think there was a reference earlier to
that evaluation, and I am just not familiar with it, but I will
find out----
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. And circle back with you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Ms. Lee. One of the many problem facing so many of these
marginalized and underserved communities is the inequities in
technology design and delivery. This means that those who most
need government services will often have the most difficulty
accessing them. GSA has indicated that improving this is a
priority to better serve our communities. How is GSA
implementing this priority, and how is it making a difference
for constituents in districts like mine?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thanks so much for that question. You
know, this is the thing that is really important. Like,
government does not get to choose its customers, right? It is
our job to serve everyone, which means not only do we need to
focus on security and privacy and ease of access, but also
accessibility and to ensure that we get that right.
There is a particular thing that we have done at GSA to
create shared services. So, other government agencies can do
this relatively easily because we have helped pave the way. It
is a thing called the U.S. Web Design System, which,
essentially, think about it, like, if you are going to set up a
website for the government, think of it like a hardware store
that has all the bits and pieces that you would need to create
a website, but it ensures that it is accessible for everyone.
And so that is the kind of thing that we are trying to focus on
when it comes to shared services, and it gives better service
to everybody.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I cannot overemphasize how critical it
is that GSA and all Federal agencies continue to advance equity
in everything they do. Administrator Carnahan, I just wanted to
thank you for your testimony. I look forward to seeing your
Agency's work implemented to elevate underserved communities
and bring us closer to equal opportunity that we all deserve. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar from
Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Carnahan,
as you know, government property designated as surplus can be
sold to local and state governments and the public. Given the
fact that teleworking has significantly increased over the last
past few years, has the amount of surplus property sold
increased at the same rate?
Ms. Carnahan. So, as I mentioned, Congressman, just last
week we announced 23 properties that we want to put on the
disposal list, and that would be a cost savings of a billion
dollars and a reduction of 3.5 million square feet.
Mr. Gosar. I get that. Now, I guess my point is, as you
know, we are talking trillions in these debts that we have. Are
we missing some areas that could be utilized or looked at for
surplus or for disposal?
Ms. Carnahan. Look, I think there is a huge opportunity at
this moment to both get out of leases that saves a lot of
money, billions of dollars, and get out of unneeded buildings,
also saving billions of dollars. But as I said before, the
reason that this is slow--and this is not just me saying it,
this is what the GAO said in their report--is it is lack of
access to the Federal Buildings Fund. Again, that is the fund
that rent payments go into. When agencies pay rent, that either
goes to the owner of the building if it is a lease, or it goes
to maintain buildings of its own.
Every year for the past 12 years, we have had more than a
billion dollars used for other things. That is a choice made by
the Appropriations Committee. So as a result, we have backlog.
As a result, we are unable to move people into new space. And
so, the one secret thing that we can do to--that secret bullet
to fix this--is to have certainty around the Federal Buildings
Fund, and we will absolutely be able to accelerate these
disposals and save more money.
Mr. Gosar. So, in a priority aspect--I just want to make
sure I have this right--if a state, a local, and/or business
wants this property, who gets that, or is it based upon price?
Ms. Carnahan. So, there are various factors. I wish I could
say it was simple, but there is sort of a rank order, and state
and local government gets the first shot at that. And then
eventually, if NGOs do not want it, state and local governments
do not want it, then it goes on to the public market. And so,
as I mentioned, those 23 properties that we are planning to
dispose off, we already have interest from some local
governments to think about, you know, former courthouses could
become new municipal, you know, halls, and so that, to me, is
what makes sense here. We need to have our Federal assets be
useful in the communities where they are sitting, and if they
do not have people and they are not being useful there, then
they ought to be used in other ways.
Mr. Gosar. Got you. Could they also be looked at it from
different groups like veterans? How do the veterans play in
these?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, certainly if the VA needs some of these
buildings, we could talk to them about reusing it. That would
not be a disposal. That would be a transfer to a different
agency.
Mr. Gosar. Right. Got you. Now, the GSA has an arm called
the Technology Transformation Service manages the Made in
America Office, which seeks to enforce Federal law, requiring
agencies to buy American. Agencies can seek waivers to buy
foreign products. What percentage of Federal acquisitions are
American made?
Ms. Carnahan. As we sit here today, I do not know that
number, but I will ask my team to find out and circle back with
you, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. How many waivers allowing the agencies to buy
foreign made products have been granted under the Biden
Administration?
Ms. Carnahan. Same answer. I do not have that as I sit
here, but we can find it.
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. And what trends do the agencies buying American
products look like for our agencies buying more American-made
products under the current Administration or less?
Ms. Carnahan. So, it is a very high priority for the
President and the whole Administration to use our Federal
buying power to support American jobs and American industry. So
again, I will get back to you with the numbers, but just know
it is a priority.
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. Now, and you talked about, for example, the
electric cars. So, you know, I have Arizona and I have Yuma, so
the----
Ms. Carnahan. I have been in Yuma----
Mr. Gosar [continuing]. MCS.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. Recently, yes.
Mr. Gosar. And so, they cannot have electric vehicles
because it gets too hot. They do not even work. So, does that
play into your decision as well?
Ms. Carnahan. So again, as I mentioned to Congressman
Burlison, we do not make the ultimate decision about what the
mission needs are. That will depend on location. It will depend
on what the job is and what they need it for. We just help
people buy things at good prices, so that is our part of the
job. So, it is up to the agencies to decide whether it makes
any sense for them.
Mr. Gosar. So, they would go through the Department of
Defense. Department of Defense would come to you. Is that the
way it will go?
Ms. Carnahan. We do some with the Department of Defense,
but definitely with all the civilian agencies, so, yes, they
would decide. If somebody was in Yuma, they would say it makes
sense for us to have--we need a vehicle that looks like X for
this mission, and, GSA, can you help us get one of these at
good price.
Mr. Gosar. So, you would definitely supersede, so if it
were all, like, electric cars, you could definitely supersede
that with this different type of car, right?
Ms. Carnahan. Again, it is the agency that decides what
they need, and then come to us and say we need a conventional
fuel vehicle, we need an electric vehicle, and then, we help
them procure that and get that.
Mr. Gosar. So once again, last question. They have to get a
waiver from the Department of Defense for that, right?
Ms. Carnahan. I am not sure what the Department of----
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. Defense rules are about this.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Would you yield your remaining seconds to
Mr. Grothman for one last question?
Mr. Gosar. I will yield to Mister.
Mr. Grothman. Just a quick question. I know you said that
you are trying to give contracts to disadvantaged people. How
do you determine disadvantaged? Is that a racial thing? Is that
an economic thing? What is disadvantaged?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, so I am sure you are familiar with
Small Business Administration (SBA), and it has 8(a)
classifications and other things, so we, as government as a
whole, has definitions about different categories of business.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I recently toured a business. It kind
of offended me. A guy, you know, a person of color, but
inherited, obviously, a wildly high-price business, and I was
told that they were getting benefits because of their ancestry.
