    [Senate Hearing 118-723]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-723

                  OVERSIGHT OF GSA'S PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                               AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 9, 2024

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

      [GRAPHIC(s) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

               Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                         MARK KELLY, Arizona, Chairman
                   KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex           Virginia (ex officio)
        officio)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  JULY 9, 2024
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Kelly, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.........     1
    Cramer, Hon. Kevin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Doomes, Elliott, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.
      General Services Administration................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Kelly............................................    14
            Senator Carper...........................................    19
            Senator Capito...........................................    23

                           OVERSIGHT OF GSA'S PUBLIC
                               BUILDINGS SERVICE

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Kelly
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kelly, Cramer, Cardin, Merkley, Markey,
    Ricketts.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KELLY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator Kelly. I want to welcome everyone to today's
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee hearing to
    conduct oversight of GSA's (General Service Administration)
    Public Buildings Service. I apologize for the lighting
    situation in this committee hearing room. Well, lights are
    starting to come on. Look at that. Fixed.
        I want to thank my colleague, Senator Cramer, and his staff
    for their partnership leading up to this hearing and his
    continuing partnership in leading the subcommittee. I also want
    to thank Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and their
    staffs for their help and support leading up to this hearing,
    as well.
        I want to thank the Commissioner of the Public Buildings
    Service, Elliot Doomes, for joining us today. Commissioner
    Doomes has been in this role since October of last year, and
    this is his first appearance before this subcommittee. We
    appreciate you joining us today, because there is a lot
    happening within the Public Buildings Service right now, and
    the goal of today's hearing is to get an update on GSA's work
    and understand what more needs to be done to better manage the
    Federal Buildings Portfolio.
        Through the Public Buildings Service, GSA maintains office
    space for more than 100 Federal agencies, housing more than 1
    million Federal employees, and approximately 410 million total
    square feet of office space. Managing this portfolio requires
    GSA to be dynamic and flexible, including being prepared to
    repurpose or dispose of properties which have outlived their
    purpose.
        This is an increasingly difficult task, but the challenge
    of effectively managing Federal buildings has been an issue for
    years. Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office has
    included Federal real property management on its high risk
    list, and a number of GAO reviews, both before and after the
    pandemic, had found that GSA and their tenant agencies do not
    have effective mechanisms to determine how much office space is
    needed to fulfill their missions.
        We should be clear about why this matters. It costs about
    $7 billion a year to operate and maintain Federal office space
    for both leased and owned buildings. Better managing this
    portfolio can mean real savings for Federal agencies and,
    ultimately, for the taxpayers. This is a serious challenge, but
    I think we can also look at it as a huge opportunity for GSA.
        Commissioner Doomes, I know that GSA has put forward a
    number of proposals which, if implemented by this Congress, can
    give you more of the tools and resources that you need to
    redesign the Federal building portfolio for the 21st century. I
    look forward to being able to discuss those proposals at
    today's hearing.
        A number of members of this committee on both sides of the
    aisle are looking for solutions to help us advance these
    efforts, as well. For example, in 2016, Congress passed the
    Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act, or FASTA, to create an
    independent body to evaluate and make recommendations for which
    Federal buildings should be disposed.
        This process has shown a lot of promise, but it needs
    reform. I want to give credit to Senator Cramer, my
    subcommittee co-chair here, the Ranking Member, for introducing
    the FASTA Reform Act earlier this year, which will improve the
    FASTA process to better help manage the Federal building
    portfolio.
        I was proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation, which
    was reported out of this committee unanimously in May. At the
    same committee markup, we reported out another GSA reform bill
    introduced by our colleagues, Senators Padilla and Lankford,
    which would update the GSA building disposal process to allow
    tribal governments to partner with GSA in the same way that
    State and local governments do.
        I hope we can discuss these bipartisan proposals for reform
    and identify other ways that this committee and subcommittee
    can work in concert with GSA to better manage our Federal
    building portfolio. For example, one of my top priorities from
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was making sure that we made
    sure that GSA had the resources to modernize 20 land ports of
    entry across the Country, including three priority projects in
    Arizona. Thanks to our work, GSA now has the resources to get
    to work on all 20 of these projects.
        But we didn't stop there. Thanks to the leadership of many
    of my colleagues on this committee, the Inflation Reduction Act
    provided $3.4 billion for GSA to reduce the carbon footprint of
    Federal buildings and promote energy efficiency.
        In Arizona, we are already seeing these resources at work
    firsthand. Last June, I had the opportunity to attend the
    groundbreaking of the San Luis Port of Entry project in
    southern Arizona. This is the first land port of entry project
    to break ground thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
    and it is going to invest $308 million to upgrade one of the
    busiest ports in Arizona.
        This project is great news for Arizona and for the economy,
    Arizona's economy, and our Country's economy, but also for
    border security. The project was designed in close partnership
    with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to double the number
    of vehicle inspection lanes to allow for the installation of
    state-of-the-art border security technologies, and provide CBP
    agents with a port facility that meets modern security
    requirements.
        These are the types of investments that make our southern
    border more secure and improve our ability to stop fentanyl and
    other illegal trafficking across the southern border. It is
    also good for trade and tourism in Arizona. Once complete, this
    modernized port of entry will supercharge economic growth in
    the Yuma region and throughout the State.
        What is also notable about the San Luis port of entry
    project, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, is that this
    project will include a number of energy efficient features,
    meaning that once complete, the San Luis port of entry will be
    the most energy efficient port in the Country.
        Commissioner Doomes, I look forward to getting an update on
    the San Luis Port project and to confirm that it is on track
    and will be finished on schedule in 2028. I also look forward
    to discussing the other priority port projects in the State of
    Arizona, including the new commercial port in Douglas and the
    modernization of the Raul Castro Port of Entry in Douglas, and
    the Dennis Deconcini Port of Entry in Nogales.
        I also hope that we can reflect on the lessons learned from
    these projects and understand what other steps GSA and this
    committee can take to make sure that our Federal facilities
    meet the needs of the local communities and provide the best
    value to taxpayers.
        I am going to pause now and recognize my partner on this
    subcommittee, Senator Cramer, for his opening remarks.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CRAMER,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Kelly, for holding this
    very important hearing, and for your thoughtful statements, and
    your leadership. This really provides the committee the
    opportunity to conduct its responsibility of oversight in
    providing the transparency and safeguarding the public
    interest, which the public is hungry for. They like to see
    transparency. Frankly, Commissioner, I appreciate your being
    here and your willingness to participate in this transparency.
    I think it is an important step, and you give us great
    confidence.
        Unfortunately, properties across all of our Federal
    agencies are underutilized. The Chairman referenced the
    hundreds of square feet, the hundreds of millions of square
    feet, and the thousands of buildings, but they are
    underutilized, amounting to a substantial waste of resources
    and operational inefficiencies.
        Last year, the Government Accountability Office released a
    report which found that a majority of Federal agencies reviewed
    were using only 25 percent or less of their headquarters
    building's space. Additionally, in 2023 alone, Federal agencies
    themselves reported over 5,000 buildings as either
    underutilized or unutilized altogether.
