    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                CUTTING COSTS, ADDING VALUE: THE FUTURE
                           OF FEDERAL PROPERTY
    =======================================================================

                                    (119-31)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
                             EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 11, 2025

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

    �                               __________

    �                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-336 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    =====================================================================�

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

      		Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
    		Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member

    Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
      District of Columbia               Arkansas,
    Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman
    John Garamendi, California           Daniel Webster, Florida
    Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky
    Andre Carson, Indiana                Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
    Dina Titus, Nevada                   Brian Babin, Texas
    Jared Huffman, California            David Rouzer, North Carolina
    Julia Brownley, California           Mike Bost, Illinois
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Doug LaMalfa, California
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
    Salud O. Carbajal, California        Brian J. Mast, Florida
    Greg Stanton, Arizona                Pete Stauber, Minnesota
    Sharice Davids, Kansas               Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
    Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
    Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Tracey Mann, Kansas
    Patrick Ryan, New York               Burgess Owens, Utah
    Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Eric Burlison, Missouri
    Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Collins, Georgia
      Vice Ranking Member                Mike Ezell, Mississippi
    Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Kevin Kiley, California
    Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Vince Fong, California
    Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tony Wied, Wisconsin
    Robert Garcia, California            Tom Barrett, Michigan
    Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
    Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
    Laura Friedman, California           Pennsylvania
    Laura Gillen, New York               Jeff Hurd, Colorado
    Shomari Figures, Alabama             Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
    Maxwell Frost, Florida               Addison P. McDowell, North
                                         Carolina
                                         David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                         Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                         Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                           Northern Mariana Islands
                                         Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                         Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
                                         Jimmy Patronis, Florida
                                    ------                                7

          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                              Emergency Management

        Scott Perry, Pennsylvania,
                 Chairman
      Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking
                  Member
    Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Mike Ezell, Mississippi
      District of Columbia               Kevin Kiley, California
    Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Tom Barrett, Michigan
    Shomari Figures, Alabama             Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
    John Garamendi, California           Pennsylvania
    Dina Titus, Nevada                   Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
    Laura Friedman, California,            Northern Mariana Islands
      Vice Ranking Member                Mike Kennedy, Utah
    Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri,
                                           Vice Chairman
                                         Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
      Management, opening statement..................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Greg Stanton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
      Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
      opening statement..............................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Andrew Heller, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
      U.S. General Services Administration, oral statement...........     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Heather Krause, Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S.
      Government Accountability Office, oral statement...............    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Hon. Michael E. Capuano, Board Member, Public Buildings Reform
      Board, oral statement..........................................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Minority Staff Report of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
      Investigations entitled, ``The $21.7 Billion Blunder: Analyzing
      the Waste Generated by DOGE,'' July 31, 2025, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Greg Stanton....................................     6

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions to Andrew Heller, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings
      Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Rick
      Larsen.........................................................    41

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                December 5, 2025

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
    Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management
        RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Cutting Costs, Adding
    Value: The Future of Federal Property''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                   I. PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure will hold a hearing on Thursday, December 11,
    2025 at 10:00 a.m. E.T. in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office
    Building entitled, ``Cutting Costs, Adding Value: The Future of
    Federal Property.'' The purpose of this hearing is to continue
    the Subcommittee's focus on the need to consolidate Federal
    agencies and sell unneeded space. The hearing builds on the
    March 2025 hearing about implementing the public buildings
    reforms passed last Congress. Witnesses will include the
    General Services Administration (GSA), the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), and the Public Buildings Reform
    Board (PBRB).

                                 II. BACKGROUND

    FEDERAL REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO

        GSA currently manages more than 8,300 owned and leased
    assets, totaling over 365 million square feet, and 500 historic
    buildings.\1\ The GAO reports that operating, maintaining, and
    leasing office space costs more than $8 billion annually.\2\
    The GSA has made efforts to reduce the amount of leased space,
    but the portfolio remains underutilized. With more than half of
    the GSA's operating leases (96 million square feet) expiring in
    the next five years, the GSA must pivot to an efficient, cost-
    effective and modern portfolio.\3\ While reviewing 24
    headquarters buildings in 2023, GAO found that 17 of the
    agencies under review were utilizing 25 percent or less of
    their capacity.\4\ That same year, anonymized cell phone data
    showed an average building occupancy of 12 percent from January
    to September due to the sustained prevalence of remote and
    hybrid work models among the Federal workforce.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Gen. Services Admin., GSA Accelerates Efforts to Right-size
    Federal Real Estate with Plans for 1.5 Million Square Feet in
    Reductions and More than $475 Million in Cost Avoidance to Taxpayers
    (Dec. 4, 2024), available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/
    news-releases/gsa-accelerates-efforts-to-rightsize-federal-real-estate-
    12042024.
        \2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-24-106919, Federal Real
    Property: Actions Needed To Better Assess Office Sharing Pilot's
    Broader Applicability (2024), available at https://www.gao.gov/
    products/gao-24-106919.
        \3\ Gen. Services Admin., Inventory Of GSA Owned and Leased
    Properties (Sept. 9, 2022), available at https://www.gsa.gov/tools-
    overview/buildings-and-real-estate-tools/inventory-of-gsa-owned-and-
    leased-properties.
        \4\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-23-107060, Federal Real
    Property: Preliminary Results Show That Increased Telework and
    Longstanding Challenges Led to Underutilized Federal Buildings (2023),
    available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-107060.
        \5\ PBRB, Public Buildings Reform Board Final Interim Report to
    Congress (Mar. 21, 2024), available at https://www.pbrb.gov/files/2024/
    03/3.21.24-FINAL-PBRB-Interim-Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There have also been increasing reports of ``shadow'' or
    ``dark'' space in Federal buildings and leases--unassigned,
    unused space.\6\ On January 20, 2025, the White House directed
    all departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to
    terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to
    return to work in-person at their respective duty stations.\7\
    Given these factors, the GSA has a unique opportunity to
    significantly reduce space and dispose of underutilized and
    unused Federal real estate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Gen. Services Admin., Unused & Underused Space (Jan. 25, 2023),
    available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/unused-
    underused-space.
        \7\ The White House, Return to In-Person Work (Jan. 20, 2025)
    available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/
    return-to-in-person-work/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

        In 1972, Congress authorized and established the Federal
    Buildings Fund (FBF) under the Public Buildings Act Amendments
    of 1972 (P.L. 92-313).\8\ The GSA funds new construction,
    alterations and repairs, building maintenance, and lease
    payments, as well as the Public Buildings Service (PBS),
    through commercially equivalent rental payments by the GSA's
    tenant agencies into the FBF.\9\ While the FBF is funded
    through agency rents paid to the GSA, it is not a true
    revolving loan fund.\10\ The funds are made available via
    annual appropriations bills and projects exceeding $3.961
    million must be authorized by the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure in the House and the Committee on
    Environment and Public Works in the Senate.\11\ The GSA has not
    had full access to the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began
    using the FBF to offset other unrelated costs in the Financial
    Services and General Government appropriations bill.\12\ The
    FBF accrued $11.9 billion in revenue in 2021, 59 percent of
    which was generated by five customer agencies: the Department
    of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal
    Judiciary, the Social Security Administration, and the
    Department of the Treasury.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Pub. L. No. 92-313, 86 Stat. 216.
        \9\ Gen. Services Admin., Federal Buildings Fund (Feb. 1, 2021),
    available at https://www.gsa.gov/reference/reports/budget-performance/
    annual-reports/2020-agency-financial-report/managements-discussion-and-
    analysis/financial-statements-summary-and-analysis/federal-buildings-
    fund.
        \10\ See 40 U.S.C. Sec.  592(c)(1).
        \11\ Id.; 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307.
        \12\ Gen. Services Admin., Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional
    Justification, Federal Buildings Fund (2024), available at https://
    www.gsa.gov/reference/reports/budget-and-performance/annual-budget-
    requests/previous-congressional-justifications/fy2024-congressional-
    justifications.
        \13\ Gen. Services Admin., 2021 Agency Financial Report (2021),
    available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/GSA_AFR_FY21.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        The GSA reported a $6.1 billion deferred maintenance and
    repair backlog in fiscal year (FY) 2024, restoration projects
    that are on the GSA's docket but have yet to be addressed. This
    backlog grew from $1.39 billion in FY 2017.\14\ While
    officially $6.1 billion, civilian agencies collectively
    reported a deferred maintenance liability of $80 billion in FY
    2022.\15\ This number could be significantly greater now. Most
    recent budget documents do not communicate the amount of time
    or finance required to address the ballooning bottleneck.\16\
    The GAO, in its most recent Priority Open Recommendations
    publication to the GSA, recommends the inclusion of an action
    plan in the GSA's budget materials. As of February 2025, GSA
    continues to develop a model to project the GSA's portfolio 10
    years into the future, with anticipated completion in March
    2026.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-25-108060, Priority Open
    Recommendations: General Services Administration (May 16, 2025)
    [hereinafter GAO-25-108060] available at https://www.gao.gov/products/
    gao-25-108060.
        \15\ Library of Congress, Deferred Maintenance and Repair at
    Civilian Agencies: Causes, Risks, and Policy Options (2024) available
    at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48211.
        \16\ GAO-25-108060 supra note 14.
        \17\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``THIRD ROUND'' OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS REFORM BOARD