Is that possible? Is that going on out there?
Chairman Comer. And the gentleman's time is expired, but
please answer.
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. I am not sure what you are referring to,
but I know that the SBA sets up a lot of the rules around 8(a)
businesses.
Mr. Grothman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, here we
are days away from a government shutdown, the world is burning,
and we are here talking about office space. Meanwhile,
Republicans cannot pass their own unilateral appropriations
bills. They refused to work with Democrats. They refused to
abide by the top-line appropriation numbers that they
themselves negotiated, agreed to, and passed in June. And
separately, they refused to unify the Congress to fund our
democratic allies fighting terrorism and authoritarianism
around the world, our democratic ally, Ukraine, resisting an
illegal invasion by Vladimir Putin, and a brutal and barbaric
invasion of Israel by a terrorist organization, Hamas, trying
to eradicate Israel, the lone, true democracy in the Middle
East. Ukraine, Israel, and the innocent Palestinians in Gaza
desperately need our help, and yet, Republicans are holding
that aid hostage with their political gimmicks and games, and
here we are talking about office space.
Now in fairness, this is a welcome break from the pathetic
and desperate impeachment inquiry. It appears as if the
Chairman has at least acknowledged that the first and only
public impeachment hearing was such a bust, that he does not
want to do it in public anymore because, God forbid, the
American people would once again see what a sham it is. But
that has not stopped my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle from issuing subpoenas for closed-door depositions. That
way, they can continue to cherry pick testimony that misleads
and gaslights the American people.
Now, over the past couple of weeks, since October 7, I have
met with numerous families of hostages in Gaza who are
searching for any information about their loved ones held in
captivity. One I met with was Avihai Brodutch from the Kibbutz
Kfar Aza, which I visited in August. Avihai described how he
took his gun to go fight the terrorists while his wife and
three children hid in their safe room. Avihai was shot in the
leg, and he could not move. In the meantime, his wife and
children were taken hostage by Hamas.
[Slide]
Mr. Goldman. And here are Avihai's three children who have
been held in captivity for 39 days: Ofri age ten, Yuval age
eight, and Uriah age four.
Now, inside a neighboring home belonging to American-
Israeli, Samdar and Roy Idan, Hamas terrorists murdered Samdar
in front of two of their three children, ages ten and six, who
she had placed in a closet to hide and, ultimately, to save
their lives. Roy was outside with his 3-year-old daughter,
Abigail, when he was shot and killed right in front of his baby
girl.
[Slide]
Mr. Goldman. This is Abigail. Now, Abigail somehow got away
and ran to Avihai's home where she was also kidnapped with
Avihai's wife and three children, and they all remain in
captivity, at least we hope. Now, I have had the opportunity to
meet a couple of times over the past few weeks with Elizabeth
Naftali, Samdar's aunt and Abigail's great aunt. She is
absolutely devastated with grief, fear, and worry about her
little niece, Abigail. She barely sleeps, has difficulty
eating, and is frequently overcome with grief that she cannot
even get out of bed.
So, what did the Committee Republicans do last week with
Ms. Naftali? They did not reach out to her to see how Congress
could be of assistance to her as she grieves and waits for
information about Abigail. No. Instead, the Majority subpoenaed
her. That is right. The Chairman used the awesome power and
authority of the U.S. Congress to target Ms. Naftali as part of
his fishing expedition against Hunter Biden, allegedly because
Ms. Naftali may have bought some art. Look, we know that our
colleagues across the aisle are desperate to find some actual
evidence of wrongdoing to justify their failed impeachment
inquiry. But even under these desperate circumstances, I am
still shocked and disappointed that you have targeted someone
grieving from the horrific attack of October 7 for your
impeachment investigation.
Mr. Chairman, this subpoena is beneath the Congress of the
United States. And I ask you here and now, will you agree to
immediately withdraw the subpoena to Ms. Naftali until a later
date when she is not in such emotional distress and can
properly focus on this matter? And I yield to you to answer the
question.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired, but I
will answer the question. We have spoken with her attorney and
asked what would be best for her schedule. As you know, we are
trying to get as many of these completed before the end of the
year as possible, but they gave us a date in mid to late
January--her attorney. And we said that would be fine, so we
are catering to her schedule. We will continue this impeachment
inquiry. As you know, there is overwhelming evidence that the
American people are concerned as to what the Biden family did
to receive millions and millions of dollars from our enemies
around the world, and we will continue to provide answers to
the American people just as we have done over the past six
months.
Mr. Goldman. Will the Chairman yield for----
Chairman Comer. No. Your time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes----
Mr. Goldman. I just want to clarify that you said, ``as you
know.'' I do not know that, nor do I agree with it.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perry for 5
minutes.
Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman. Well, I am somewhat
fascinated by my colleague on the other side of the aisle
talking about evidence that does not exist while I sat in a
room during the last Administration, and they literally made up
evidence to impeach the President, evidence that did not exist
or supported lies that do exist to impeach the President, and
so his words fall a little hollow at this moment.
Madam, you are not here for any of that. I want to ask you
some more questions about the transaction regarding the new FBI
headquarters. It seems that the FBI Director Wray said that Ms.
Albert had unilaterally changed the criteria at the last minute
in a way that would benefit Greenbelt. Is that true?
Ms. Carnahan. No, sir.
Mr. Perry. So, is he a liar? Somebody is lying. He is
saying, I am going to read what he said here, ``Albert had
unilaterally changed the criteria at the last minute in a way
that would benefit the Greenbelt.'' So----
Ms. Carnahan. I think there may be some confusion on the
part of the Director about what the process is.
Mr. Perry. So, when was it changed? When was the criteria
changed?
Ms. Carnahan. So, the sequence of events, just to go back a
little bit, began in 2022 in December with that budget bill
where GSA was directed----
Mr. Perry. Yes, but she was not working on it then, right?
Ms. Carnahan. She was. She was working----
Mr. Perry. She was working on it then. Was she a member of
the panel?
Ms. Carnahan. So, Ms. Albert was the head of the Public
Building Service. That is----
Mr. Perry. Right. I know she is the head, but she was not
one of the conferees, as maybe you would call them, or the
three individuals, two from GSA and one from FBI, that were
working on the site selection.
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, that panel did not meet until July 2023.
Mr. Perry. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. So back in December 2022, Congress directed
GSA to have consultations with both delegations----
Mr. Perry. Right.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. In Maryland and Virginia to then
consider the site selection process and then make a selection.
Mr. Perry. So, nothing changed from that period forward to
the actual site selection? Nothing changed----
Ms. Carnahan. So----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. In the criteria. No one changed it,
and nothing changed?
Ms. Carnahan. So, let me just keep going with our timeline.
So, we had those consultations in March 2023. The panel and the
rest of the team, not just the panel, was looking at the
criteria to see----
Mr. Perry. Right.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. If some of those things need to
be weighted or changed.