        While these recent numbers are shocking, it is not a new
    problem. In 2003, the GAO placed the management of Federal
    buildings on its high risk list due to the high financial cost
    of underutilized space and the complex, seemingly unworkable
    process of actually disposing of these properties. Put more
    simply, like most things, the Federal footprint is too big, and
    it is nearly impossible to shrink.
        Recognizing the issues surrounding disposal, Congress, as
    the Chairman said, passed the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer
    Act, which was signed into law in 2016. To save taxpayer money,
    it aimed to streamline the disposal of unneeded Federal
    buildings, land, and structures. After completing the first two
    rounds of disposals, the Public Buildings Reform Board, the
    PBRB, identified numerous challenges impacting FASTA's overall
    effectiveness. We have an overall ineffective way to dispose of
    ineffective buildings.
        I partnered with Chairman Kelly, as he said, and introduced
    legislation to address these outstanding issues and help
    facilitate a successful final round. This legislation recently
    advanced out of the committee, and I, too, want to thank
    Chairman Kelly and his staff for their incredible efforts on
    this critical issue, and many of our colleagues on the
    committee and elsewhere.
        The Inflation Reduction Act, as the Chairman mentioned,
    which I did not support, provided over $3 billion for the GSA
    to carry out various climate initiatives. The idea of spending
    taxpayer money greenifying empty Federal buildings comes across
    as a headscratcher, to say the least. An empty building is
    already a waste. Adding new windows and a heat pump doesn't
    make the equation better. We need to be very targeted with
    those dollars.
        As the PBRB stated in its interim report to Congress
    earlier this year, the per-person carbon emissions from heating
    and cooling nearly empty buildings are indefensible. Forcing
    agencies back into the office to utilize its space or
    alternatively disposing of this unused space could provide
    significant emissions reductions. Yet, this Administration
    seems more interested in pressuring small businesses in the
    private sector to make changes while they themselves fail to
    take any meaningful action.
        The current practice of spending billions of taxpayer
    dollars each year to operate Federal buildings, regardless of
    their utilization, must come to an end. I remain committed to
    working in a bipartisan way on this committee to find
    solutions, because this problem cannot go unaddressed.
        I understand more than 50 percent of GSA's managed leases
    are set to expire by 2027. I encourage the agency to take full
    advantage of this opportunity to right-size the Federal real
    estate portfolio. In fact, I just think it would be derelict
    not to. I think we all need to do that, I think, as Congress
    and as agencies. In fact, with the several recent Supreme Court
    decisions on Major Questions doctrine and Chevron doctrine,
    realizing that the bureaucracy has gotten way beyond its
    constitutional and legal authorities, maybe this is a good time
    to find lots of ways to reduce the need for those buildings
    even further.
        I thank you, Commissioner Doomes. I really mean it when I
    say I appreciate your being here. I appreciate your openness to
    all of this, and I very much appreciate your background in the
    Congress of the United States in working on these issues long
    before getting to where you are today. I think it makes you
    uniquely suited for this job.
        I look forward to today's discussion.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
        I now want to introduce our witness at today's hearing, Mr.
    Elliot Doomes, the Commissioner of the Public Buildings
    Service. In this role, Commissioner Doomes manages the design,
    construction, leasing, building management, and disposal of
    approximately 360 million square feet of owned and leased space
    across the United States and our territories. Mr. Doomes has
    served in this role since October, and prior to that, served as
    Regional Administrator for the National Capital Region at GSA.
        Before joining GSA, Commissioner Doomes worked for the
    House of Representatives, where he began his career working for
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton from the District of
    Columbia. He has since served as a committee staffer on both
    the Authorizing and Appropriations Committees, which oversee
    the GSA.
        Commissioner Doomes received his bachelor's degree from
    Morehouse College and his J.D. (Juris Doctor) from Georgetown
    University.
        Commissioner Doomes, thank you for being here today. I want
    to recognize you for 5 minutes for your opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF ELLIOT DOOMES, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
              SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Doomes. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Kelly,
    Ranking Member Cramer, and distinguished members of the
    committee. My name is Elliot Doomes, and I am the Commissioner
    of the Public Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services
    Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    the subcommittee today to discuss GSA's public buildings.
        Today, I want to discuss two of our agency's signature
    initiatives: GSA's work to maximize the impact of the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act,
    and the opportunity to save taxpayer money through the
    government's real estate portfolio.
        The passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on
    November 15th, 2021 created a historic investment in our
    Nation's infrastructure. GSA received $3.4 billion to modernize
    dozens of land ports of entry. As many of our real estate
    projects do, BIL (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) investments
    serve as the catalyst for economic growth in communities and
    enable the government to better carry out its mission to serve
    the American people.
        Land ports of entry have additional benefits, as these
    modernizations improve our national security, facilitate
    commerce and trade, and better secure our borders. For example,
    in Arizona, GSA is building a new commercial land port of entry
    in Douglas while modernizing the existing Raul Hector Castro
    Land Port of Entry. The new commercial port will assume
    inspection operations from the Castro facility and facilitate
    the improved transport of goods and products. The new port will
    also improve safety by directing all pedestrian traffic onto
    improved sidewalks and expand security measures.
        Additional investments from the Inflation Reduction Act
    resulted in the single largest investment in the Nation's
    history to tackle the climate crisis. GSA received over $3
    billion from this Act to make our Federal buildings more
    sustainable, higher performing, and more cost efficient.
        For example, in Dunseith, North Dakota, GSA just announced
    a $98 million investment at a Dunseith land port of entry
    inspection facility to provide a new port building and
    inspection areas built with low embodied carbon materials. In
    total, GSA's IRA projects are expected to avoid $720 million in
    operating costs over 20 years. Using funds from the BIL and IRA
    will allow GSA to modernize the land port of entry in San Luis,
    Arizona, and replace fossil fuel equipment, making it our first
    net-zero land port of entry.
        While GSA is working to responsibly execute BIL and IRA, we
    also remain focused on optimizing our real estate portfolio.
    Our legislative proposals, like increasing the prospectus
    threshold and the Federal Buildings Fund fix, combined with
    GSA's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, are designed to help us
    get that done.
        Unfortunately, since Fiscal Year 2011, more than $10
    billion in rental payments paid into the Federal buildings fund
    have been diverted for purposes unrelated to Federal buildings.
    As a result, necessary repairs have been unfunded and have had
    to be resubmitted again. In Fiscal Year 2024, 13 out of 17
    major repairs and alteration projects in the budget were
    submissions from prior fiscal years because they went unfunded
    when submitted previously. Delays in carrying out these
    projects have driven the cost up by $300 million above the
    aggregate projects costs when they were first submitted.
        With access to the full value of our rent collections
    through the Federal Buildings Fund fix, legislative proposal,
    and the Fiscal Year 2025 budget, GSA could address necessary
    capital improvements like these in a timely manner, resulting
    in increased taxpayer savings and safer building conditions.
        Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2025 budget request includes
    a new program designed to allow for space consolidations. The
    requested $425 million investment is designed to support more
    space efficient tenant relocations to enable the disposal of
    underperforming assets. This, in turn, allows us to obtain
    savings through right size consolidations that drive agency
    rent cost savings in our owned assets.
        Underfunding of previous consolidation program requests has
    meant at least 120 missed consolidation opportunities and
    hundreds of millions in missed annual savings. The Fiscal Year
    2025 initiative supports space optimization and performance
    while delivering the best value in real estate to our customer
    agencies. At the same time, it will allow GSA to accelerate
    property disposal timelines.