        The Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) was established in
    2016 as an independent Board, charged with identifying
    opportunities for the government to reduce significantly its
    inventory of civilian real property and reduce government
    costs.\18\ The PBRB submits recommendations for the disposal of
    underutilized Federal properties in ``rounds'' to OMB. With
    OMB's approval, the agency with jurisdiction over that property
    (GSA, in most cases) is responsible for selling the selected
    property. Slated to sunset in May 2025, the Thomas R. Carper
    Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (WRDA 2024) extended
    its term for a ``third round,'' after the Second Round produced
    projected savings of $5.4 billion in cost-avoidance over a 30-
    year period.\19\ The PBRB intends to release its ``Third
    Round'' recommendations before the board sunsets in December
    2026.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Federal Register, Public Buildings Reform Board, available at
    https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/public-buildings-reform-board.
        \19\ Public Buildings Reform Board, Public Hearing (July 30, 2025),
    available at https://www.pbrb.gov/files/2025/08/Public-Hearing-Boston-
    July-2025-Final-PDF.pdf.
        \20\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY PROFILE DATABASE

        The Federal Real Property Profile Management System (FRPP
    MS) is the GSA's system which contains the Federal Government's
    inventory of real estate under the custody of executive
    agencies. FASTA mandated the accessibility of this data to the
    public.\21\ In February 2020, 67 percent of addresses in the
    public database were incomplete or incorrectly formatted. This
    was followed with program guidance to help improve data
    quality, provided by the Federal Real Property Council in
    August 2024. The GSA has since implemented a tool to alert
    agencies of potentially incorrect entries. However, the GAO
    discovered in February 2025 that current location data still
    contains errors. This coincides with an Executive Order (EO)
    released in the same month, requiring agency heads to confirm
    to the GSA that updates were submitted by March 5, 2025.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Gen. Serv. Admin., Federal Real Property Public Data Set
    (2024), available at https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/
    real-property-policy-division-overview/asset-management/federal-real-
    property-profile-frpp/federal-real-property-public-data-set.
        \22\ GAO-25-108060 supra note 14.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTHER KEY ISSUES

         LThe GSA is in the process of reorganizing the
    Public Buildings Service via a new ``function and
    geographically focused'' approach to update the management
    process.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Statement of Andrew Heller, (Acting) Public Buildings
    Commissioner, Gen. Serv. Admin., at GSA Bi-Weekly Meeting (Sept. 29,
    2025) (virtual meeting).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LThe Department of Housing and Urban Development
    (HUD) is in the process of moving to the current National
    Science Foundation's (NSF) headquarters, with NSF's future
    residence still pending. This will allow for the disposal of
    the current Robert C. Weaver Federal Building headquarters.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Drew Friedman, `This is Going to be HUD Town:' Trump
    Administration to Push NSF Out Of Virginia Headquarters, Fed. News
    Network (June 25, 2025), available at https://federalnewsnetwork.com/
    facilities-construction/2025/06/this-is-going-to-be-hud-town-trump-
    administration-to-push-nsf-out-of-virginia-headquarters/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LThe Committee is now in receipt of the GSA's
    prospectus to move the FBI headquarters from the J. Edgar
    Hoover Building to the Ronald Reagan Building.\25\ Questions
    regarding renovations, costs, and the timeline of such a move
    remain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ E-mail from Rachel Baker, Policy Advisor, Gen. Serv. Admin. to
    H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure (Sept 19, 2025, 1:35 EST) (on file
    with Comm.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LThe GSA is currently working to develop a plan to
    dispose of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    Ag South Building headquarters as proposed by the PBRB.
    Challenges with shared infrastructure between the Ag South
    Building and the adjacent Whitten Building will need to be
    addressed.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Statement of Christian Hazen, Deputy Regional Commissioner,
    Pub. Buildings Serv., GSA Bi-Weekly Meeting (Sept. 29, 2025) (virtual
    meeting).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LFollowing discussions in our previous hearing,
    the GSA is in discussions with the Department of Energy (DOE)
    on moving out of the current DOE headquarters, the James V.
    Forrestal Building, as has been a proposal by the PBRB and
    Members of the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure for several years.\27\ This aligns with the
    National Capital Planning Commission's broader SW Ecodistrict
    Plan and proposals by the District of Columbia.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ America Builds: Making Federal Real Estate Work for the
    Taxpayer, 119th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2025) (statement of David Winstead,
    Board Member, Pub. Buildings Reform Board).
        \28\ Nat'l Capital Planning Comm., SW Ecodistrict, available at
    https://www.ncpc.gov/plans/swecodistrict/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          III. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS

    FEDERAL ASSETS SALE AND TRANSFER ACT (FASTA) AND THE FASTA REFORM ACT
                        OF 2023

        In 2016, FASTA was enacted, which established a temporary
    board, the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB), which is
    composed of non-governmental experts who make recommendations
    to OMB on the sale, disposal, or redevelopment of high value,
    underused or unneeded Federal real property.\29\ The OMB then
    approves or disapproves the packages of proposals and, if
    approved, the GSA would execute the recommendations, allowing
    agencies to retain a portion of the proceeds.\30\ Under FASTA,
    agencies would be able to retain a portion of the sale proceeds
    from such transactions as an incentive to dispose of excess
    properties, but they would not be able to access those funds
    until after the termination of the Board.\31\ FASTA also
    codified the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) government-
    wide database of real property and made it available to the
    public.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (FASTA), Pub. L.
    No. 114-287, 130 Stat. 1463.
        \30\ Id.
        \31\ Id.
        \32\ Id. at Sec.  21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2024, Congress passed the FASTA Reform Act of 2023,
    which extended the authorization and enhanced the authority of
    the PBRB and required the board to report annually to Congress
    on Federal properties it recommends for disposal.\33\ The FASTA
    Reform Act enables agencies to access these incentive funds
    more quickly, fostering better collaboration and increasing the
    efficiency of the Federal property management system for
    taxpayers.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ FASTA Reform Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
        \34\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS REFORMS IN THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2024

        Last Congress, Title III of the WRDA 2024 introduced new
    authorities to improve the management of Federal real
    estate.\35\ In addition to the FASTA Reform Act, other reforms
    were enacted to ensure that the Federal real estate portfolio
    is better aligned with current operational needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ WRDA, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        WRDA 2024, among other reforms, included the Utilizing
    Space Efficiency and Improving Technologies (USE IT) Act of
    2023 which mandated GSA and OMB establish standardized methods
    for measuring office occupancy across Federal agencies.\36\ The
    Act introduced a government-wide 60 percent occupancy metric,
    directing Federal agencies to consolidate, repurpose, or sell
    underused office space to increase operational efficiency and
    reduce real estate costs.\37\ This initiative aims to maximize
    space utilization, particularly in light of the ongoing shift
    to hybrid and remote work models.\38\ The USE IT Act also
    specifically directs that department and agency headquarters
    buildings in the National Capital Region be consolidated and
    excess space sold to meet the minimum 60 percent occupancy
    metric.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Utilizing Space Efficiency and Improving Technologies (USE IT)
    Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
        \37\ Id.
        \38\ PBRB, Public Buildings Reform Board Final Interim Report to
    Congress (Mar. 21, 2024), available at https://www.pbrb.gov/files/2024/
    03/3.21.24-FINAL-PBRB-Interim-Report.pdf.
        \39\ USE IT Act of 2023, supra note 40.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, the reforms included the Federal Use It or
    Lose It Leases (FULL) Act which requires the GSA and tenant
    agencies to annually report their office space utilization
    rates to Congress.\40\ Under the FULL Act, if an agency's
    utilization rate falls below the 60 percent threshold for six
    months out of a year, the tenant agency would be required to
    return that underused space to GSA.\41\ This provision creates
    an incentive for agencies to actively manage their real estate
    holdings and reduce the financial burden of maintaining vacant
    or underutilized property.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Federal Use It or Lose It Leases Act, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
        \41\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Key actions mandated by these reforms include establishing
    standard methodologies and identifying technologies for
    measuring space occupancy in leased and owned facilities, and
    deployment of such methodologies and technologies within 180
    days of enactment of WRDA. Within one year of enactment, by
    January 4, 2026:
         LHeads of agencies are required to submit to the
    OMB, the GSA, and Congress occupancy and actual utilization in
    their owned and leased buildings, methodology used for
    determining occupancy, and costs associated with capacity
    exceeding actual occupancy;
         LThe OMB, in consultation with the GSA, must
    ensure actual building utilization in each owned and leased
    building is not less than 60 percent on average and, if any
    agency fails to meet or correct a lower usage percentage, the
    bill requires the GSA to take steps to consolidate or sell
    unused space;
         LThe OMB, in consultation with the GSA, must
    submit a plan to Congress to consolidate department and agency
    headquarters building in the National Capital Region that will
    result in building utilization rates of 60 percent or better;
         LThe GSA must include in its occupancy agreements
    with its tenant agencies a requirement for the tenant agencies
    to provide the GSA with the needed utilization data; and
         LHeads of agencies with their own real estate
    authorities, independent of the GSA, must also report to
    Congress utilization rates.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ WRDA, Pub. L. No. 118-272.