Mr. Perry. I get it, ma'am.
Ms. Carnahan. And that is what happened. So that was
announced, and that was made, by the way, coordinated with the
FBI, and that change was announced in July 2023.
Mr. Perry. So, it did not change from July 2023. I do not
mean to cut you short, but I got a limited amount of time here.
It did not change, according to you, from July 2023 until the
decision was made. Is that correct? Nothing changed?
Ms. Carnahan. No, sir.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So, then Christopher Wray is lying then
because it says, ``changed the criteria at the last minute,''
and I am thinking the last minute seems a little bit closer
than last July. I mean, Ms. Albert left GSA in October, right,
last month?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct.
Mr. Perry. Yes, and the decision was announced this month.
So, in previous testimony you said that you had turned to her.
She countervailed. I know you do not like the term that Mr.
Jordan used where she changed. I do not remember what term he
used, but you did not like it where she disagreed.
Ms. Carnahan. Overturned.
Mr. Perry. Overturned the ruling, the unanimous ruling of
the committee, but you said she was the real estate expert,
right? And that is why you----
Ms. Carnahan. She is a top real estate professional.
Mr. Perry. A top real estate professional. Do you know
where she holds a real estate license?
Ms. Carnahan. I do not.
Mr. Perry. Do you know if she has a real estate license?
Ms. Carnahan. I know her career has been spent in real
estate around the Washington metropolitan----
Mr. Perry. Did she have a broker's license? Has she ever
stood for the exam? Has she ever sold a house?
Ms. Carnahan. So, sir, I know she has made site selections
on very significant siting decisions.
Mr. Perry. I could, too. God bless her. She has got a
wonderful resume. I have got it right here. She even served in
the Army. Hello, I am an Army guy. She was in Signal Corps. She
was in the 141st Signal Battalion of the 1st Armored Division
in Germany. That is awesome. We appreciate her service. That
does not mean she is a real estate expert yet, and because she
has had these positions, it does not mean she has an idea.
I mean, she has got an engineering background and all that
stuff, but you said top real estate expert, and this is site
selection of real estate. Do you find it odd at all that the
site that she selected is not the most optimal? As the smallest
buildable area, restrictive site conditions like the presence
of wetland and the greatest distance between other FBI
stakeholders? Do you find that odd? Is that compelling? Does
that mean anything? She is the real estate expert.
Ms. Carnahan. So, Congressman, when the original bidding
was taking place back in 2014, there were dozens of potential
sites around the Washington Metro area. It was reduced down----
Mr. Perry. I get it, ma'am, but I do not----
Ms. Carnahan. Each those three was agreed by the FBI and
everyone else to meet their basic mission needs, which includes
the site----
Mr. Perry. What about the other three members of the panel
that unanimously decided another location? Did you just reject
whatever their findings were? Apparently, you reject them,
right?
Ms. Carnahan. So, the site selection process calls for----
Mr. Perry. We are going to go to the process. Ma'am, a
corrupt process is still a corrupt process. Just because they
have a process, and oh, by the way because you ran it by your
attorneys, I mean, I do not want you to be offended, but maybe
you should be offended, we do not see that as meaningful
because they work for you. If you got an independent review,
maybe we would see that as somewhat meaningful, but all these
people work for you, so you are all doing the same thing. You
are all scratching each other's backs here to make sure that
you are all covering each other's rear end. The American people
are sick of that. I yield the balance.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas.
Ms. Crockett. I come in this Committee and just when I
think I cannot be shocked anymore, I get shocked to the next
level. And I listened to Dan, who--I was with him in Israel in
August--and I listened to him tell very real stories of real
issues that are taking place in this world right now, issues
that we have been charged with the responsibility of being the
adults in the room and trying to solve. And as I listened to
him, I thought, man, I was actually going to deal with what we
are supposed to be talking about. And then, of course, I get a
colleague from the other side of the aisle, who could hear of
the pain and suffering as Dan was telling the stories, and the
only thing that he heard, because it is seemingly what happens
in this chamber, is that there is a level of callousness and a
lack of humanity.
A lot of times, we say the words, ``we care about the
American people,'' but then the actions do not line up with
caring about the American people. And so, after hearing that
story, the only thing that my colleague heard was about made-up
evidence as it relates to the former President, the twice
impeached, 91-indicted count former President, who is currently
sitting in a fraud trial, who has also been found liable of
sexual assault. The only thing that he heard was this bit about
made-up evidence.
And so, he says, well, the Democrats did not have the right
to do what they did when they impeached the President. I
disagree, and it looks like at least four grand juries feel
like they have got some evidence, or maybe that is made up as
well, or maybe once the convictions come down, which there will
be a conviction in some territory--I say that with all
confidence as someone who was practicing law for 17 years--I am
sure they will say that that was made up.
I am sure that they do not believe the co-defendants that
have come out and pled guilty as relates to the charges in
Georgia, and I am sure they think that that is made up, just
like they said the January 6 was made up after they ran for
their lives. And I am sure that they believe that the
convictions that came out of January 6, those were made up too,
but let me tell you what is not made up as they live in their
fairy tale world.
What is not made up is that the government has a looming
shutdown in three days and they decided to drag you in and talk
about the job that you are not doing. And before I go into it,
I do appreciate the work that you do, especially as a girl that
grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, and fondly remember the better
days of Missouri when your father was the Governor. So, I will
tell you what is not made up and what is real life. Number one,
I want to recenter us on what it is your job is. Your job has
nothing to do with telework last time I checked. Is that true
or not?
Ms. Carnahan. That is correct.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. All right, because I do not know how
the American people are going to get this straight when the
Members of Congress cannot really figure out what your job is.
So, that is not your job, but you deal with a lot of real
estate, so I just want to zone in on that because I do not have
too much time left. But for those that do not understand, there
are government leases, and most commercial leases go for more
than a year, say, right?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. Yes. Usually more than maybe even two years,
right?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes.
Ms. Crockett. Usually, a commercial lease is a very long-
term lease, correct?
Ms. Carnahan. And the price usually goes down the longer
the term.
Ms. Crockett. Absolutely. So typically, your client has to
sign a longer lease, all right? But none of us saw COVID-19
happening, and while we are centered on talking about telework,
it is really important that we zone in on something that you
have said over and over and people are ignoring you. You said
what makes it difficult for you to do your job is a lack of
certainty.
And this government shutdown, this is the second one just
this year that we are running up on, and we are kicking the can
down the road because we are going to run up on another one in
January. It looks like we are going to run up on two now,
January and February, if they can get this passed. Can you
please explain why a lack of certainty has a negative impact on
you doing what you are charged to do for the American people?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, thanks for that question. You know, real
estate is a long-term thing. When you are buying a house or you
are buying a piece of property, you do not just do that
overnight. You have to plan your finances to make sure that it
works. And when it comes to the Federal Government, it is not
different. We have to have, particularly when we are
maintaining buildings, we have to have a plan. We have got the
biggest commercial real estate portfolio in the country. They
are all in a different state of need, and we need to be able to
have plans to address those things.