        One example of how this fund could create a significant
    impact is a project planned in Boston, Massachusetts. The
    project aims to move the majority of the building's occupants
    from the Captain John F. Williams Coast Guard Building into the
    nearby John F. Kennedy Federal Building. GSA estimates that
    this $20 million consolidation project will avoid $30 million
    in repair liabilities and over $1 million in annual operation
    and maintenance costs.
        Full enactment of the President's Fiscal Year 2025
    proposals would enable GSA to continue improving building
    utilization rates and provide better services to Federal
    agencies and the community they serve. It would also give us
    the funding needed to address the elevator replacement at the
    Kennedy Federal Building and other outstanding projects.
        To conclude, through BIL and IRA, GSA has been able to
    modernize critical land ports of entry and other Federal
    buildings. We have shown what we can do when we have access to
    the resources we need. Congressional support for our Fiscal
    Year 2025 budget and legislative proposals, and especially our
    request for full access to our rent collections, will allow GSA
    to continue to meet the mission and needs of the Federal
    Government.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
    and I look forward to answering any questions that the
    committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doomes follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1842.020

        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Commissioner Doomes.
        I am going to start with 5 minutes of questions, and I want
    to followup on what you discussed in your opening statement
    about land ports of entry. I know you mentioned the Douglas
    port of entry projects, so let's start with these projects,
    which includes constructing the new commercial land port of
    entry, but also modernizing the existing port facility, the
    Raul Castro Land Port of Entry.
        I understand that GSA recently completed the NEPA process
    for the Douglas Port Projects. What additional steps need to be
    completed before GSA can begin the process of soliciting the
    bids on these projects, and then starting construction?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator. GSA
    conducted the NEPA process concurrently with the project
    development process. We issued a design build solicitation for
    the Douglas Commercial Land Port of Entry project on January
    19th, 2024. This procurement is moving through the process, and
    the award is slated for later this year in September.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Anything else once you submit the
    award? Can they then just immediately begin construction?
        Mr. Doomes. Yes. We expect that the construction schedule
    for the project will be about 3 years, so we expect a notice to
    proceed to happen shortly thereafter the award in September.
        Senator Kelly. You think it will take 3 years? That
    includes the new commercial port and the modernization of the
    existing port.
        Mr. Doomes. Well, to be clear, Senator, the Douglas
    commercial construction start is estimated for September 2025,
    but the Raul Hector Castro estimated construction start date is
    January 2027.
        Senator Kelly. Then, the expectation is within 3 years of
    2025 or 2027, the whole thing will be complete?
        Mr. Doomes. The Douglas will be done 3 years from September
    2025, and the Raul Hector Castro will be done by January 2030.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        I understand that you are working with both the city of
    Douglas and the State of Arizona to make sure that the new
    commercial port has the needed roadway and utility connections.
    I will note that my office has been working closely with the
    city and State as well to make sure that we are able to provide
    these connections. In fact, one of my top priorities for this
    year's appropriations process and securing the roadway funding
    for the new port of entry.
        Will you commit to keeping my office up to date on
    discussions that GSA is having with the city and State on any
    additional infrastructure needs for the Douglas Port?
        Mr. Doomes. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Region 9 is in
    regular communication with the Arizona Department of
    Transportation, county officials, and the city of Douglas. In
    June 2024, GSA received confirmation that the Arizona State
    Transportation Board approved the revised 5-year transportation
    facilities construction program that included funding requests
    for the James Ranch Road connector and other improvements along
    SR 80.
        This commitment to seek funds is a positive step toward the
    Arizona Department of Transportation providing the necessary
    support infrastructure to make that port operational. GSA will
    continue to followup on these infrastructure commitments, and I
    am committing that our Region 9 office will stay in constant
    communication with you as we move along the process.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you. This is important because
    it allows us to try to stay and get ahead of any additional
    need to make sure these are completed on time.
        I understand that one of the processes that has not been
    completed for the Douglas project is the National Historic
    Preservation Act review. Can you talk a little bit about how
    this review is going and what challenges do you face when
    building a modern port facility alongside historic buildings
    that may not meet the security needs for Custom and Border
    protection?
        I think it is important to note that for this facility, I
    hear from CBP a lot. I have visited this historic building.
    They have a lot of concerns with how this could possibly fit
    into a modern port. It doesn't seem that that is a suitable
    part of the design.
        Mr. Doomes. Sure. Senator, GSA and CBP have agreed to a
    master plan concept expanding the ports of the west. This
    expansion of the west allows a project to start approximately 1
    year earlier, and this concept allows greater flexibility in
    addressing the historic main building and garage.
        Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is
    ongoing, but the challenges include the security requirements
    of CBP, which, as a result of GSA's developing two sub-concepts
    meeting CBP security, which will be presented and discussed
    with CBP next week. Those concepts include adaptive reuse of
    the historic building and potential demolitions subject to the
    National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 consultation
    process that we do in concert with the State Historic Officer.
        But what I will tell you is that our Region 9 leadership,
    they have provided your office with status hearings, and we
    will continue to do so regarding the project and the future of
    the historic customs house. We continue to refine alternatives
    to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential effects to the
    historic properties through this Section 106 process.
        Any final decision on the management of the historic
    structures will be made during the continued consultation with
    the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and other
    consulting parties as required under Section 106.
        Senator Kelly. We may come back to that, but for now, I
    recognize Senator Cramer for 5 minutes.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you,
    Commissioner, for being here.
        I want to drill down a little bit on the GAO report from
    last year that I mentioned in my opening statement, which
    studied space utilization of Federal agencies and their
    headquarters buildings. To me, at least, and I think arguably,
    the most concerning finding of this report was the revelation
    that a majority of Federal agencies were using 25 percent or
    less of their headquarter building's space.
        But equally concerning to me is that the highest average of
    utilization was still less than 50 percent. That paints a
    pretty troubling picture of mismanagement, and maybe some of it
    is historical trends that have changed the way we utilize work
    space.
        Following the release of the report, can you give me some
    GSA actions that you have taken within this capacity to ensure
    the better usage of Federal office space where possible, and
    obviously, trying to find ways to limit the waste of taxpayer
    dollars, and then where it is not possible, what actions or
    what suggestions do you have going forward?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator Cramer.
        I agree. The report is concerning, and our goal is to
    optimize the portfolio. What I will say is that, we, in our
    Fiscal Year 2025 budget, we have two legislative proposals that
    I think will go a long way toward addressing that. One is, we
    are asking for full access to the Federal Buildings Fund. All
    the rent that the agencies pay to us, if we get full access to
    that, we think we can accelerate this consolidation process.
    Specifically, we have a Portfolio Optimization Fund of $425
    million.
        One of the problems in the past has been that agencies have
    to pay for furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and the moving
    costs, and they have not had that money. They have their own
    separate appropriation process to request those funds, and if
    an agency doesn't have those funds, we can not move them out
    and help them consolidate. For the first time ever, we are
    proposing that we are going to ask for the money, and then we
    are going to come to the table, and then we will be able to go
    to the agencies and say, you can amortize the cost that it is
    going to take to move and get new furniture. We are going to
    move you out of this space, and we are going to move you into
    additional spaces.