        On April 21, 2025, the OMB issued a memorandum for the
    heads of Executive departments and agencies on the
    implementation of the USE It Act providing guidance on
    technologies for measuring space usage and information on
    reporting required data.\43\ While the GSA is the lead agency,
    along with the OMB in implementing many of the reforms, it is
    unclear how agencies with independent real estate authorities
    are being monitored. There are over 40 departments and agencies
    with some sort of independent leasing authority outside of
    GSA's authority.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Off. of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of
    Executive Departments and Agencies (Apr. 21, 2025), available at
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-25-
    Implementation-of-the-Utilizing-Space-Efficiently-and-Improving-
    Technologies-Act.pdf.
        \44\ Technical Assistance on Identified Independent Leasing
    Authority of Certain Civilian Federal Entities, GAO (Aug. 5, 2025) (on
    file with Comm.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPACE ACT OF 2025

        The Shared Property Agency Collaboration and Engagement Act
    of 2025 or the SPACE Act of 2025, sponsored by Rep. Robert F.
    Onder, would expand section 2303 of WRDA and direct the GSA to
    collaborate with tenants on shared-space arrangements. This
    bill passed the House on September 8, 2025, and was referred to
    the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for
    further consideration.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ H.R. 3424, SPACE Act of 2025, 119th Cong. (2025), available at
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3424/
    text?s=2&r=1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CASE ACT OF 2025

        The Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency Act of
    2025 or the CASE Act of 2025, sponsored by Rep. Jefferson
    Shreve, mandates the optimization of courthouse space usage and
    informs future courthouse construction through a policy of
    courtroom sharing. This bill passed the House on September 15,
    2025 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment
    and Public Works for further consideration.\46\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ H.R. 3426, Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency
    (CASE) Act of 2025, 119th Cong. (2025), available at https://
    www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3426/text?s=4&r=1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  IV. SUMMARY

        This hearing will follow the Subcommittee's hearing from
    March 5, 2025, ``America Builds: Making Federal Real Estate
    Work for the Taxpayer,'' which examined strategies to transform
    Federal real estate by consolidating, relocating, and selling
    unused and underutilized spaces. The hearing builds on the
    previous hearing, in addition to discussing related interests
    in the deferred maintenance backlog, the Public Building Reform
    Board's ``third round'', and updates on actions taken since
    March on real property reform.

                                  V. WITNESSES

         LAndrew Heller, (Acting) Public Buildings Service
    Commissioner, General Services Administration
         LHeather Krause, Managing Director, Physical
    Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office
         LThe Honorable Michael E. Capuano, Member, Public
    Buildings Reform Board

          CUTTING COSTS, ADDING VALUE: THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL PROPERTY

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                   Buildings, and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
        The Chair asks unanimous consent that the Chair be
    authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
    hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on
    the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
    the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
    opening statement for 5 minutes.

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

        Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witnesses for being here
    today as we examine the Federal real estate portfolio.
        Earlier this year, the subcommittee held a hearing to
    discuss how we could make Federal real estate work for the
    American taxpayer. Legislation that Congress has enacted, like
    the USE IT Act and the Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act, or
    the FASTA, are intended to operate in lockstep to improve
    abysmal space utilization rates, hold agencies accountable for
    the amount of space they use, and rightsize the Federal
    footprint.
        As the Public Buildings Reform Board continues to
    deliberate its next round of recommendations, I look forward to
    hearing about the progress that has been made since our last
    hearing and ensuring that reforms we passed last year are
    helping. With an anticipated $5.4 billion in savings from its
    ``second round'' recommendations, this next round serves as an
    opportunity to realize even more savings for the taxpayer.
        I am also pleased that the GSA is taking aggressive action
    to reduce costs, including taking steps to move HUD to allow
    for the sale of the Weaver Building. Shaving off excess,
    however, will not unilaterally rectify the numerous challenges
    we face in Federal property, as the maintenance of the
    buildings is becoming increasingly costly to upkeep.
        The deferred maintenance liability grew from a mere $1
    billion in fiscal year 2017 to a whopping $6 billion by fiscal
    year 2022, and that is just what the GSA reported. In fiscal
    year 2022, civilian agencies reported a collective deferred
    maintenance liability of $80 billion.
        We need to get a handle on these costs, and the
    administration is moving to reduce taxpayer liability and
    costs. But there are critical authorities and tools we provided
    to the GSA in reforms signed into law on a bipartisan basis in
    January of this year. To ensure those tools can effectively be
    used, and it is important that the GSA ensures key deadlines
    are met.
        For example, in January of 2026, all Federal agencies
    should be reporting to the GSA, the OMB, and Congress the data
    on their space occupancy, methodology used, utilization rates,
    and the costs associated with any excess space. Also, by next
    month, all Federal office space is required to have an actual
    building utilization rate of at least 60 percent, and those
    buildings that don't have that utilization rate have then 1
    year to correct, or the agencies are moved out and the space is
    either sold or relinquished.
        Finally, next January, the OMB and the GSA are to submit a
    plan to consolidate Federal agency headquarters in the National
    Capital area to meet the minimum 60-percent building occupancy
    rate. The GSA was required to amend its occupancy agreements
    with its tenant agencies to ensure those agencies agree to
    provide the data that GSA needs. The GSA's proposed capital
    investment projects are required to prioritize buildings that
    meet or exceed the 60-percent utilization threshold.
        There are additional requirements on the information
    provided to the committee in prospectuses, and the GSA is now
    required to report on key milestones on all prospectus-level
    projects. It is critical for the GSA to meet these deadlines
    and requirements, not only to save taxpayer dollars, but to
    ensure accountability and transparency over the long term.
        The Chair looks forward to hearing from the GSA on where we
    are in rightsizing the portfolio and implementing these
    reforms.
        While the state of Federal real estate continues to face an
    uphill battle, the policies of this Congress and this
    administration have, and will continue to, accelerate this
    important corrective work.
        [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
     from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
        Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        Earlier this year, this subcommittee held a hearing to discuss how
    we could make federal real estate work for the American taxpayer.
        Legislation that Congress has enacted, like the USE IT Act and the
    Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA), are intended to operate in
    lockstep to improve abysmal space utilization rates, hold agencies
    accountable for the amount of space they use, and right-size the
    federal footprint.
        As the Public Buildings Reform Board continues to deliberate its
    next round of recommendations, I look forward to hearing about the
    progress that's been made since our last hearing and ensuring that
    reforms we passed last year are helping. With an anticipated $5.4
    billion in savings from its ``Second Round'' recommendations, this next
    round serves as an opportunity to realize even more savings for the
    taxpayer.
        I am also pleased that the GSA is taking aggressive action to
    reduce costs, including taking steps to move HUD, to allow for the sale
    of the Weaver Building. Shaving off excess, however, will not
    unilaterally rectify the numerous challenges we face in federal
    property, as the maintenance of the buildings is becoming increasingly
    costly to keep up.
        The deferred maintenance liability grew from a mere $1 billion in
    fiscal year 2017 to a whopping $6 billion by fiscal year 2022; and
    that's just what the GSA reported. In fiscal year 2022 civilian
    agencies reported a collective deferred maintenance liability of $80
    billion.
        We need to get a handle on these costs. The Administration is
    moving to reduce taxpayer liability and costs, but there are critical
    authorities and tools we provided to the GSA in reforms signed into law
    in January of this year. To ensure those tools can effectively be used,
    it's important that the GSA ensures key deadlines are met.
        For example, in January of 2026, all federal agencies should be
    reporting to the GSA, the OMB, and Congress the data on their space
    occupancy, methodology used, utilization rates, and the costs
    associated with any excess space. Also, by next month, all federal
    office space is required to have an actual building utilization rate of
    at least 60 percent, and those buildings that don't have one year to
    correct or the agencies are moved out and the space sold or
    relinquished.
        Finally, next January, the OMB and the GSA are to submit a plan to
    consolidate federal agency headquarters in the national capital area to
    meet the minimum 60 percent building occupancy rate. The GSA was
    required to amend its occupancy agreements with its tenant agencies to
    ensure those agencies agree to provide the data that the GSA needs. The
    GSA's proposed capital investment projects are required to prioritize
    buildings that meet or exceed the 60 percent utilization threshold.
    There are additional requirements on the information provided to the
    Committee in prospectuses, and the GSA is now required to report on key
    milestones on all prospectus-level projects. It is critical for the GSA
    to meet these deadlines and requirements, not only to save taxpayer
    dollars, but to ensure accountability and transparency over the long
    term.
        I look forward to hearing from the GSA on where we are on right-
    sizing the portfolio and implementing these reforms. While the state of
    federal real estate continues to face an uphill battle, the policies of
    this Congress and the Trump Administration have, and will continue to,
    accelerate this important corrective work.