And the only way you do that is with some certainty, and
not having clarity about what a budget is going to be and
kicking the can down the road to the next year does not make
the cost go down. It makes the cost go up. And so, we have seen
that happen over and over again because, again, of this lack of
funding of the Federal Buildings Fund.
Ms. Crockett. And you know what? To be clear, I remember
when we had the first government shutdown looming and we all
have our own leases for our properties as well, I had to call
my property manager and say because the Federal Government
cannot get their stuff together, just so you know, I may not be
able to pay my bills, and I hope you do not kick me out. That
is not any way that we should be governing and talking about
the fact that we are actually being fiscally responsible
because it is just the opposite of it.
Thank you so much for your dedication to this country. I
really appreciate your time and for you putting up with the
antics. I yield.
Chairman Comer. Would the gentlelady yield to a question?
Ms. Crockett. I am out of time.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Luna.
Mrs. Luna. Would you like some time?
Chairman Comer. No, you take your 5 minutes, Mrs. Luna.
Mrs. Luna. All right. Thank you. Ms. Carnahan, thank you
very much for being here. And to address the government
shutdown, you know, I always find it interesting being lectured
on these things, when in the last, I do not know, 20 years,
Congress has been broken. And the fact that we have been
passing nothing but omnibuses and CRs that do not really
address the issue and allow us to really do our jobs.
So just out of curiosity, how do you justify spending $1
billion on furnishing office spaces that are not being used?
The reason that I ask is because we are seeing right now that
this country, future generations, me being a new mother and
having a child, we are being tapped to really answer for this
reckless spending. And frankly, I think that when you have a
facility that is not being used in the way that it should be,
why should we continue to give you guys funding for that?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I have heard reference to the whole
furniture and buying things for empty office spaces.
Mrs. Luna. Yes, mainly addressing the telework policy, but
yes.
Ms. Carnahan. Right. So, I am not exactly sure what
furniture was being bought, so I can try to look into this. But
I will tell you that the government did not shut down during
the pandemic. People were working. Courthouses were operating.
Federal facilities and prisons were operating. Embassies were
operating.
Mrs. Luna. Within reason, though, because I think one of
the biggest issues that we had as Congressional Members is our
constituent services were not being handled appropriately
because we could not reach out to some of the actual agencies
because they were not in the office. I can tell you that, you
know, as a new mother, I am showing up for work, so why should
bureaucrats not be held to the same account, right? I mean, if
you did not show up to your job, do you think that you should
still be getting paid? Question.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, yes. So----
Mrs. Luna. You do?
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. People were working throughout
the pandemic.
Mrs. Luna. But within----
Ms. Carnahan. When they were teleworking does not mean they
were not working.
Mrs. Luna. But there is also no accountability for it
because I am telling you that Members of Congress were not able
to have their constituent services handled accurately because
these agencies were not in person, and we could not get a hold
of those people. But going back to the unnecessary spending
when you have facilities, if you guys are indeed advocating for
telework, though, what is the need to actually have a budget
set aside to furnish these facilities? Don't you think that
that is wasteful spending?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I think we can agree that we want
government to work better and save money. So, what I want to
talk about and work with you all on is how do we actually do
that in practical terms.
Mrs. Luna. Yes, agreed, but do you think, though, that
government should have to budget to use a facility if people
are indeed not coming in to use that facility? Don't you think
that that is wasteful? Like, if you were paying to use a home
that you did not occupy, do not you think that it would be kind
of a waste of money?
Ms. Carnahan. So, what I am very eager to work with the
Committee on is how we can dispose of properties we do not need
and optimize our footprint, and just keep what we do need----
Mrs. Luna. I completely agree.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. Owned and occupied, so----
Mrs. Luna. I completely agree, and I hope that we can work
with you on that, which brings me to my next question.
Recently, my colleague, Representative Gaetz, brought forward
an amendment to a bill that would essentially kill any funding
for the FBI new headquarters building. I think one of the
biggest and craziest excuses I heard for them needing a
facility, even though I think that right now the FBI is being
weaponized, is that they had a mouse problem. But I would like
to share with the American public that here in Congress, we
also have a mouse problem in our House. And so, I think that
that is probably, you know, what is good for the goose is good
for the gander, and I think if we are not getting new
facilities, they surely do not need one. But going back to what
you were saying, do you really think the FBI needs a new
facility? I mean, in all seriousness.
Ms. Carnahan. So, I have had a tour of the FBI building,
and, Congresswoman, I will tell you, it is falling apart.
Mrs. Luna. Do you think that the----
Ms. Carnahan. There are nets that prevent people from being
hit by concrete on the sidewalk outside. There are staff inside
the FBI building that are at risk because the building is
crumbling. So, I do think the FBI needs a new headquarters.
Mrs. Luna. But do you think that it needs to necessarily be
in Washington? I mean, maybe we could just do Americans a favor
and downsize to the FBI altogether, and then we do not have to
worry about that or maybe telework. I mean, it seems that the
rest of the Federal Government wants to just phone in. The FBI,
you know, taps phones, though, so it is a little bit different.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, I guess I would just say that Congress
directed us at GSA to pick between three sites, two sites in
Maryland and one site in Virginia. We are just doing what we
were told to do by Congress in making that site selection.
Mrs. Luna. Well, thank you very much, ma'am. I do
appreciate that. You did say you wanted to work with us on, you
know, coming down on some of that wasteful spending. Hopefully,
we can fix the furniture issue. Maybe we can get people back to
work. But, Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Moskowitz from Florida.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing
today?
Ms. Carnahan. Great. Good.
Mr. Moskowitz. You know, my Republican colleagues are so
concerned about budgets. You know, meanwhile, they cannot keep
the government open without Democrats, right? You know, they
are so concerned about all of these things, but look what they
have done the last, you know, 11 months in power, just utter
and complete chaos, and the one thing they want to talk to you
about today is this FBI building.
Well, I wonder who has texted them and emailed them to talk
about the FBI building and the whole thing. That is it. You are
here about this FBI building. I mean, could it be that Donald
Trump is telling them to talk about this FBI building because
he is just so mad at the Department of Justice? I mean, it is
so transparent. And by the way, I do not know if you noticed,
we have a war in Afghanistan and a war in Israel. We cannot get
Israel foreign aid because the Speaker decided to politicize
it, but they want to talk about furniture. Ah, that is
definitely on the American people's mind, right, right there
with gas stoves and ceiling fans, other hearings we have had in
this Committee.