        I think, second of all, one of the things I would like to
    talk about is we have had some success in the past. We have had
    about 89 consolidation projects over the last eight fiscal
    years where we have requested money from Congress to
    reconfigure space and pull people either out of leased space,
    in their own space, or to reconfigure their own space and get
    more people in.
        We continue to put tools on the table. We have a workplace
    innovation lab where we bring agencies in and we show them six
    different neighborhoods, six different types of furniture, six
    different types of working styles to say, you can better
    utilize your space. We keep offering these tools to agencies,
    and a lot of agencies, once they see the opportunity to shrink
    their footprint, they look at this as operational savings. We
    are providing that tool.
        We have six Federal coworking spaces across the Nation, so
    for some agencies to say, if you are in a telework posture and
    you do not need this office space all the time, we will offer
    you a place where you can go and you can have your employees
    meet, work on projects, and not be permanent space. We are
    trying out these new things to tell agencies, you can shrink
    your footprint.
        I would also point out that in 2020, GSA has about 371
    million square feet. As of the end of 2023, we have about 363
    million square feet. We have shed eight million square feet
    over the last 4 years, and it is progress, but we can do more.
    That is why these legislative proposals are so important. We
    are going to have to spend some money in order to save some
    money.
        Senator Cramer. You make a really compelling case, and I
    appreciate that. I appreciate your creativity and viewing all
    of this real estate, while it is government, through more of a
    business lens. If I understand you correctly, if you had this
    legislative authority and you actually had access, almost like
    if you were the landlord, to the dollars, you would have more
    flexibility to view the savings versus the cost.
        Earlier, in your opening statement, you talked about what
    it ``costs'' to consolidate. I am thinking to myself,
    consolidation should be its own reward, but it is not always in
    the bureaucratic system that is somewhat necessary in
    government. In my understanding, if you had that flexibility
    and access to that money, you could use that money and make a
    case for the long-term savings rather than the annual
    appropriation?
        Mr. Doomes. Yes. I will give you an example. In the city of
    Chicago, the Lipinski Building, the Railroad Retirement Board
    is there. That space is underutilized. We are requesting funds
    so we can move those workers out of that space into the
    Metcalfe Building in Chicago, and then possibly dispose of the
    Lipinski Building.
        That building is underutilized. We want to fortify, work on
    the HVAC, work on the building infrastructure in the Metcalfe
    Building, pull those people out of that building, and then
    possibly sell the Lipinski building.
        In November of last year, we announced 23 properties that
    we planned to dispose of, and those are all in various levels
    of, there are some Federal employees or the building is vacant,
    and we want to get people out of that space and move them into
    existing space. Sometimes, we are moving them into owned space,
    because oftentimes, that is the most cost effective.
        There are some opportunities, we are saying, well, the
    lease rates are so low, we want to move you out of this space
    and move you into a much smaller space, and then there is also
    the savings of the deferred maintenance that we will not be
    doing in that building. That is something, as a part of our
    national portfolio plan, that we have been working on, to
    identify buildings that have a significant amount of deferred
    maintenance, underutilized, and looking at other Federal space
    there to say, where can we do this consolidation?
        Once again, it is going to take spending some money to save
    money, and why we are asking for this legislative proposal to
    give us full access to the Federal Buildings Fund as well as
    the Space Optimization Fund, because we really think the
    footprint has shrunk over the last 10 years. I think in 2013,
    we had 378 million square feet, and now, as I mentioned before,
    we are now down to 363.
        We can do more; we just need the full funding. We managed
    to do that missing almost $1 billion a year in our annual
    appropriations, but if we had gotten more funding, the
    footprint would be smaller today.
        Senator Cramer. I like your business-like approach to it.
    My time is up, so I will get to some more things later, keep
    making that case. I think the more data you can provide in the
    out years, the savings side of the formula, the more compelling
    your case is to appropriators. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you very much for your service. We appreciate it very much.
        I want to talk first about the Federal courthouse in
    Baltimore. About 20, 25 years ago, it was first on the list for
    replacement. It was poorly designed from its inception. It has
    had numerous problems over its years. It is, in my view, not up
    to the standards that we want to see in a Federal courthouse.
        Now, the standards for building new courthouses have
    changed over the last 20 or 30 years, and therefore the
    Baltimore courthouse has been overlooked because its size does
    not reflect, or the security issues, it has been different
    standards used.
        It does present some security challenges. Its construction
    is similar to the Oklahoma building, so it does have security
    issues, as well. The heating has never been right. Last year,
    we placed $1.5 million in the budget for the GSA to review the
    options of either replacing or substantially changing the
    building.
        Can you tell us the status of how that is proceeding, and
    whether you are personally aware of the challenges in the
    Baltimore courthouse?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator.
        I am aware of the issues related to that, as well as the
    $1.5 million we received in the previous appropriations bill to
    do a feasibility study to study the issues associated with that
    building.
        GSA is currently in the process of developing a scope to
    complete this study, which includes evaluating the existing
    Garmatz facility to meet the long-term needs of the court and
    evaluate first cost and life cycle cost of Garmatz compared to
    new construction. Whenever we do these feasibility studies, we
    look at the opportunity to either alter the facility, build an
    annex, or do new construction.
        We work very closely with the courts. The judiciary is our
    biggest customer. They put together a priority list based on
    the needs of their portfolio, and GSA is there to execute that.
    The judiciary is our partner, and I meet regularly with the
    chair of the Judicial Space and Facilities Committee on what
    the courts' priorities are.
        Senator Cardin. I hope you have a chance to meet with Judge
    Russell and Judge Padar. Judge Padar is the retiring chief
    judge, and Judge Russell is coming in as the new chief.
        Senator Van Hollen and I had an opportunity to tour the
    facilities a few months back, and it is shocking to see some of
    the challenges they have. For example, the jurors in a trial
    have to walk past the defendants in the trial when they
    deliberate, which is not something you want to see in our
    judicial system. That is just one of the major challenges they
    have in that courthouse.
        I would just ask that you personally, at some time, have a
    chance to meet with our judicial leadership in Baltimore and
    see firsthand the challenges we have in that courthouse.
        Mr. Doomes. Senator Cardin, I will absolutely commit to
    meeting with the Chief Judge, both the outgoing and the
    incoming Chief Judge to hear about what their issues are. As I
    mentioned, the judiciary is one of our biggest customers. We
    work with them all the time about their priorities and dealing
    with the circulation issues associated with, as you probably
    know, most courts have three separate circulation patterns: one
    for the public, one for prisoners, and one for the judicial
    officials. That is necessary to provide a safe courthouse. I
    will absolutely be engaged on this topic.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        The second issue I just really want to reinforce is the
    consolidation of the FBI. The GSA has been very clear about the
    need to do that, and moving forward, Congress has appropriated
    significant funds for the consolidation efforts. They have
    selected the Greenbelt location for consolidations.
        I just want to reinforce the need that that move is as
    prompt as possible. The current facilities in D.C. are totally
    inadequate. Any comments that you have in regards to that
    progress?