        Mr. Perry. With that, I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses, but at this time, recognize Ranking Member Stanton
    for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG STANTON OF ARIZONA, RANKING
    MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,
                        AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for the witnesses for being here today for this important
    hearing.
        This hearing is about two things: cutting costs and adding
    value. That is the standard that the public expects from us,
    and it should be the standard that we expect from ourselves.
        Federal property is expensive, it can be complicated, and
    central to how Government serves people. When we get these
    decisions right, taxpayers save money and the agencies work
    better. When we get them wrong, the public pays twice: once in
    tax dollars and again in the quality of service that they
    receive.
        When I was mayor of Phoenix, real efficiency never came
    from swinging an ax. It came from discipline, planning, and
    knowing exactly how each decision affected the people we were
    there to serve.
        Government is not a corporation reworking a balance sheet.
    It is a network of public responsibilities. Cuts that ignore
    that reality don't create efficiency; they undermine it.
        And we don't have to theorize about that; we just lived
    through it. DOGE, the billionaire, tech-bro failure known as
    the Department of Government Efficiency, was a textbook example
    of what happens when you chase cuts without understanding
    value. It drove Federal property decisions at a speed and scale
    that outran planning, operational needs, and basic due
    diligence. Agencies were told to vacate buildings before
    replacement space was ready. These decisions were driven by
    targets and assumptions, not by reliable, validated information
    about how Federal space was being used or which functions
    depended on it.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record the July 2025 minority staff report from the Senate
    Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
        Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows Mr. Stanton's prepared statement.]
        Mr. Stanton. That investigation found that DOGE wasted at
    least $21.7 billion in just 6 months. It burned $14.8 billion
    paying, roughly, 200,000 employees not to work. Then it pushed
    more than 100,000 additional workers into administrative limbo,
    costing taxpayers another $6.1 billion. It froze essential
    projects from energy grid upgrades to medical research, wasting
    hundreds of millions more, offering nothing in return.
        DOGE is a clear example of what happens when you chase cost
    and ignore value. I raise it here because, as ranking member, I
    look forward to working with the chair to advance an approach
    that recognizes efficiency as both cutting costs and adding
    value, and I thank the chair for making those the focus of
    today's hearing.
        As we look ahead, DOGE also taught us another important
    lesson. It exposed a deeper structural problem that complicates
    this committee's work now and in the months to come.
        We are responsible for overseeing all Federal property, but
    GSA does not give us a clear, portfoliowide view of how Federal
    buildings are being used. We get lease prospectuses. We get
    scattered updates. We do not get a regular, comprehensive
    report on the Public Buildings Service portfolio.
        For a system this large, this expensive, and this central
    to the function of Government, that blindspot is unacceptable.
    DOGE showed how dangerous it is to make major space decisions
    in that kind of fog. That is why I introduced bipartisan
    legislation, cosponsored by Chairman Perry, requiring the GSA
    Administrator to submit an annual report to Congress on the
    state of the Federal real estate portfolio. That is basic
    governance.
        If we want real savings, real accountability, and real
    value, we need complete information about the buildings where
    Federal work is done, and we need to ensure that wherever we go
    next, we are guided by data and the full scope of information.
        Federal property is a public asset. It should strengthen
    the work inside it and the people who rely on those services.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to learn from DOGE's
    failures, insist on better data, and set a clear expectation
    that cutting costs and adding value are equally important to
    the future of Federal property.
        I look forward to the testimony today. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [Mr. Stanton's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Stanton, a Representative in Congress
    from the State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
            Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.
        This hearing is about two things: cutting costs and adding value.
    That is the standard the public expects from us, and it should be the
    standard we expect from ourselves. Federal property is expensive,
    complicated and central to how government serves people. When we get
    these decisions right, taxpayers save money and agencies work better.
    When we get them wrong, the public pays twice--once in tax dollars and
    again in the quality of service they receive.
        When I was Mayor of Phoenix, real efficiency never came from
    swinging an ax. It came from discipline, planning and knowing exactly
    how each decision affected the people we were there to serve.
        Government is not a corporation reworking a balance sheet. It is a
    network of public responsibilities. Cuts that ignore that reality don't
    create efficiency; they undermine it.
        And we don't have to theorize about that; we just lived through it.
    DOGE, the billionaire, tech-bro failure known as the Department of
    Government Efficiency, was a textbook case of what happens when you
    chase cuts without understanding value.
        It drove federal property decisions at a speed and scale that
    outran planning, operational needs and basic due diligence. Agencies
    were told to vacate buildings before replacement space was ready. These
    decisions were driven by targets and assumptions, not by reliable,
    validated information about how federal space was being used or which
    functions depended on it.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
    July 2025 Minority Staff Report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee
    on Investigations.
        That investigation found that DOGE wasted at least $21.7 billion in
    six months. It burned $14.8 billion paying roughly 200,000 employees
    not to work. Then it pushed more than 100,000 additional workers into
    administrative limbo, costing taxpayers another $6.1 billion. It froze
    essential projects--from energy grid upgrades to medical research--
    wasting hundreds of millions more and offering nothing in return.
        DOGE is a clear example of what happens when you chase cost and
    ignore value. I raise it here because, as Ranking Member, I look
    forward to working with the Chair to advance an approach that
    recognizes efficiency as both cutting costs and adding value, and I
    thank the Chair for making those the focus of today's hearing.
        As we look ahead, DOGE also taught us another important lesson. It
    exposed a deeper structural problem that complicates this committee's
    work now and in the months to come.
        We are responsible for overseeing all federal property, but GSA
    does not give us a clear, portfolio-wide view of how federal buildings
    are being used. We get lease prospectuses. We get scattered updates. We
    do not get a regular, comprehensive report on the Public Buildings
    Service portfolio.
        For a system this large, this expensive, and this central to the
    functioning of government, that blindspot is unacceptable. DOGE showed
    how dangerous it is to make major space decisions in that kind of fog.
        That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by
    Chairman Perry, requiring the GSA Administrator to submit an annual
    report to Congress on the state of the federal real estate portfolio.
        This is basic governance. If we want real savings, real
    accountability, and real value, we need complete information about the
    buildings where federal work is done. And we need to ensure that
    wherever we go next, we are guided by data and the full scope of
    information.
        Federal property is a public asset. It should strengthen the work
    inside it and the people who rely on these services. Today's hearing is
    an opportunity to learn from DOGE's failures, insist on better data,
    and set a clear expectation that cutting costs and adding value are
    equally important to the future of federal property.
        I look forward to the testimony.

         Minority Staff Report of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
      Investigations entitled, ``The $21.7 Billion Blunder: Analyzing the
     Waste Generated by DOGE,'' July 31, 2025, Submitted for the Record by
                               Hon. Greg Stanton
        The 54-page report is retained in committee files and is available
    online at the House of Representatives document repository at https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW13/20251211/118689/HHRG-119-PW13-20251211-
    SD003.pdf.

        Mr. Perry. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Representative Larsen, for 5 minutes.