The Chairman mentioned something. Actually, he said that
the Biden Administration cannot have it both ways, and I agree
with that, Mr. Chairman, which is why I am happy to yield you
some of my time today, Mr. Chairman, because I think you owe it
to the American people to explain why you have gone on Fox News
and told people that while the President was out of office, he
had a loan with his brother, and, in a way, they were evading
taxes. It has come out in the public that you also do business
with your brother with potential loans. And so, since you have
framed that and manipulated that with the American people that
Joe Biden did something wrong when he was not in the office, I
just would like to know if you would like to use some of my
time.
Chairman Comer. I would love it.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay.
Chairman Comer. You retweeted that story, completely false.
I have never loaned my brother one penny. My father, who was a
dentist, had some farmland. He died, and my brother could not
afford it. He wanted to sell it, but he wanted to keep it in
the family, so I bought it from my brother. That story that you
tweeted also said I had a shell company. That is bullshit. You
can come to Monroe County and look at all the land that is
titled in that LLC.
I think that the problem is, you know, the White House
tried to get CNN to write that story. They went around and
investigated all this bullshit that Ian Sams is trying to tell
people that only dumb, financially illiterate people pick up on
and said that it was a shell company because it was an LLC.
They are so financially illiterate that you think because
something says ``LLC,'' it is a shell company. This company,
which I financially disclosed, has properties, okay? It manages
fowl, over 1,000 acres of land for hunting purposes. It owns
different properties. I am one of the largest landowners in my
home area, okay? I went to the bank and I borrowed money, and I
bought that land. I did not get wires from Romania, China. My
family does not get wires, okay? I never loaned my brother
money. I do not have an LLC. But you and Goldman, who is Mr.
Trust Fund continue to----
Mr. Moskowitz. I am reclaiming my time.
Chairman Comer. No. I am not going to give you your time.
We can stop the clock. You look like a Smurf here just going
around and all this stuff. Now, listen----
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, you have----
Chairman Comer. No, I am going to take----
Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. If we are----
Chairman Comer. You continue to----
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. If we are not on time----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Spew disinformation.
Mr. Moskowitz. You have gone on TV----
Chairman Comer. You have dispelled----
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. And said the President did
something. You are doing stuff----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. You dispelled an investigation
of public----
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. With your brother. The American
public have the same question.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Corruption.
Mr. Moskowitz. Why should they believe you? Why should they
believe you?
Chairman Comer. You are not going to investigate----
Mr. Moskowitz. Why should they believe you?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. What you believe you want to
do.
Mr. Moskowitz. There is a different rule for the President?
There is a different rule for you?
Chairman Comer. You can investigate anything you want.
Mr. Moskowitz. Why should they believe what you are saying,
Mr. Chairman? Why? You go on Fox News and say loans and deals
are a way to evade taxes.
Chairman Comer. You go on Fox News----
Mr. Moskowitz. We do not know if that is what you are doing
or not. We do not know. We have no idea. We are supposed to
take your word for it, but when the President said something,
you have----
Chairman Comer. Well, you have already been proven a liar,
Mr. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. What is that?
Chairman Comer. You have already been proven a liar.
Mr. Moskowitz. Who has proven me a liar? You?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. You have proven me nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Go to my hometown. There is a camera crew
there today--an opposition research crew there today.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, this seems to have gotten
under your----
Chairman Comer. You are more than welcome.
Mr. Moskowitz. It seems to have gotten under your skin.
Chairman Comer. I will pay for your ticket.
Mr. Moskowitz. I think the American people have lots of
questions, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps you should sit maybe for a
deposition because this is what happens.
Chairman Comer. I will be happy. I will sit with Hunter
Biden and Jim Biden and we can go over our LLCs.
Mr. Moskowitz. That will be great. I will make sure the
Ranking Member----
Chairman Comer. Let us do that, let us do that. Let us be
transparent.
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. Is happy that you will sit at a
table.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that we
should return to regular order for the benefit of the other
Members who are----
Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member makes a good point.
Mr. Moskowitz. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. I will wrap
it up quickly. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is you may have
done nothing wrong.
Chairman Comer. But you tweeted that I did.
Mr. Moskowitz. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. There
is a story out there, right, because we believe everything in
the media, like when you go on Fox News and say things and
everyone says that they are true with innuendos and ifs and
maybe the Biden family, the crime family, all this nonsense,
but when it happens to you, it is fake news. And what I am
saying is there should be the same----
Chairman Comer. So, you admit it, it is fake news. Thank
you.
Mr. Moskowitz. No. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
There should be the same standard. You said at the beginning of
this hearing the Biden Administration cannot have it both ways.
Neither can you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time back. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much. Administrator, I actually
have questions for you. Climate crisis is a huge issue for my
residents and constituents back home. I actually grew up in a
neighborhood where I thought that smell and that amount of
pollution was normal. And you know, we are now seeing every
month passes, you know, new ``hottest month on record,'' even
this just past summer. So, the horrifying truth is that our
cost on climate crisis is only getting worse, no matter how
much my colleagues try to ignore it.
Administrator, I understand that as of last year, the GSA
reduced greenhouse gas emissions from its real estate
portfolio, I think, by almost 60 percent compared to 2008
levels. Can you talk about that and what steps you all took in
reaching that goal?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Thanks for that question. You know, the
good news is today, there are so many more technologies and
efficiencies that we can put into our buildings that have a
huge impact. So, I always talk about it as a triple win--it is
a thing that is creating jobs in America. It is reducing costs
because we are making buildings more efficient, which means
lower energy costs, which means lower cost to taxpayers, and we
are helping the climate. And so that is the sort of magic
moment that we are living in right now. We hold properties for
a long time, so it is not----
Ms. Tlaib. Are we the largest property owners in the United
States?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Okay.
Ms. Carnahan. And so, we hold properties for a long time,
so it is a little bit different than you think if you are at
home and thinking do I put solar on the roof, do I do my
windows because what would the payback be. For the government,
we hold buildings for a long time, so it makes sense for us to
make these investments today. And when we do, it has an impact
reducing greenhouse gases, but also saving money.
Ms. Tlaib. We know this all makes sense for our health and
everything that you talked about, economy. But you know, for my
residents, it has always been about their public health and our
planet that we all live in. But you can also tell us if this is
also fiscally, you know, prudent. I mean, this is saving money,
especially when a lot of my colleagues, you know, want to
ignore the fact that this is actually increasing the cost on
Americans across every corner of each of our districts when we
do not address this issue. Can you talk a little bit more
about, again, to kind of address folks that think we are
spending, we are not only spending, when I know from reading
and knowing what you all been able to do, it actually has saved
money for Americans?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes, we are saving money all the time. I want
to give a little story about a building in Oklahoma City. It is
a Federal building there that was put up after the last one was
destroyed, so it was a relatively new courthouse, but we did a
deep energy retrofit there, and when we did, it reduced
consumption by 40 percent. We put solar on the roof, and that
meant the whole building can be run by solar. We put big
batteries in, and that meant that the grid, Oklahoma Gas and
Electric, can actually tap into that battery source, so we cut
costs by half and made the grid more resilient. That is what
being a good neighbor is about and what we can do with these
Federal facilities.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And according to analysis I read, ICF
Climate Center says fleet electrification, for instance, could
save the Federal Government about $6 billion over the next 15
years, surpassing additional $4.6 billion it would cost to
actually purchase those vehicles. So, it is really important.