        Mr. Doomes. I agree. We believe that Greenbelt is the best
    answer for the FBI. We are moving forward. We appreciate the
    funding that we have received from Congress, and we are waiting
    for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the
    House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to approve
    resolutions authorizing that project, and we will move forward.
        As it stands now, we are doing some of the due diligence
    associated with acquiring the Greenbelt site, but we will not
    acquire the site until Congress definitively authorizes the
    project.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        Commissioner Doomes, how are conversations going with the
    State Department and the government of Mexico on all these
    updates, but specifically for the Douglas Port? I imagine you
    are routinely having negotiations and conversations with the
    government of Mexico, and in general, what challenges does GSA
    face when you are working with Mexico on aligning the port
    infrastructure on each side of the border?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator. What I
    will tell you is that we do have, within Region 9 and along the
    border, GSA officials that are dedicated to meeting with
    government officials from Mexico. Right now, I would say that
    the progress has been good, and they have been partners on this
    land port of entry and several others around the Country. We
    have no reason to believe that we are going to have any
    problems moving forward.
        Senator Kelly. I mentioned in my opening statement that we
    are excited that GSA was able to use some of the funding from
    the Inflation Reduction Act to complete the San Luis Port of
    Entry. Are there any plans right now to utilize additional IRA
    funding for the Douglas projects? If that is the case, can you
    explain what that money is going to be used for?
        Mr. Doomes. With the Douglas Land Port of Entry, we
    anticipate using both funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law as well as the Inflation Reduction Act. As you know, there
    are several buckets of money within the IRA. Some of the money
    is dedicated for low embodied carbon materials, some of it for
    emerging and sustainable technology, and then some to convert
    buildings into high performance green buildings. I believe the
    Douglas project has money from all three buckets.
        When we are talking about low embodied carbon materials, we
    are talking about the concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass, so
    that funding will go there. Then, some of the things that help
    us achieve our goal of a net-zero emissions facility come from
    the Emerging and Sustainable Technology Funds, funding for
    things like photovoltaics and other energy-saving technologies
    that we are now standardized to use in building buildings.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. I know we have been bouncing
    around here between Douglas and San Luis. I want to go back to
    San Luis for a second. Have there been any lessons learned when
    working on the San Luis project that you will be able to apply
    to other land ports of entry and other projects that are going
    to get IRA funding?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator. As you
    know, San Luis is currently under construction, but a recurring
    challenge we have faced in remote areas, along the southern
    border in particular, is the availability of low embodied
    concrete. In the case of San Luis, the contractor was able to
    source materials from Yuma, Arizona. Additional market outreach
    and responsiveness is showing improvements in the El Paso area,
    where we are building another land port of entry.
        Because GSA is leveraging Inflation Reduction Act dollars
    to support the BIL program, it is essential that we have
    material availability of low embodied carbon materials. That
    has been a challenge, but we have been working through that,
    because the IRA money essentially acts as a glue for the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law money to build these 26 land
    ports of entry along the southern and northern border.
        Senator Kelly. Again, on the San Luis Port of Entry,
    earlier, we talked about the completion dates for Douglas and
    Raul. Is San Luis still on track for 2028 completion?
        Mr. Doomes. Right now, Senator, the plan completion date
    for this project remains April 2029. The contractor broke
    ground earlier than originally planned, and we will continue to
    work closely with them and our Federal customers to finish the
    project sooner, if at all possible.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Senator Cramer?
        Senator Cramer. Thank you. I wanted to followup and maybe
    pick up where I left off, referring to the GAO report. I also
    want to refer to, the Office of the Inspector General, I think,
    in GSA did a report relating to contractors and some of them
    that are not living up to the contracts, the GSA contracts, and
    lax oversight over some of that that is costing money.
        Could you address that a little bit and tell me what you
    are doing to address those specific reports? Because they were
    pretty scathing in several areas. It almost looked like some of
    these contractors were just skating past the rules of the
    contract with GSA. I am wondering if there is some discipline
    being implemented that could bring that closer to in line.
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator Cramer. I
    agree. I am familiar with that Inspector General report about
    how GSA is managing their repair and maintenance contractors.
    There was lax oversight, as they identified, and we have taken
    some remedial measures to ensure that the contractors are
    executing what GSA has contracted to do.
        We are also moving nationwide to a new model of oversight
    of our contractors. We call it the Facilities Engineering Model
    that we have fully implemented here in the National Capital
    region, which is our largest region, as well as Region 3, in
    order to increase the amount of oversight and essentially make
    sure that people are doing what they say they are going to do
    and maintain these buildings.
        Senator Cramer. I appreciate that.
        Another report I want to get into is the, actually it gets
    back to underutilized buildings, but in the Public Buildings
    Reform Board, they concluded that billions of dollars are being
    spent on buildings we should be disposing of, in the new normal
    of low occupancy.
        But we do have an opportunity. I mentioned in my opening
    statement that over 50 percent of the leases are going to
    expire in 2027. Taking that, just presuming it is a high number
    anyway, that are coming up due, and then you have
    underutilization. You are on a trajectory for more
    consolidation, and disposal sounds like a great idea.
        But I have a rather basic market question. Is there a
    market? In other words, if you have all of this wonderful, I
    should not even call it wonderful, all of this space, obviously
    various degrees of utilization appropriate for modern business,
    obviously some limitations. What can you tell me about the
    market for buildings that might be able to be disposed of if
    there was just a buyer?
        Mr. Doomes. That is a great question, Senator Cramer. What
    I will tell you is that it depends. These projects and these
    buildings run the spectrum. In November 2023, as I mentioned
    before, we announced that we had a plan to dispose of 23
    properties. One of them was the Nebraska Avenue Complex here in
    Washington, DC. where the Department of Homeland Security used
    to be located before their relocation over to the West Campus
    of Saint Elizabeth's.
        There is one last component building on the Nebraska Avenue
    Complex, the Intelligence and Analysis Unit of the Department
    of Homeland Security. We are requesting funding in Fiscal Year
    2025 to build a new, smaller facility on the Saint Elizabeth's
    Campus. When we dispose of that, when we get that funding and
    build that building, we can sell that piece of property, which
    is located next to American University in a residential
    neighborhood in Washington, DC. There is going to be a great
    market for that piece of property.
        We also just recently announced that we are going to be
    selling the Liberty Loan Building here in Washington, DC. right
    along the Tidal Basin. There were about 200 U.S. Mint employees
    there, and we worked with the U.S. Mint to move them to their
    headquarters in downtown D.C. Once that building is vacant, we
    have a plan to sell that, as well as the Webster School here in
    Washington, DC. There is a robust residential market here in
    Washington, DC, so we are going to be able to more easily
    dispose of those properties.
        But as a part of our national portfolio plan, we have
    looked at all of our assets, and we have looked at the vacancy
    rate. We have looked at how much rent the agencies are paying
    versus how much it costs to operate the building, and we are
    trying to make decisions with our IRA dollars to only invest in
    core assets, buildings that we intend and think will be a long-
    term hold, and then to dispose of those assets. We do not come
    into it with a presupposition about what the value of that
    building is, because we have the authority to sometimes dispose
    of these buildings at no cost, depending on the use for public
    benefit conveyances.
        A great example is, there was a piece of property next to
    the San Francisco Courthouse. We disposed of that, and it went
    to a homeless service provider, and they were able to throw up
    250 units of affordable housing that was badly needed in the
    city of San Francisco.