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

        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, subcommittee Chair
    Perry and Ranking Member Stanton, for convening today's hearing
    on Federal real estate.
        So, a lot has happened at the GSA since the beginning of
    this year. At the beginning of the year, GSA's Public Buildings
    Service had 5,655 full-time employees; now, that number is
    3,126. That total would be even lower, but GSA reversed course
    on 392 departures after realizing its inability to get all of
    its work done.
        At the beginning of the year, the Public Buildings Service,
    or PBS, had 11 distinct geographic regions, but after a
    reorganization, PBS is now structured, quote, ``based on
    integrated functional operations which are centrally managed
    with a portfolio structure that continues to support a
    geographic presence nationwide.''
        What does that mean? I don't know.
        At the beginning of the year, PBS used its purchasing power
    to encourage commercial landlords and Federal agency tenants to
    adopt environmentally sustainable practices to reduce the
    impact of climate change, promote energy efficiency, and save
    money. But this administration rescinded Federal building
    sustainability requirements and terminated PBS's efforts to
    lease space for Federal tenants in ``green'' buildings.
        At the beginning of the year, the White House had an East
    Wing, and now it does not. At the beginning of the year, there
    were no plans to build a privately funded ballroom on the White
    House grounds, but that is exactly what is happening, without
    the collaboration of Congress, without the collaboration of the
    National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine
    Arts.
        The President started the project without first notifying
    the public or consulting experts. We still don't know how much
    it will cost, what it will look like, who is paying for
    construction, and who will be responsible for ongoing
    maintenance and repairs.
        Over the course of the year, agencies were directed to
    identify underutilized and unneeded owned and leased space for
    disposal, and DOGE and the OMB utilized this information to
    terminate 260 leases. That is an achievement, but there was
    also significant chaos and mixed messaging surrounding the
    disposal of buildings and the termination of leases.
        In March, GSA published a list of 440 properties it
    intended to dispose of, but the list disappeared from its
    website within hours after observers noted that the list
    included the headquarters of more than a dozen agencies,
    including its own. GSA then issued a revised list with only 320
    entries, but that list also disappeared from GSA's website the
    next day.
        Now, earlier this week as well, Bloomberg Law reported that
    the White House is independently soliciting bids to recommend
    the demolition of four Federal buildings in Washington, DC,
    without the input of the GSA. According to a former director of
    GSA's Office of Planning and Design, GSA has, quote, ``sole
    authority over this process,'' yet it has not followed the
    procedures required under historic preservation and
    environmental laws for these buildings to be destroyed.
        Now, I will say I am very pleased that GSA is making
    progress on three Washington State land ports of entry--they
    all happen to be in my district--but it has taken awhile to get
    to where we are even today.
        During a recent meeting of the Whatcom Council of
    Governments, GSA staff shared plans to combine the design-build
    contracts for the Kenneth G. Ward Land Port of Entry in Lynden
    and the Sumas Land Port of Entry in Sumas. The current
    expectation is that Lynden will start its construction
    modernization first, then Sumas will follow approximately
    midway through construction. This provides port operators the
    ability to divert at least some of the Sumas commercial traffic
    to the modernized Lynden port while the Sumas port is
    modernized. Combining two of these projects will enable them to
    complete both ports in 3 years instead of 4 and, hopefully, for
    less money, something we can all support.
        In conclusion, the administration said from the outset that
    it plans to shrink the Government's real estate holdings by
    offloading unnecessary leases and Federal buildings, and that
    is a laudable goal. As I started talking yesterday with Chair
    Perry, having a smaller and fuller Federal footprint should be
    our goal, but the President has not been forthcoming about the
    details and decisionmaking, and that is cause for concern.
        So, I thank our witnesses for appearing before us today,
    and hopefully we can get some answers. I look forward to their
    testimony.
        With that, I yield back.
        [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Stanton,
    for convening today's hearing on federal real estate.
        A lot has happened at General Services Administration (GSA) since
    the beginning of 2025. At the beginning of the year, GSA's Public
    Buildings Service (PBS) had 5,655 full-time employees; now, that number
    is at 3,126.
        That total would be even lower, but GSA reversed course on 392
    departures after realizing its inability to get all its work done.
        At the beginning of the year, PBS had 11 distinct geographic
    regions, but after a ``reorganization,'' PBS is now structured ``based
    on integrated functional operations which are centrally managed with a
    portfolio structure that continues to support a geographic presence
    nationwide.''
        What does that actually mean? I don't know.
        At the beginning of the year, PBS used its purchasing power to
    encourage commercial landlords and federal agency tenants to adopt
    environmentally sustainable practices to reduce the impact of climate
    change, promote energy efficiency and save money.
        But the Administration rescinded federal building sustainability
    requirements and terminated PBS's efforts to lease space for federal
    tenants in `green' buildings.
        At the beginning of the year, the White House had an East Wing--and
    now it does not. At the beginning of the year, there were no plans to
    build a privately funded ballroom on the White House grounds. But that
    is exactly what is happening without collaboration with Congress, the
    National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission on Fine Arts.
        The president started the project without first notifying the
    public or consulting experts. We still don't know how much the project
    will cost, what the ballroom will look like, who is paying for
    construction, and who will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and
    repairs.
        Over the course of the year, agencies were directed to identify
    underutilized and unneeded owned and leased space for disposal.
        DOGE and OMB utilized this information to terminate 260 leases.
    That is an achievement. But there was also significant chaos and mixed
    messaging surrounding the disposal of buildings and the termination of
    leases.
        In March, GSA published a list of 440 properties it intended to
    dispose of, but the list disappeared from its website within hours
    after observers noted that the list included the headquarters of more
    than a dozen agencies-- including its own.
        GSA then issued a revised list with only 320 entries, but that list
    also disappeared from GSA's website the next day.
        Earlier this week, Bloomberg Law reported that the White House is
    independently soliciting bids to recommend the demolition of four
    federal buildings in Washington, D.C., without the input of GSA.
        According to a former director of GSA's Office of Planning and
    Design, GSA has ``sole authority over this process,'' yet it has not
    followed the procedures required under historic preservation and
    environmental laws for these buildings to be destroyed.
        I am pleased that GSA is making great progress on the three
    Washington State Land Ports of Entry (LPOE) projects, but it takes a
    while.
        During a recent Whatcom Council of Governments meeting, GSA staff
    shared plans to combine the design-build contracts for the Kenneth G.
    Ward Land Port of Entry in Lynden and the Sumas Land Port of Entry in
    Sumas.
        The current expectation is that Lynden will start its construction
    modernization first and then Sumas will follow approximately midway
    through construction. This provides port operators the ability to
    divert at least some of Sumas' commercial traffic to the modernized
    Lynden port, while the Sumas port is modernized.
        Combining two of the projects will enable them to complete both
    ports in three years instead of four and, hopefully, for less money--
    something we all can support.
        In conclusion, the Administration said from the outset that it
    plans to shrink the government's real estate holdings by offloading
    unnecessary leases and federal buildings--and that is a laudable goal.
        But the president has not been forthcoming about the details and
    the decision-making and that is cause for concern.
        I thank our witnesses for appearing before us today, and I look
    forward to their testimony.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member of the full
    committee.
        And we will now, let me see, turn to the statements from
    our witnesses. I want to thank our witnesses for taking the
    time to be here today and for coming in.
        I would like to take a moment to explain our lighting
    system for anybody that is new here so you know what you are
    doing there. There are three lights in front of you. Green
    means go, yellow means you are kind of running out of time,
    about a minute left, and red means to please conclude your
    remarks if you haven't done so already.
        And that means you too, Mr. Capuano. I know you know
    better, right. [Laughter.] You can't get away with ``I didn't
    know.''
        The Chair now asks unanimous consent that the witnesses'
    full statements be included in the record, and, without
    objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of
    today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
    have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
    them in writing. Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
    remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and for
    information submitted by Members or the witnesses to be
    included in the record of today's hearing. Without objection,
    so ordered.
        As your written testimonies have been made part of the
    record, the subcommittee now asks that you limit your oral
    remarks to 5 minutes. And with that, Mr. Heller, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.

        TESTIMONY OF ANDREW HELLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
       BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION;
      HEATHER KRAUSE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
      U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND HON. MICHAEL E.
          CAPUANO, BOARD MEMBER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS REFORM BOARD