Briefly, what are some of the other ways General Services
Administration (GSA) is combating the climate crisis that you
did not talk about? I love the Oklahoma model, but anything
else that you all might be doing.
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Just last week, we announced that we
were investing about $2 billion across the country in 150
projects that will do a lot to reduce energy costs and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. We received some money in the
Inflation Reduction Act for what is called low-embodied carbon
building materials. The U.S. Government and government, writ
large, are some of the biggest buyers of building materials.
So, if in the chain of production, we can reduce emissions,
that has a huge impact. So, things might seem mundane, but it
turns out to be a really big deal--concrete, asphalt, glass,
and steel--and if you can reduce emissions in the production of
that, it has a huge impact on reducing greenhouse gases.
And the greatest thing, I know I am using a lot of your
time, is I was out at a concrete manufacturing facility outside
of Kansas City, went to Topeka to make this announcement. And
they are embedding carbon in concrete, 30 percent reduction
straight up of greenhouse gases, and guess what? No extra cost.
So, this stuff makes sense and that is what is so exciting
about.
Ms. Tlaib. Really, I think my colleagues need to hear that.
I mean, they continue to say it is too expensive, but failing
to act, I think is more expensive, not only in our public
health, but even the cost of American jobs. It really does
create jobs and just a future for many of our grandchildren and
great grandchildren. Thank you so much. I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. And without
objection, Representative Ivey from Maryland is waved on to the
Committee for the purpose of questioning the witness at today's
hearing.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity. Madam Administrator, good afternoon. I apologize
for getting here so late, but we had a hearing next door, but I
did want to come by because it turned out, apparently, the site
selection for the FBI headquarters became an issue here at the
hearing, and I wanted to have a chance to ask you a few
questions. There has been quite a bit of public discussion
about it, but part of it centered around the FBI director
sending a letter that raised questions about the selection
process at the 11th hour, and also, essentially, accused of a
public servant of being engaged in a conflict of interest. I
wanted to get your thoughts on that and your reaction to it.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, thanks. We have talked about that quite
a bit today, and I am proud of the work that our team did on
that. It was inevitable that someone was going to be
disappointed between two states that were working very hard to
land this facility.
What I have said from the beginning is that what was most
important to me is that we have a fair and transparent process
for making this decision, that everybody can see how it was
made, the rationale behind it, and to decide on their own
whether they think it was a legitimate decision. We put
hundreds of documents online, including the site selection
authority's final decision, and I just encourage everybody to
take a look at it. It is a 40-page document. It is well-
reasoned. It followed our process. And I am fully confident in
the decision they made, and now it is our job to build a
facility that is worthy of the FBI.
Mr. Ivey. Just to ask you specifically about the conflict
of interest allegation, what is your view on that? Do you
believe there was a conflict of interest, or did the Agency
take steps, did the Administration take steps to make sure that
was not the case?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. No, sir. There was no conflict of
interest. We understood that our PBS Commissioner's former
employer was WMATA. We knew that in the beginning. We made sure
to fully vet the appropriateness of her participating in the
FBI selection and site selection at that time, so two years
ago. So fully vetted, number one. Number two, after receiving a
letter from Director Wray, I went back to my general counsel's
office and said I want you to look into these concerns that
have been raised and make sure we did the right thing, that we
followed the process, that all was well. And my general counsel
returned and said none of these have merit. You should be fully
confident that the process was followed and that there was no
conflict of interest.
Mr. Ivey. I also wanted to ask you about next steps. Now
that the site selection has been made, what are the next steps
that GSA will take to make sure that this moves forward
expeditiously?
Ms. Carnahan. So, Congress has been very clear with us that
they wanted us to make a site selection and do that
expeditiously, and so the next step for us will be developing a
prospectus that will come back to Congress with.
Mr. Ivey. How long do you think that will take?
Ms. Carnahan. I cannot say for sure. I know that there was
some language, I think, that said 180 days in one of the bills.
That is a very, very robust timeline that I am not sure is
realistic given the size and scope of this project, but know
that we are very focused on moving forward.
Mr. Ivey. Robust sounds good to me, and I did want to ask
you this as well. Is there information that you need from
either the FBI, the Department of Justice, or both, in order to
move forward with the prospectus stage?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, thank you for that question because we
are not going to build a building without the support and
interest of the FBI at heart. Their mission is what this is all
about, and so they need to describe what that is for the
facility going forward. So, we will need to be collaborating.
Mr. Ivey. All right. And when will that get on track?
Ms. Carnahan. I hope very soon. I am hopeful that the
project teams are speaking even now.
Mr. Ivey. And I know there have been objections that were
raised and suggestions about an IG investigation and the like.
But my hope is that this prospectus stage will move forward,
whether it has got to be on a separate track or not, but it
needs to move forward expeditiously, I believe. They need to
get out of the building that they are currently in, in part
because in some ways it is falling down and also, I think,
delay adds to costs, but I would like to hear your thoughts on
that.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, just as a general matter, delay does
add a lot to cost. This particular project has been, you know,
discussed, you probably know better than I do, but I think 15
years. So, there is a mission need for the FBI to have a new
facility to be able to really deliver the security and the work
that they do for the American people, so we have that very
clear in our focus.
Mr. Ivey. All right. Your expectation is you will be able
to work with the FBI and the Department of Justice, well,
frankly immediately, I guess, in beginning that process?
Ms. Carnahan. I am hopeful, but again, this is not a thing
that I am involved in every day, but the project teams, I am
hopeful, can move things ahead.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Administrator Carnahan, welcome. I know you
have been here for a good bit of the day, and thank you very
much.
Administrator, Login.gov was built by 18F. You joined 18F
in February 2016. In October 2016, the GSA Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) issued a report describing how 18F did
not follow a number of rules and procedures, including those
related to procurement and security. Then in March 2023, when
you were GSA Administrator, the GSA OIG issued another report
describing how Login.gov misled, and the word ``lied to'' was
included in that report, customers regarding the services it
provided.
You were part of 18F between 2016 and 2020 in a senior
role. In the March 2023 OIG report, the Commissioner of Federal
Acquisition Service, which includes 18F and the broader
Technology Transformation Services (TTS), stated, ``TTS's
failure to perform adequate oversight of 18F is rooted in its
historic 18F culture that considered oversight burdensome.'' We
held hearings earlier in the year on 18F on a bipartisan basis,
and, in fact, I had an amendment that was accepted last week on
the Floor to defund completely 18F.