        Now, it is not our mission to be in affordable housing, but
    it is our mission to dispose of things we do not need, because
    we want to lower our operational costs. That is what we have
    been able to do with those 89 consolidations I talked about.
    With the $330 million worth of funding we have gotten over the
    last 8 years, we were able to not only dispose of things that
    we do not need, but we were able to do avoidance and
    operational costs, and then sometimes, generate money.
        Right now, we are selling a piece of property in Laguna
    Niguel, California. It is an open bid with 3 weeks left, and
    our great disposal team has gotten a bid of $125 million in
    Laguna Niguel, California. We are excited about that, and
    selling that property and others.
        Senator Cramer. For sure, not all real estate is created
    equal, and so I think we all understand that, but it is a good
    reminder. Frankly, I appreciate your San Francisco example,
    because while you are not in the business of providing
    shelters, you are in the business of the public good. Using an
    asset for a public good adds value, whether you get a penny for
    it or not, as well as disposing of it.
        Well, good luck to you. Continue with some of the
    recommendations where we can be helpful. I think we are in the
    mood to be very helpful. We are in the mood to be very
    specific, if it is useful. We will encourage you and authorize
    you to a certain degree, but to the degree that we can be even
    more specific to give you even more juice, if you will, toward
    your goals. Please know we are open to that.
        Mr. Doomes. I really appreciate that, Senator Cramer,
    because getting full access to the Federal Buildings Fund and
    all the rent that agencies are paying to us provides a real
    bang for the buck for taxpayers. We are going to have to spend
    a little money, but we have already been on a great trajectory
    over the last 10 years in disposing of space.
        You mentioned earlier that over 50 percent of our leases
    are coming up in the next 5 years, and although it is agency by
    agency, I will tell you the trend is agencies are giving up
    space. They understand we are bringing our workplace workspace
    experts to work with these agencies to say, how often are
    people in? What kind of work do you do? Maybe you do not need
    all that space. Let's come back and let's give some of that
    space back.
        Senator Cramer. What would happen if we just brought all of
    the people that are working at home back to work? Another
    question, I know I am well past my time, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator. Earlier, we talked about
    Douglas and Raul and San Luis Port of Entry. I do not want to
    leave out another in Arizona, which is the Deconcini Land Port
    of Entry that is in Nogales. This project was not included in
    the list of projects funded in the Infrastructure Law, but
    candidly, I hope this can be the first port project that is
    funded after the IIJA projects are completed.
        So, in 2022, that is why Senator Sinema and I secured
    dedicated funding for a feasibility study for the modernization
    of the Deconcini Port of Entry. The last update that we
    received is that the feasibility study for Deconcini will be
    completed by the end of this fiscal year. Commissioner, do you
    have any information on that? Is that still accurate?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator. What I
    will tell you is that GSA has been working with the Customs
    Border and Protection and key regional stakeholders on this
    feasibility study. In order to address the complexity of
    phasing, we do not anticipate that the final document will be
    completed, unfortunately, until the first quarter of Fiscal
    Year 2025. We are moving forward with that, and we understand
    that our partners at CBP place a high priority on this project.
        Senator Kelly. Yes, about 3 months, so that is fine. I am
    looking forward to seeing the study. I understand that last
    year's Appropriations bill directed GSA and CBP to work
    together to develop a new 5-year port of entry capital
    infrastructure plan. Once the feasibility study is completed in
    Q1 of next year, do you believe that the Deconcini Port of
    Entry project will be included on that list?
        Mr. Doomes. Well, GSA and CBP, we have a well-established
    collaborative planning process to ensure that CBP's mission
    needs are reflected in the priorities of the plan. We are going
    to work with them, but I am going to defer to the Customs
    Border and Protection about the status of issuing that plan and
    what priority list that they are on. We stand at the ready to
    help them execute that and to build more land ports of entry in
    Arizona.
        Senator Kelly. You probably do not have any information on
    when you expect that plan to be finalized, then, either?
        Mr. Doomes. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get an
    update from CBP on the status of issuing the plan, but we will
    followup with your staff to get you a better date.
        Senator Kelly. Okay, I appreciate that.
        I also want to get an update on how the IIJA port funding
    and IRA funding is going, more broadly, so not just for
    Arizona. Of the 20 land port of entry projects funded in the
    Infrastructure Law, how many of these projects, of these 20,
    have been initiated?
        Mr. Doomes. Well, actually, I have some great information
    on that. There are 26 land ports of entry that were funded in
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. All 26 were required to go
    through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
    Ten of those NEPAs are complete; eight will be complete in
    2024, and the remaining eight will be finished in 2025. Twenty-
    four of those 26 land ports of entry required site acquisition
    of adjacent properties, and all of those are in various stages
    per project.
        Just to speak a little bit more broadly about it, 23 of
    these land ports of entry are planned for full electrification.
    Two, including the one on San Luis, are planned for net-zero
    emissions, and San Luis and Dunseith will be first and second
    net-zero, all electric land ports of entry using low embodied
    carbon materials.
        Senator Kelly. It sounds like sometime around after 2028, I
    think, then all of the port projects will be under
    construction. Does that sound right?
        Mr. Doomes. Yes, sir, I think that is a reasonable
    assumption moving forward, since we will be done with the NEPA
    on the 25, and then we will start the solicitation process, and
    then moving forward from there.
        But I will caution, they are all of various different
    sizes. The one in El Paso versus Brownsville versus Madawaska,
    they all present different challenges, especially considering
    the one in Alaska. Some of these are in remote areas. Some of
    them will have problems getting low embodied carbon materials.
    We continue to market and work with members of the private
    sector to make sure that we have a robust market for these Land
    Port of Entries (LPOEs).
        Senator Kelly. Okay, I have some more questions, then I do
    know we do have Senator Markey and Merkley on their way here.
        Have we been able to get any benefits or efficiencies that
    you can point to because we have invested in multiple port
    projects at the same time?
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator. GSA is
    looking at all the opportunities to realize efficiencies and
    economies of scale when delivering the land ports of entry.
    Each port has its own unique requirements and characteristics,
    which requires a careful balance between meeting well--
    established GSA and CBP standards while adjusting for unique
    conditions on the ground.
        With that said, we have been working closely with CBP to
    apply consistent design standards across the program. GSA and
    CBP leadership have established a shared governance structure
    to facilitate timely decisionmaking across the program, and we
    have a community of practice to ensure personnel are actively
    collaborating on efficient and effective design solutions.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        If Senator Markey is ready, I can recognize him for 5
    minutes. I will give you six.
        Senator Markey. I should get the extra minute.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. Commissioner Doomes, in Massachusetts, we
    have buildings that are under the GSA's control, but are not
    getting the attention and investment they need to keep workers
    safe. The JFK Federal Building in Boston, which houses members
    of both my and Senator Warren's staff, is in dire need of
    repairs. In addition to our teams, more than 2,000 thousand
    other people work in the JFK building, including the GSA staff
    itself.