        TESTIMONY OF ANDREW HELLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
        BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Heller. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Stanton, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Andrew
    Heller, and I am the Acting Commissioner of the Public
    Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services Administration,
    where I have proudly served as a career civil servant for
    almost 22 years. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
    future of Federal real property management. I appreciate the
    committee's invitation to appear before you today.
        I would also like to thank this subcommittee for its
    ongoing engagement in public buildings management and
    advocating for full access to the Federal Buildings Fund.
    Simply put, the Government no longer needs, nor can it afford
    to maintain, the amount of real estate it currently owns. With
    your support and with the necessary resources, GSA is well
    positioned to rightsize the portfolio.
        To support this shared goal, GSA is focused on disposing of
    underutilized buildings with significant liabilities and
    investing in buildings that are core to the Government's needs.
    Where cost-effective, we will use leasing to meet general
    office space requirements.
        I am proud to report that GSA has made great strides. Last
    year, we executed 90 building dispositions, reducing the
    Government's footprint by more than 3 million square feet.
    Those building sales generated $182 million in proceeds and
    avoided $415 million in repairs and operating costs.
        GSA also identified 45 additional assets for disposition.
    With your continued support, those dispositions will further
    reduce the inventory by 15 million square feet and avoid an
    additional $3 billion in future repairs and operating costs.
        GSA also continues to focus on the efficient management of
    its lease portfolio, generating $730 million in cost avoidance
    through lease negotiations and inventory reductions. However,
    GSA continues to face challenges.
        As the GSA Administrator nominee, Ed Forst, said at his
    confirmation hearing, ``American taxpayers shoulder billions of
    dollars in delinquent maintenance costs under the Federal
    Government's current real estate portfolio. These costs are
    likely underestimated and will only grow if left unaddressed.''
        GSA requires resources to optimize its aging inventory.
    Unfortunately, the Federal Buildings Fund has been underfunded
    by $15 billion since 2011. It is no coincidence that, during
    this time, delinquent maintenance has also risen exponentially,
    to approximately $26 billion, which is not sustainable.
        In fiscal year 2026, we are requesting $10.5 billion in
    budget authority, a request that is equal to our anticipated
    levels of revenue collections. Without access to this funding,
    we are unable to maintain facilities in a manner that our
    customer agencies expect, and we are unable to optimize the
    portfolio in a way that the taxpayers deserve.
        This request includes $365 million for an optimization
    program. This program will help us dispose of underperforming
    buildings, improve the quality of core assets, and implement
    lease strategies to save taxpayer money. With this committee's
    full authorization of the program and with full funding, GSA
    has projects ready to execute that will save the taxpayer
    hundreds of millions of dollars.
        In the absence of full funding, GSA continues to work with
    Congress, occupant agencies, and the Public Buildings Reform
    Board to dispose of unneeded properties in an expedited manner.
    Through our partnership with the Board, GSA recently sold the
    former U.S. Geological Survey campus in Menlo Park, California.
    This sale generated $137 million in proceeds, reduced the size
    of the portfolio by almost half a million square feet, and
    saved taxpayers more than $110 million in estimated repairs and
    operating costs.
        The President's budget request also supports the Asset
    Proceeds and Space Management Fund. Access to this funding is
    critical, since it is intended to cover the upfront costs
    associated with footprint reduction. One recent example of a
    project using this funding is the William O. Lipinski Federal
    Building in Chicago. By investing $20 million up front to
    relocate the tenant, the taxpayers will realize over $161
    million in savings by eliminating delinquent maintenance
    liabilities and reducing space. This is just one example of
    sensible solutions that GSA can implement if funding is made
    available to cover upfront costs.
        Your support is vital to rightsizing the Federal footprint,
    and I humbly request the committee's support for GSA's budget.
        I look forward to partnering with the distinguished members
    of this committee to address the key priorities that drive
    efficiency and effectiveness in Federal real estate. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [Mr. Heller's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Andrew Heller, Acting Commissioner, Public
            Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration
                                 Introduction:
        Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Andrew Heller,
    and I am the Acting Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (PBS)
    at the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). I appreciate the
    Committee's invitation to appear before you today to discuss PBS's
    management of federal real property.
        I would also like to thank this Subcommittee for its ongoing
    engagement in public buildings management, including through its
    oversight and prospectus approvals, and by advocating for full access
    to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) to ensure GSA has the resources
    necessary to optimize and improve its real property portfolio.
        Additionally, the real property reforms supported by this Committee
    and enacted in Title III of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
    Development Act of 2024 are important steps toward improving federal
    real property management. GSA is working closely with the Office of
    Management and Budget, the Comptroller General of the United States,
    and applicable agencies to implement the Act and we look forward to
    making continued progress to implement this statute.
        GSA is well positioned to deliver once-in-a-generation value to the
    American taxpayers and capitalize on this unique opportunity to right-
    size the portfolio by making smart and strategic investments that
    meaningfully reduce the size of the federal footprint. The government
    no longer needs, nor can it afford to maintain, the amount of real
    estate it currently owns. At the same time, GSA is cognizant of the
    impact of putting too many buildings on the market at the same time,
    and we will therefore manage the oversight of the sale of Federal
    property strategically and in close coordination with OMB.
        GSA's strategy for right-sizing its portfolio is to dispose of
    underfunded, high liability federally owned facilities, and invest our
    limited capital on core buildings the Federal government needs to
    retain over the long term. To be successful, GSA will leverage our
    leasing authority as a more flexible tool for procuring general use
    office space on behalf of our customer agencies.
        I'm proud to report that GSA has made great strides towards
    optimizing our footprint and meeting these goals. For example, in
    Fiscal Year 2025 we have--
          Executed 90 governmentwide real property dispositions
    including Federal Asset Sales and Transfer Act properties, resulting in
    a reduction of more than 3 million square feet and 8,000 acres of land,
    generating over $182 million in sales proceeds, and avoiding $415
    million in estimated capital repairs and operating costs;

          Identified 45 GSA assets for accelerated disposition,
    representing 14.6 million square feet and $3 billion in estimated
    capital repairs and operating costs; and

          Generated approximately $730 million in cost avoidance by
    terminating unneeded leases, reducing leased space where appropriate,
    and negotiating leases with better terms.

        I would like to thank the Subcommittee for recently recognizing in
    its `Views and Estimates for FY 2026' the significant challenges GSA
    faces due to an aging inventory, difficulties disposing of excess
    property, and lack of full access to the FBF, which has, over the past
    fifteen years, increased deferred maintenance costs to the point that
    they have become delinquent maintenance costs. GSA charges federal
    agencies a commercially equivalent rent for the space they occupy, with
    the expectation that these funds will be used to properly maintain the
    space. However, with approximately $15 billion in FBF agency rent
    collections utilized for other purposes over the past 15 years, it has
    become exceedingly difficult to properly maintain our core assets in a
    state of good repair.
        As our nominee for GSA Administrator, Ed Forst said at his
    confirmation hearing, ``American taxpayers shoulder billions of dollars
    in delinquent maintenance costs under the federal government's current
    real estate portfolio. Those costs are likely underestimated and will
    only grow if left unaddressed.''
        It is no coincidence that GSA's delinquent maintenance, as noted by
    Mr. Forst, has risen to approximately $26 billion as identified through
    GSA's portfolio planning efforts. By Mr. Forst reframing this issue as
    delinquent maintenance, GSA is intending to highlight the operational
    impacts of inaction and a lack of access to the FBF.
                          Real Property Optimization:
        To help address this unique challenge, GSA has proposed a
    transformational Optimization Program in the President's FY 2025 and
    2026 budget requests. In FY 2026, GSA is requesting $365 million in
    funding for the real property Optimization Program. The purpose of the
    fund is three-fold:
        1.  Seizing the opportunity before us and dispose of
    underperforming buildings,
        2.  Investing in core assets to improve the quality of the
    remaining portfolio, including investing in beautiful buildings, and
        3.  Implementing cost-effective lease strategies that save money
    and shift the maintenance burden to the private sector.

        Optimization projects will add value to the federal real property
    portfolio and be selected based on the following priorities:
        1.  Favorable Taxpayer Savings: The project clearly reduces agency
    costs, avoids future liabilities, or addresses existing ones.
        2.  High Readiness: The project requirements are well-defined, cost
    estimates are solid, and we are well positioned to start executing the
    project.
        3.  Acceptable Risk: The project has manageable complexity, without
    extensive phasing or major modernization, and tenants can be housed in
    cost effective solutions.

        I would like to thank the committee for its partial authorization
    of this program on a markup earlier this summer. If full funding and
    authorization for this transformational special emphasis program is
    received, some examples of Optimization Projects could include:
          Captain John F. Williams Coast Guard Building--Boston,
    Massachusetts: By disposing of this 134,000 square foot underutilized
    building that has a 39% vacancy rate in a high value market, and
    consolidating a majority of tenants into an existing GSA core asset, we
    will reduce costs, improve the condition of our portfolio and reduce
    the size of the federal footprint.
          +  This project has Favorable Taxpayer Savings: Disposition of
    the asset will avoid almost $30 million in capital maintenance
    liabilities.
          +  It also has a High Level of Readiness: In anticipation of
    potential funding allocated in FY 2026, we are proactively developing
    space requirements and project schedules with our tenants.
          +  And it is considered to be Low Risk: The project would reduce
    the current tenant footprint by 68%, removing an estimated 60,000
    square feet from our inventory by consolidating agencies into more
    functional and efficient space. Tenants are engaged with requirements
    development and project schedules, and GSA is preparing the core asset
    to absorb the United States Coast Guard, which is the facility's
    primary tenant, into its space.

          312 N. Spring Street Federal Building and Courthouse--Los
    Angeles, California: By disposing of this large 715,000 square feet
    building that has a 35% vacancy rate in the highly valued downtown Los
    Angeles market, and relocating tenants into commercial leased space,
    the government can achieve greater efficiency and reduce ongoing
    maintenance burdens.
          +  This project also has Favorable Taxpayer Savings: Disposition
    of the asset will avoid almost $153 million in capital maintenance
    liabilities.
          +  In anticipation of potential funding allocated in FY 2026, we
    are proactively working requirements with our tenants, so it has a High
    Level of Readiness.
          +  And it is Low Risk: The project would reduce the tenant
    footprint by 66%, removing an estimated 344,000 square feet from our
    inventory. The Los Angeles market has a surplus of potentially cost
    effective leasing solutions.
                       Recent Disposition Announcements:
        Although full access to the FBF would facilitate more common sense
    solutions, GSA continues to work with Congress, the Public Buildings
    Reform Board (PBRB) and federal agencies to identify and dispose of
    more properties in an expedited manner. Some examples of recently
    completed dispositions include:
        1.  Huntsville, Alabama: GSA completed the conveyance of the
    Huntsville Courthouse and Post Office to the City of Huntsville,
    Alabama on September 15, 2025. Conveyance of this property will save
    taxpayers more than $520,000 annually in operating and maintenance
    costs and avoid over $10 million in estimated capital repairs over the
    next 10 years.