You have spoken today about the successes related to the
project of the GSA. Can you go back and tell us about 18F and
your viewpoint about 18F as it relates to these OIG reports in
relationship to our history of holding a hearing that was
bipartisan condemnation of 18F and their relevance to
misleading the government, including the IRS about the
viability and visibility of those people who came in through
Login.gov?
Ms. Carnahan. Well, thanks for the question, Congressman. I
want to bifurcate it a little bit, if that is okay with you. So
18F, just to give a little bit of a history, is a technology
team that is inside a group called the Technology
Transformation Service at GSA----
Mr. Sessions. Right.
Ms. Carnahan [continuing]. That has hundreds of people in
it, and they are doing great work for the American people.
Mr. Sessions. It was started by President Obama as an
experiment. Is that correct?
Ms. Carnahan. So I was not there at the very beginning, but
I do know that after the healthcare.gov mess, like, we can all
call it that, where the technology did not work, I think
President Obama at that time understood that policy does not
get done if you cannot deliver it, and delivery today needs to
be technology. So, there were lots more technologists that were
brought into the government at that time. I joined, I think,
actually in January. What did you say, 2015?
Mr. Sessions. You joined in February 2016, is what I----
Ms. Carnahan. Okay, 2016.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Have been provided.
Ms. Carnahan. All right. That may be right. Time is
illusion nowadays. But I was there for a year during the Obama
Administration and several years of the Trump Administration as
well, and I focused on state and local government primarily
because that is my background. What I found when I was an
elected official in my home state is that too often you are
reinventing the wheel all over again.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. But let us go to the subject of
that, and that is that it would be considered if it were not
government a complete fraud, a fraudulent operation that
operated outside the scope of its own laws and its own
responsibilities. Can you go to that point or are you going to
try and talk about working around the issue rather than going
to the answer? I want to know about 18F, about the way they
operated, about the way they misled and lied to the government
about what their performance would be, what they could be
counted on, including biometric data, and up to and including
taking over $10 million to operate this fraudulent operation.
Well, I want to know what you think about that.
Ms. Carnahan. Well, look, my job is to make government work
better for the American people and save money doing it, so that
is what I am continuing to try to focus on.
Mr. Sessions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is something that is why we held
this hearing and why on a bipartisan basis there was complete
agreement that we should defund that organization on a moving-
forward basis. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time, and I want
to thank the gentlewoman for being here today.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the last four
years, the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
affectionately known as MODCOM, worked to make the government
more efficient, effective, and transparent for the American
people. Our Committee held dozens of hearings with various
government agencies. We made 202 recommendations, but I want to
focus on one particular recommendation that has the potential
to save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Recommendation 136 states that the GAO shall submit a
report annually on the estimated cost savings of its
unimplemented recommendations. As we worked to implement all
the recommendations, my colleague, Representative Derek Kilmer,
and I introduced H.R. 7331, the Improving Government for
America's Taxpayers Act, which was signed into law at the end
of last year. Our bill codified the recommendation made by the
Modernization Committee, and now GAO does in fact submit a
report annually on the estimated cost savings of its
unimplemented recommendations. That is my intro to their most
recent report.
The GAO discussed the GSA's performance in carrying out the
Federal Assets and Sales Act of 2016. This bill was passed by
Congress to help reduce the cost of Federal real property and
address the challenges of disposing of unneeded Federal
property. And in doing so, the bill established a three-round
process to reduce the Federal Government's inventory of Federal
civilian real property. And in its 2023 report, the GAO stated
that GSA faced numerous setbacks during the first two rounds,
resulting in an almost two-year delay in selling any of the
properties approved for disposal during the first round. What
is also troubling is that GAO states in their annual report
that GSA has not developed a process that fully leverages
lessons learned from the implementation of the Federal Assets
Sale and Transfer Act. So that is the big intro.
Administrator Carnahan, it took over two years for the GSA
to dispose of the ten of the 12 properties identified in the
first round. What were the proceeds from this round compared to
estimates?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I am going to need to circle back on
that. I can talk generally about Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act (FASTA) and the work that we do together, but I do
not have those specific numbers in front of me.
Ms. Carnahan. The idea that we can save money by
consolidating and disposing of real estate, I could not agree
with you more. I think we are in this really unique moment
where we can both get out of leased space, which is very
expensive, and cut that dramatically. Listen to this, 45
percent of our leases, government-wide, are up for renewal in
the next five years.
Mr. Timmons. That is good news.
Ms. Carnahan. That means we ought to be able to move people
out of that into owned space and have occupancy go up----
Mr. Timmons. So, I guess the answer to my question, I
think, is the proceeds totaled $194 million, but the estimate
was supposed to be $419 million. We can follow up on that and
circle back. So, what processes did the GSA implement during
the second round to bring additional efficiencies to this
process? Maybe you do not have that offhand. Did you learn from
the first process that did not seem to go that well?
Ms. Carnahan. So, I know that the team has taken lessons
from that, and I apologize that I do not know all of those as
we sit here, but I will certainly circle back with the team.
Ms. Carnahan. I will tell you just, again, we are in
violent agreement on the need to shrink real estate assets and
optimize. What I want to do is work with the Committee to
figure out how to get blockers out of way to do that faster.
Mr. Timmons. Well, whatever we can do to help you to reduce
the inefficiencies with all of our leases, and, I mean, the
occupancy percentages is very concerning. I guess really, I
would just ask you to learn from the first round and try to get
some lessons learned and then implement those for the second
set to third round.
Ms. Carnahan. Can I just say that that is not the only way
we dispose of buildings? Just last week we announced 23 assets
around the country that we plan to dispose of to start the
process of disposal, and it is going to save over a billion
dollars and cut our real estate footprint by 3.5 million square
feet.
Mr. Timmons. And how do you assess what properties are
going to be underutilized or unneeded, and what can we do to
help streamline that so we are not resigning leases that you
may want to get out of, but you have some bureaucratic red tape
in the way? What can we do to help?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. So, I have talked about this today.
There is a thing called the Federal Buildings Fund, and it was
established by Congress back in the 1970s. And the idea was
that rent that was paid by agencies goes into the fund, the
leases are paid out of that, and then property that is
maintained by the government uses that fund to maintain. That
money has been siphoned off every year for the past 12 years at
about a billion dollars a year, which means we have got
deferred maintenance and we have things we cannot do. So, the
number one thing that we could do to speed up this process is
have predictability in our Federal Buildings Fund. We are not
asking for more money. We are asking for the money that is
supposed to be there for Federal buildings.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I would just ask you to use us to
try to hold these agencies accountable and to pressure them to
consolidate wherever is possible, and with that, Mr. Chairman,
thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. LaTurner from Kansas for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Carnahan, thank
you for being here. I grew up in a small town in Southeast
Kansas, Galena, Kansas, town of about 3,000 people, about 5
minutes away from Joplin, Missouri. I was in the Joplin media
market, so I have long been aware of you and your family's
impressive legacy in Missouri politics. I appreciate you being
with us here today.