        I appreciate that GSA has proposed the repair and
    alteration project for ``emergent need and life safety concerns
    with the elevators in the buildings.'' We have seen more than
    100 elevator entrapments in the past 3 years alone, and that is
    every staff member on Senator Warren's staff, my staff, all the
    other 2,000 people that work in the building. That is 100 times
    when someone is coming to work or coming for Federal aid that
    has been put in danger. Immigration is in the building, just so
    many Federal agencies are there.
        Commissioner Doomes, if this funding is appropriated, how
    fast would it take for that work to be completed? It has been
    going on for a long, long time.
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator Markey,
    and I share your concern.
        In our Fiscal Year 2025 budget, as you mentioned, we
    proposed spending $25 million to address these problems. If the
    prospectus was authorized and appropriated in Fiscal Year 2025,
    anticipated construction completion is projected to be Fiscal
    Year 2027. We will move as expeditiously as possible to get
    this done, and once we receive authorization and approval.
        Senator Markey. It would take two to 3 years from now to
    fix the elevators in that building?
        Mr. Doomes. Yes, Senator. What I will tell you is that in
    Fiscal Year 2022, we requested funding to address this. You are
    absolutely right; the elevator controls and equipment are past
    their serviceable life, and proprietary replacement parts are
    no longer manufactured. There is a real problem there, and as
    soon as we have the funding, we will move forward and address
    this issue.
        Senator Markey. What can we do here in Congress to make
    sure that Federal buildings like the JFK building are
    maintained so that workers are safe and visitors are protected?
        Mr. Doomes. I share your concern. As I have shared with the
    Chairman and Ranking Member, GSA has not gotten full access to
    the Federal Buildings Fund for well over a decade. We have been
    missing about $1 billion of spending that we would normally
    invest in our portfolio that we have not been able to get
    access to.
        Which is why, in our Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal, we
    have asked for, essentially, a budgetary fix to give us full
    access so that we can address emerging problems like the one
    you just identified.
        Senator Markey. Let me move on to the GSA's portfolio
    optimization strategy, which has proposed to dispose of the
    Hastings Keith Federal Building in New Bedford, a deeply
    concerning and unnecessary proposal. This decision was made
    without any consultation with Senator Warren or with any
    members of our congressional delegation, with the New Bedford
    Mayor, their leaders, or the current tenants of the building.
        It would also potentially put convenient Social Security
    services and other Federal services at risk for the tens of
    thousands of people in New Bedford and the broader metropolitan
    area.
        So, Commissioner Doomes, can you commit to me that you will
    not move forward with this decision to jeopardize government
    services in New Bedford, especially without getting a better
    understanding of what the tenants want, and what GSA intends
    for the new Federal footprint in New Bedford?
        Mr. Doomes. Senator Markey, I can make a commitment that we
    will continue to work with your office on this issue. I think
    we just recently responded to a letter from both you and
    Senator Warren outlining your concerns there, and we will
    continue to work with you to try to see if we can assuage your
    concerns to make sure that there is no disruption of services
    to your constituents.
        Senator Markey. Again, New Bedford just doesn't deserve to
    get railroaded by GSA's process. I wrote to GSA regarding this
    issue in February, so I hope GSA will respond by taking
    Hastings Keith off the disposition list, at least until a more
    robust assessment takes place.
        Finally, food waste generates 8 percent of human-caused
    greenhouse gas emissions every year. Here in the United States,
    the Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2021 that food
    waste contributed as many climate-warming emissions as 42 coal-
    burning power plants do in a year.
        We have the solution to tackle that problem right now.
    Keeping food waste from the landfill and instead putting
    nutrients back into soil not only curbs methane emissions, but
    also promotes healthy harvest practices. We have an opportunity
    to model and lead on sustainable building operations with our
    Federal building stock.
        Commissioner Doomes, with 8,397 Federal buildings that have
    cafeterias or food providers, what support would you need from
    Congress to stand up a pilot effectively composting programs?
        Mr. Doomes. Senator, what I can do is I can commit to
    working with your staff on seeing what the possibilities are of
    exploring, having a pilot program related to compost.
        Senator Markey. Do you support the concept of moving to
    composting?
        Mr. Doomes. Senator, I think it sounds like a great idea,
    but I would like to sit down with the staff and work through
    and see about how we might actually be able to facilitate
    having that happen.
        Senator Markey. Well, again, the President has committed to
    fighting unnecessary greenhouse gases, and I think starting
    with Federal Government buildings is a big part of it. I look
    forward to working with you on that, because we do need to put
    a program in place.
        Mr. Doomes. Absolutely. I can promise you that there will
    be a partnership here.
        Senator Markey. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        Senator Merkley?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner, good to have you with us today.
        I am the lead sponsor of a bill called Work to Save Lives
    Act, which encourages the Occupational Safety and Health
    Commission to issue guidance regarding opioid overdose reversal
    medication being present and available to utilize. I was very
    pleased when, in December 2023, Health and Human Services (HHS)
    and the General Service Administration (GSA) announced updated
    guidance suggesting that opioid overdose reversal agents, like
    naloxone, be included onsite at Federal facilities.
        Can you give us an update on whether this has been
    thoroughly implemented, or if not thoroughly implemented, where
    we stand in that process?
        Mr. Doomes. Sure. Thank you for that question, Senator
    Merkley.
        In response to the directives contained in the Fiscal Year
    2023 House report language, HHS and GSA issued an update
    notification for safety station guidelines for Federal
    facilities through the Federal management regulations.
        The essential elements of a safety station program in
    Federal facilities now include opioid reversal agents. However,
    the cost and expenses to establish and operate the safety
    station program are the responsibility of the occupant agency
    or agency sponsoring the program. We continue to work with them
    to facilitate that happening.
        Senator Merkley. What percent of Federal facilities now
    have such reversal agents onsite?
        Mr. Doomes. Senator, I do not have that information right
    now, but I will make sure that we followup with your staff to
    provide that information.
        Senator Merkley. Do you have any sense of what agencies
    have implemented it and kind of are the guiding star to other
    agencies?
        Mr. Doomes. No, I do not know that, outside of our issuance
    of the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) regulation related
    to this. I do not know how many agencies have actually adapted
    that, but we will work to find out, because I am sure that we
    are hoping to provide that on the other side of the House, the
    Federal Acquisition Service, on that. We will get back to you,
    sir.
        Senator Merkley. Okay, great, because from what you are
    saying, you are not giving me any information that anyone has
    actually acted.
        Mr. Doomes. This is pretty recently that it has been
    implemented, but we will get back to you and provide that
    information.
        Senator Merkley. Okay, no, I take your point. We are just 6
    months into the process, and I would appreciate that. I think
    that by drawing attention to it, we will be addressing a
    significant factor.
        We found out a few years ago with a survey that the
    National Safety Council did that three-quarters of employers
    reported that opioid use was impacting their worksite, meaning
    that it was impacting a significant share of their employees.
    Given the overdoses we have been experiencing, it seems like,
    for us to set a good example for the Nation and to have these
    reversal agents available.
        I would like to see us do the same thing here. I initially,
    I asked my staff to look into it here in the Senate, I just
    shared this with my colleagues, and the answer is, there is an
    obstacle here, as well. I am pursuing that separately, and I
    will followup with you all.
        I want to turn to the use of mass timber. Mass timber has
    been a particularly interesting technology. There is a whole
    set of different types, cross laminated timber, mass plywood,
    and so forth, that enable us to build very tall buildings with
    timber instead of concrete and steel.