        2.  Menlo Park, California: GSA completed the public sale of the
    former United States Geological Survey campus in Menlo Park, generating
    $137 million in proceeds and offloading over 412,000 square feet. The
    sale will save taxpayers close to $4 million annually in operating and
    maintenance costs and avoid $107 million in estimated capital repairs.
    This property was identified for disposition under the Federal Assets
    Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA).

        3.  Des Moines, Iowa: GSA successfully sold the historic United
    States Courthouse in Des Moines in September 2025 for $2.6 million
    after completion of the new courthouse. The sale will save taxpayers
    over $1.6 million annually in operating and maintenance costs and avoid
    over $27 million in estimated capital repairs over the next 10 years.
    The sale returns a prime downtown riverfront location to productive re-
    use.

        4.  Charlottesville, Virginia: GSA worked with the Department of
    Education to convey the former Federal Executive Institute campus in
    Charlottesville to the University of Virginia (UVA) for a new campus
    ROTC center. GSA worked closely with the State Historic Preservation
    Office to satisfy historical preservation requirements, and coordinated
    closely with UVA to expedite this transfer after the Department of
    Education selected UVA as the grantee. This conveyance helps turn
    91,000 square feet and 13 acres of surplus Federal real property into a
    center that educates future military leaders.

        5.  Washington, DC: GSA is working with its private sector broker
    partners to sell the Liberty Loan Building, a truly unique opportunity
    in the heart of Washington, DC. While the disposition has not been
    finalized yet, there is significant market interest with over 100
    registrations and over two dozen tours. Initial offers are due later
    this month.
                           Fiscal Year 2026 Request:
        In FY 2026, GSA is requesting net zero obligational budget
    authority equal to its anticipated annual revenues and collections for
    a total of approximately $10.5 billion in gross budget authority for
    the FBF. The requested New Obligation Authority (NOA) includes $1.7
    billion for GSA's Capital Investment Program whose funds are used to
    repair mission critical federally owned facilities and facilitate the
    disposition of underutilized assets through the optimization of core
    federal buildings. The request also includes more than $3 billion for
    Building Operations to support operating expenses.
        As you know, agencies make rental payments to GSA with the
    expectation that such funds will be used to properly maintain the
    facilities they occupy. GSA's FY 2026 budget request highlights the FBF
    and certain challenges we have experienced over the past fifteen years
    due to a lack of appropriated funding commensurate with the annual
    revenues and collections deposited in the FBF. Simply put, we are not
    able to maintain facilities in a manner that our customer agencies
    expect due to these funding challenges. While increasing dispositions
    and relying more on leases for general use office space will help to
    address this issue, funding will be needed to facilitate the
    dispositions and to maintain our core assets in a state of good repair.
        The President's budget request for GSA also supports the Asset
    Proceeds and Space Management Fund (APSMF). The purpose of the fund is
    to carry out actions recommended by the PBRB and approved by the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with the FASTA law. Access
    to these sales proceeds allows GSA to consolidate the federal
    footprint, maximize the utilization rate of federal buildings and
    facilities, reduce operating and maintenance costs, and expedite the
    sale or disposal of underutilized federal properties, which is why we
    are requesting $193.3 million in FY26.
        One recent example of a project that utilized the APSMF is the
    William O. Lipinski Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois. By disposing
    of this underutilized property, the taxpayers will realize over $161
    million in savings by eliminating delinquent maintenance liabilities.
    The APSMF funding has been critical to making this upcoming disposition
    possible, as it provides resources to cover essential move and personal
    property costs for the existing tenant agency. These costs have
    historically been an obstacle to right-sizing because the tenant agency
    lacked dedicated funding. By investing $20 million in disposition-
    related costs funded by the APSMF, we enable the tenant's transition,
    downsize their footprint by over 30%, and house the majority of their
    operations in a modern leased solution.
        Let me say that again. With an upfront investment of less than $20
    million using the proceeds from the sale of other federal real estate
    assets, the taxpayers can realize a savings of $161 million. These are
    the types of common sense real estate solutions that GSA can implement
    if funding is made available to cover the upfront costs associated with
    consolidation and disposition.
                              PBS Reorganization:
        I would like to take a moment to discuss how the PBS organization
    is changing to drive efficiency, flexibility, consistent service
    delivery, and innovation that will generate long-term savings and add
    value to the future state of federal real property:
        1.  Improve Operations and Efficiency: The PBS organization is
    transitioning to a fully integrated functional model, rather than a
    regional geographic structure. PBS is standardizing processes and
    streamlining operations by functional area to drive greater efficiency.

        2.  Construct A More Flexible Workforce: By integrating business
    functions on a national scale rather than being constrained by
    geographical boundaries, PBS can more efficiently leverage workload
    imbalances and allocate resources according to changing demands, while
    maintaining the geographic presence necessary to manage a large and
    dispersed real property portfolio.

        3.  Deliver Exceptional Customer Service: By driving consistency in
    standards, operations, and processes, PBS will improve service
    delivery. PBS has incorporated feedback from our customer agencies and
    stakeholders regarding the need for more consistency. This integrated
    functional alignment will improve consistency across PBS programs and
    result in improved service delivery.

        4.  Leverage New Technologies and Processes: PBS is developing new
    ways of conducting business through this realignment and
    standardization by using new technologies, improving our data
    infrastructure and analytics, and developing innovative real estate
    solutions.

        PBS began operating in this new organizational structure in late-
    October. GSA is appreciative of this Committee's support and
    partnership of our realignment and Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget
    request, which will help GSA more effectively serve our customers and
    the American taxpayer. Feedback from our stakeholders has been
    positive.
                                  Conclusion:
        In conclusion, as federal real property needs continue to evolve,
    GSA is well positioned to deliver savings and enhance collaboration
    with customer agencies, this Committee, and other Congressional
    stakeholders.
        Your support is vital to right-sizing the Federal footprint, and I
    humbly request the Committee's support for GSA's FY 2026 budget
    request, including key investments in the Federal Buildings Fund and
    the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. These tools will help to
    reshape the Federal footprint by making GSA's portfolio smaller, more
    functional, and less expensive to operate and maintain.
        I am very proud of the work that we are doing to help return GSA to
    its founding mission drafted over 75 years ago--a mission designed to
    help customer agencies achieve their missions through cost-effective
    real estate management.
        I look forward to partnering with the distinguished members of this
    Committee to address the key priorities that drive efficiency and
    effectiveness in federal real estate. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today, and I look forward to answering any questions
    you may have.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        And the Chair now recognizes Ms. Krause, and you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

       TESTIMONY OF HEATHER KRAUSE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
         INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Krause. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Stanton, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
    subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
    future of Federal property.
        There is a unique opportunity right now to transfer the
    Federal Government's footprint. For decades, GAO has reported
    that the Federal Government has too much space, that its
    buildings are often in poor condition, and that agencies don't
    have good data to make real property decisions. There have been
    efforts in the past to rightsize the Federal footprint, but
    these underlying issues have persisted. Agencies have often
    been too slow to shed unneeded space, and when they have, it
    has been challenging to do so. The pandemic shined a spotlight
    on these problems.
        In response, Congress and the executive branch have taken
    actions that have generated significant momentum for
    transforming Federal real property management. To sustain this
    momentum and ensure it leads to an effective result, it is
    essential that GSA and other stakeholders continue to focus on
    action taken in a deliberate and well-planned manner. Doing so
    could generate substantial savings for the American taxpayer,
    while mitigating the risk of costly mistakes and mission
    impacts.
        GSA's Public Buildings Service, or PBS, will be key to how
    well this transformation plays out over the next several years.
    The office plays a critical role in not only serving tenant
    agencies, but also helping to improve the efficiency of the
    Federal Government's vast real property holdings. Given that,
    it is imperative that PBS's reorganization be a success.
        We are currently evaluating PBS's reorganization efforts
    and how well they line up with leading reform practices. Those
    practices provide a path for any agency undergoing a major
    reorganization to do so in the most effective way possible.
    These practices will be particularly important for PBS given
    the significant staff and leadership turnover it has had this
    year. We plan to issue the results of our evaluation, with
    recommendations, in early 2026.
        In conclusion, rightsizing the Federal Government's real
    property holdings is long overdue. It is essential that
    Congress and the executive branch sustain the momentum to
    transform Federal property management with a focus on well-
    planned, deliberate action. Doing so will best position the
    Federal Government to cut costs while adding value. This will
    help ensure agencies have the right space to successfully carry
    out their missions, while achieving the most efficient and
    effective result for the American taxpayer.
        Chairman Perry, that concludes my opening statement. I am
    happy to answer any questions.
        [Ms. Krause's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Heather Krause, Managing Director, Physical
             Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office
          Federal Real Property: Successful Public Buildings Service
       Reorganization Is Critical for Addressing Longstanding Challenges
                                 GAO Highlights
    What GAO Found
        Federal real property management has faced longstanding challenges.
    The General Services Administration (GSA) and its component office, the
    Public Buildings Service (Buildings Service), play a central role in
    addressing the high-risk issues identified by GAO of underused
    buildings, real property data reliability, and building condition.
          Underused buildings. Federal agencies, many of which are
    tenants in buildings managed by the Buildings Service, have long
    struggled to determine how much space they need to fulfill their
    missions. Retaining this underused space costs millions of dollars.
    While the issue remains on GAO's High-Risk List, GSA and others have
    taken steps to address underused buildings in recent years. For
    example, in March 2025, GSA launched a program called Space Match to
    help agencies find available office space in underused federal space.
    According to GSA, potential benefits of the program include helping
    agencies find available space as employees return to in-person work;
    optimizing the use of underused space; and creating a collaborative
    work environment for agencies.