Ms. Carnahan. Thank you. I was just in Topeka last week.
Mr. LaTurner. Were you? Well, that is where I live. The
COVID-19 pandemic is long over. Kansans across my state
returned to in-person work nearly three years ago, yet a
majority of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats in our Federal
Government are still working from home. To make matters worse,
the General Services Administration continues to sign leases
for empty office buildings. All the while, my constituents wait
weeks on end to hear back from agencies on issues ranging from
tax returns to veterans' benefits. Not only has teleworking
been proven to be bad for productivity and quality of service,
but multiple studies since 2020 have shown that remote
employees have relatively higher rates of depression and
anxiety when compared to their in-office counterparts. Simply
put, Federal agencies' post-pandemic telework policies do not
serve their employees and are a raw deal for taxpayers. It is
past time for Federal Government to join hardworking Americans
across our country and return to work in-person.
Now, Ms. Carnahan, you have somewhere around 12,000
employees.
Ms. Carnahan. Right.
Mr. LaTurner. What percentage of your employees are in-
person as opposed to work from home?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. So, GSA has actually leaned in to
telework for 20 years through lots of administrations, and what
we found is that we can increase productivity and we can save
money by reducing our real estate footprint, but it really
depends on the job. So, some jobs require people to come in
every day. If you are a building manager, you have got to be in
a building. You are running a building. If you are a project
manager, you do not need to be in an office. You need to be on
the project job site to make sure the things are getting done.
If you are an acquisition person, you might be embedded with
the team at the Army or whoever that you are helping.
So, we have lots of different job classifications. And so,
there are some that are also fully remote, particularly
technology teams, because what we found is that we can get more
talent if we can get them spread out all over the country. So,
it really for us depends on the job.
Mr. LaTurner. What are the numbers on that, though?
Ms. Carnahan. Most people are required to come into the
office at least some, but there are about 40 percent that are
fully remote at GSA, and as I said, we have been doing this for
20 years.
Mr. LaTurner. Let me ask it another way. What percentage of
employees are full time in person?
Ms. Carnahan. So, if somewhere over 40 percent are fully
remote, that would leave the rest that----
Mr. LaTurner. Well, but you said some are hybrid, so I am
wondering what percentage are fully in-person?
Ms. Carnahan. Like, how many are building managers that
show up in buildings every day?
Mr. LaTurner. How many of your 12,000 employees show up to
work every day in a government office?
Ms. Carnahan. Right. People are working every day, but they
might be working in other locations, so I will have to get you
the numbers on how many are actually onsite in an office of GSA
every day.
Mr. LaTurner. We have to balance equities here. Like, I
fully understand the point of sometimes it makes sense for
folks to work from home. My contention, though, is that when
you have backlogs, for my constituents to get information from
their government, we are paying for office space for these
folks to show up to work every day, they ought to be showing up
to do their job. Do you have a comment on what I mentioned?
Because I think, me, like a lot of folks, when the pandemic
first happened, we thought, oh wow, we have all these new tools
that were quickly developed so folks can work from home, do a
hybrid, and maybe that makes more sense.
But we have seen a lot of research that shows that it is
not good for our mental health. We are social beings. We need
to interact with folks. And as far as my constituents are
concerned, if we are paying for office space for folks to show
up, they ought to show up. Do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Carnahan. Yes. Look, again, I cannot speak to what
other agencies do and what their missions are, but I can speak
to how this has worked at GSA, and we have increased sales
volume in the last three years during the pandemic by 38
percent. So, more work has been done, 38 percent more, and we
have customer satisfaction scores that have continued to be
steady or go up over that time. And so, I appreciate that there
are some agencies who are more customer facing, public facing
than GSA, but for our mission, I am proud of the work that our
team has done. And we are going to continue to be very
intentional about how we use our telework policies to get the
most productivity out of our team.
Mr. LaTurner. I look forward to getting those numbers from
you or your staff. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, and that
concludes our questions. Now I will yield to the Ranking Member
for her closing statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, once again,
thank Ms. Carnahan for appearing before the Committee today,
making herself available for the second time.
Before we gavel out, it is essential that we highlight the
need to fund the Federal Government, which includes critical
funding for GSA. In just a few days, government funding will
lapse, and many of the services the Federal Government provides
to our constituents and to this Nation will come to a halt.
More than seven million moms and children will lose critical
nutrition supplements through WIC, including more than 11,000
people in the District of Columbia alone. More than 1.3 million
active-duty service members will have to go without pay,
including another 11,000 people in the District of Columbia.
Let us make sure to do our job and adequately fund this
government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back, and I want to
conclude by again thanking Ms. Carnahan for being here. And
just reiterate, the purpose of this hearing is to try to save
money, and that is what the House Oversight Committee's purpose
is, to investigate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in
the Federal Government.
We are going to spend nearly $2 trillion more this year
than we take in in tax revenue. That is not sustainable. That
is the root of a lot of our problems that my friends on the
other side of the aisle referenced with respect to the
challenges getting to 218 votes in a spending bill. We spend
too much money in Washington, and what we want to do on this
Committee is find ways to save, and there is an obvious way to
save money in the Federal Government. We have too much office
space.
Now with the Biden Administration's push for telework, we
have even more office space, and even the Mayor of Washington,
D.C., Mayor Bowser, supports our efforts to, number one, get
people back to work, get the Federal employees to actually go
back to work to improve productivity. But again, you know, that
is not a priority for the Biden Administration, but what is a
priority for this Committee is to get the backs of the American
taxpayer.
And we want to work with your office to try to come up with
ways to save substantial sums of money. And I think it would be
in the best interest of the District of Columbia, as the mayor
has pointed out, to utilize some of this empty office space
building that has had such a detrimental effect on downtown
retailers and small businesses, many minority-owned businesses,
as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pointed out.
So, we have got to get serious about saving money,
eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and I think this was a
very productive hearing. Obviously, we are going to do the
requested bipartisan IG report on the site selection. You know,
it just seems like everything that the FBI touches has a bit of
a stench to it these days. And we want to make sure that at the
end of the day, somebody in this town gets the backs of the
American taxpayer. And the one entity that I believe is making
an effort to do that is the House Oversight Committee, thanks
to this side of the House. So again, Administrator, thank you
for being here.
And in closing, I think that there is a lot of opportunity
moving forward to save money for the American taxpayers and to
find better utilization of all of this empty office space that
the taxpayers are still having to maintain, even though the
Federal workers are not going there and do not appear to ever
return, at this rate, to many of those empty office buildings
in this town.
So, with that, and without objection, all Members will have
five legislative days within which to submit materials and to
submit additional written questions for the witness, which will
be forwarded to the witness for her response.
Chairman Comer. If there is no further business, without
objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]