        This certainly has climate implications because of the
    amount of energy that concrete and steel takes, but it also
    involves the fact that you can do some very beautiful buildings
    in wood, that they are very fire resistant, that they are more
    flexible in earthquakes. There is a whole series of advantages,
    and they store carbon and can be built faster than a concrete
    and steel building.
        We included language which said, in part, the GSA should
    evaluate the use of wood products as green building materials
    and their potential aid in carbon storage, which can deliver a
    cost effective and sustainable path to excessive hazardous fuel
    loads. This is a reference to our forests. We are pulling out
    and thinning forests, taking out the overgrowth, the second
    growth, forests that are too close together, that really
    increases the risk of fire, which we see in the west all the
    time.
        So there is a win both in terms of how you build buildings,
    but also in creating a market for small diameter products,
    which encourages thinning, which makes our forests more fire
    resilient. It is a win on both ends.
        What we did was allocate $2 billion for these better
    construction materials, but we are getting the report that the
    agency is prioritizing concrete and glass and asphalt and
    steel, and has not included mass timber or other innovative
    wood products in utilizing these funds.
        I want to know why not.
        Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Senator Merkley. I
    know that my team here at the Public Buildings Service has been
    actively working with your staff on these and other potential
    benefits of mass timber construction projects. I would point
    out that the Seattle Federal Center South project used salvaged
    timber and innovative wood products. We think mass timber
    should be considered for design proposals and can be
    implemented when its use aligns with design performance
    requirements and life cycle costs analysis.
        We are looking at the possibility of including it in our
    P100 facility standards, which establishes mandatory design
    standards and performance criteria for federally owned
    buildings under GSA's jurisdiction custody and control. It is
    under consideration, and we will continue to work with your
    staff on this.
        Senator Merkley. Okay, well I am not satisfied that it is
    simply under consideration. I want to see some real action in
    terms of utilizing mass timber for all of these advantages.
        Proceeding to use the funds that we set for more efficient
    materials and then using it for concrete is exactly not the
    way. Concrete and steel are not effective in terms of energy,
    and when we set aside, when Congress gives specific
    instructions to, say, utilize and explore this possibility, it
    needs to actually be actively pursued rather than just
    reporting back that you are thinking about it someday, somehow,
    somewhere, or in the distant future.
        Mr. Doomes. Understood, sir. We will followup.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kelly. Senator Cramer?
        Senator Cramer. Thank you. Just a couple of things.
    Commissioner, you talked about the legislation, you just
    mentioned it with Senator Merkley as well, that would authorize
    you to have access to all of the rent, basically, the Building
    Funds. What about the sale of buildings? Does the agency get to
    keep that revenue?
        Mr. Doomes. Unfortunately, no, Senator. Thank you for that
    question. We do not have the ability to use sale proceeds
    without coming back to Congress for another appropriation.
        Senator Cramer. Okay. I mean, if you have a thought on that
    or a recommendation, and it may not be as simple as just
    letting you have all of it, because you all might go out and
    have a fire sale tomorrow, and you know, we wouldn't have any
    buildings, but I do not think you would.
        I do like the idea of, there is a little more incentive,
    while it is not necessarily a personal incentive, it certainly
    is an agency incentive that would be added if you were able to
    keep that money as well and put it toward use in the entire
    portfolio and not just a particular agency.
        Mr. Doomes. Senator Cramer, I agree with you that retention
    of proceeds can be a powerful motivator to get agencies.
    Oftentimes, as I have worked on these issues over the years, an
    agency has to decide between their mission need and then this
    idea that they are going to use money to prepare a property to
    be sold, and then they do not have access to the proceeds. You
    have misaligned incentives.
        Senator Cramer. Right.
        Mr. Doomes. We are doing some innovative things. One of the
    projects we are most proud of is the Volpe project in
    Massachusetts, where the Department of Transportation
    controlled 14 acres of land, and they had a building there.
    This building was right between Harvard and MIT.
        A developer came and said, you know what, I would like to
    be on this piece of property. We worked out a first-of-its-kind
    agreement where we exchanged, and they built GSA a brand new
    building on 4 of those 14 acres, and we turned over the other
    10 acres in payment, and we got a brand new building. There, we
    were able to do an exchange and get a brand new building, and
    everybody was really excited about that, because we took that
    value from that site and used it to provide a new building.
        I think, if we had more access to these funds, if there was
    retention of proceeds, obviously, subject to congressional
    oversight, it might go a long way, but we are still moving fast
    ahead. In November, we announced 23 properties we would like to
    sell that we are currently preparing because it is the right
    thing to do.
        As I mentioned before, we get the savings of reduced
    operational costs. If we were able to get the funding to fund
    the Intelligence and Analysis Unit and move that over to Saint
    Elizabeth's campus, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is
    going to get savings from no longer having to provide the same
    level of security around the Nebraska Avenue Complex.
        It is going to be good for the taxpayers when we sell that
    site to either residential developers or a local university.
    This is all-around value, but we could increase the incentives
    by giving us retention of proceeds.
        Senator Cramer. I like, as I said right up front, I like
    your business-like approach. I would like to be helpful.
        Mr. Chairman, with that, we would be remiss at this point,
    I think, if we didn't take the opportunity, while we have been
    sitting here, the news has broken that the former Chairman of
    the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jim Inhofe,
    passed away overnight. Senator Inhofe sat right here for most
    of my time on this committee when he was here. Both Senator
    Kelly and I served with him as well on the Armed Services
    Committee.
        Jim, just a giant of a guy, of course, who was responsible
    for a lot of very good policy that came out of this committee
    and our other committees. A true patriot in so many, many ways.
    I loved him; he was a real mentor, and a father-like figure
    when I got to this committee and I got on the Armed Services
    Committee, he was always, he was kind of a member's chairman. I
    always appreciated that about Jim.
        But more than anything, what I appreciate about Jim had
    nothing to do with legislating. It had to do with his
    incredible diplomacy, particularly in the continent of Africa,
    where he took full advantage of his influence and persuasive
    skills, as well as his position, to do good diplomatic work in
    Africa, particularly in the name of Jesus. Jim was a man of
    tremendous faith and never missed a prayer breakfast, and very
    involved in the national prayer breakfast movement, as well.
        We mourn his loss tonight. We are grateful today, grateful
    for his incredible testimony and witness to all of us who had
    the great honor of serving with him and for many, many people
    who didn't have that honor. He was a person of tremendous
    influence and leaves a great legacy. We will miss him dearly.
        Senator Kelly. I would like to second that. I served with
    Senator Inhofe on the Armed Services Committee, and we had a
    mutual interest in aviation. I enjoyed talking to him about his
    exploits in airplanes. Even up to the age of 85, he was still,
    when he left the U.S. Senate, was still flying. He will be
    missed.
        In closing, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for being
    here today, for appearing here before this committee, and your
    service at GSA.
        Before we adjourn, I just want to explain that Senators can
    submit written questions for the record by 4 p.m. on Tuesday,
    July 23d, which is 2 weeks from today. We are going to compile
    those questions. We are going to send them over to your office.
    We ask for a reply by Tuesday, August 6th.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
        [Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]