          Data reliability. Without reliable data, supporting real
    property management and decision making is difficult. GAO has
    identified problems with the reliability of federal real property data
    since GAO first designated management of federal real property as a
    High-Risk area in 2003. GSA has taken steps to improve the reliability
    of real property data, including contributing to new quality standards
    in August 2024.

          Building Condition. In the 2025 High-Risk Update, GAO
    added building condition as a new concern for federal real property due
    to large increases in the cost of addressing deferred maintenance in
    federal buildings. This backlog of maintenance and repair needs has
    more than doubled in estimated cost from fiscal years 2017 through
    2024, going from $170 billion to $370 billion. In addition, GAO found
    in 2023 that the spaces of federal agencies, many of which are GSA
    tenants, are not well configured to meet modern office needs. If
    agencies continue to operate in poorly configured office buildings,
    they will continue to underuse space, spending unnecessary operating
    funds. GSA and Buildings Service tenant agencies are taking steps to
    improve building condition and configuration, but challenges remain.

        As instructed by the administration, the Buildings Service began a
    major reorganization in March 2025, which has included reducing staff
    levels by about 50 percent. Buildings Service officials told GAO in
    September 2025 that they planned to finalize this reorganization in
    October 2025. GAO has not confirmed with GSA how the recent lapse in
    appropriations affected its implementation timeline. GAO will issue a
    report in the coming months applying leading practices for agency
    reforms to the Buildings Service's reorganization efforts. GAO's past
    work has shown that agency reforms are more likely to be successful in
    refocusing and enhancing agency missions and achieving efficiency and
    effectiveness if they follow these leading practices.
    Why GAO Did This Study
        Federal real property management has been on GAO's High-Risk List
    since 2003. GAO has previously reported that better management is
    needed to effectively dispose of underused buildings, collect reliable
    real property data, and improve the condition of federal buildings. The
    Buildings Service's primary mission is to manage federal real property.
    In March 2025, the Buildings Service began taking reorganization
    actions.
        This statement discusses how the issues of underused buildings,
    data reliability, and the condition of federal buildings on the High-
    Risk List relate to GSA and the efforts GSA's Buildings Service has
    taken to reorganize as of October 2025. This work is a part of a review
    for Congress on the organization and management of the Buildings
    Service.
        GAO's description of the relationship of the high-risk issues to
    GSA is based on GAO's prior work and reflects GAO's most recent High-
    Risk Update, released on February 25, 2025. As of May 2025, GAO has
    eight open priority recommendations to GSA on real property High-Risk
    issues, including property disposal, data reliability, and the
    management of deferred maintenance and repair. See GAO-25-108060.
        To identify the steps the Buildings Service has taken to
    reorganize, GAO reviewed GSA documents and interviewed GSA officials.

                                   __________
        December 11, 2025
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Federal real property management has been on GAO's High-Risk List
    since 2003.\1\ We have previously reported that better management is
    needed to effectively dispose of underused buildings, collect reliable
    real property data, and improve the condition of federal buildings.
    While the challenges of managing federal real property are
    governmentwide, the Public Buildings Service (Buildings Service),
    within the General Services Administration (GSA), is the agency
    component whose primary mission is to manage federal real property.
    Specifically, the Buildings Service's mission is to provide workspace
    for more than 1 million federal employees at the best value for
    taxpayers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Since the early 1990s, our high-risk program has focused
    attention on government operations with significant vulnerabilities to
    fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or that need transformation to
    address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. GAO, High-
    Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve
    Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743 (Washington,
    D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As of September 2025, the Buildings Service's portfolio includes
    about 8,500 owned and leased properties covering, 359 million square
    feet and housing 80 tenant agencies. It collects more than $10 billion
    annually in rent from its tenants and provides tenants with a broad
    range of real estate services, including maintaining owned buildings,
    negotiating leases, disposing of unneeded properties, and helping
    agencies plan their real property portfolios. The administration has
    expressed a desire for a smaller and more efficient federal workforce,
    including in its February 26, 2025, memo, Guidance on Agency Reduction
    in Force and Reorganization Plans (ARRP). Since March 2025, the
    Buildings Service has been engaged in a large-scale reorganization.
    Buildings Service officials told us in September 2025 that they planned
    to finalize this reorganization in October 2025. GAO has not confirmed
    with GSA how the recent lapse in appropriations affected its
    implementation timeline. The successful implementation of this
    reorganization will be critical for the Buildings Service's ability to
    address longstanding real property management challenges moving
    forward.
        My statement today discusses: (1) how the recommendations made
    concerning issues of underused buildings, data reliability, and the
    condition of federal buildings on GAO's High-Risk List relate to GSA;
    and (2) the reorganization efforts of GSA's Buildings Service as of
    October 2025. We plan to report more fully on the Buildings Service's
    reorganization in the coming months. Our description of GSA's efforts
    to address high-risk issues is based on GAO's prior work and reflects
    GAO's latest High-Risk Update, released on February 25, 2025.\2\ To
    identify the efforts the Buildings Service has made to reorganize, we
    reviewed pertinent documents and interviewed GSA officials.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GAO-25-107743.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
    evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.
      GSA Actions Have Resulted in Improvements to the High-Risk Area of
          Managing Federal Real Property, but More Progress is Needed
    Underused Buildings
        Federal agencies, many of which are tenants in buildings managed by
    the Buildings Service, have long struggled to determine how much space
    they need to fulfill their missions. Retaining underused space costs
    millions of dollars and is one of the main reasons that federal real
    property management has remained on GAO's High-Risk List since 2003.
    The following are key actions that Congress, GSA, and others have taken
    to address underused buildings in recent years.
          Enacted in January 2025, the Utilizing Space Efficiently
    and Improving Technologies (USE IT) Act requires agencies to measure
    building utilization and plan to dispose of underused space.\3\
    Specifically, it requires that agencies measure the utilization of
    public buildings by comparing the usable square footage of each space
    to the occupancy of the building.\4\ If a tenant agency's building
    utilization remains below 60 percent capacity for 2 consecutive years,
    GSA, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
    must take steps to reduce the amount of underused space. This Act,
    combined with effective implementation, would address our 2023
    recommendation on the need for governmentwide guidance on measuring
    space utilization.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act, Pub. L. No.
    118-272, Sec.  2302, 138 Stat. 2992, 3218 (2025).
        \4\ Occupancy is the average number of employees performing duties
    in person in a public building or federally leased space at least 40
    hours per week over a 2-month period. Covered agencies were directed to
    begin collecting utilization measurements beginning no later than July
    3, 2025, 180 days after the date of enactment. Id. Sec.  2302(b)(2).
        \5\ GAO, Federal Real Property: Agencies Need New Benchmarks to
    Measure and Shed Underutilized Space, GAO-24-107006 (Washington, D.C.:
    Oct. 26, 2023).

          In March 2025, GSA announced it would begin disposing of
    federally owned office buildings using what it described as an
    accelerated approach. As of November 2025, GSA had identified 45
    federal properties--many of which were previously identified for
    disposal--for this accelerated approach. GSA estimates that disposing
    of these properties will reduce the federal government's real property
    inventory by 14.6 million square feet and save $106 million in annual
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    operations and $3 billion in deferred maintenance costs.

          In addition, as of August 2025, a temporary real property
    disposal process established under the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer
    Act of 2016 (FASTA) had resulted in GSA selling 11 properties for a
    total of $331 million.\6\ In May 2025, the board created under FASTA
    also recommended 11 additional GSA properties for disposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Pub. L. No. 114-287, 130 Stat. 1463 (codified as amended 40
    U.S.C. Sec.  1303 note). FASTA originally included three rounds of
    recommendations by the Public Buildings Reform Board, but recently
    enacted legislation directed an additional, fourth round to identify
    additional properties. Pub. L. No. 118-272, Sec.  2301, 138 Stat. at
    3214.

          In February 2025, GSA initiated an effort to reduce
    unneeded and underused space leased by GSA for federal tenant agencies.
    GSA targeted its space reduction effort on federal leases in the ``soft
    term,'' the part of the lease term subject to termination rights.\7\
    According to GSA officials, GSA consulted with tenants prior to sending
    formal intent to terminate lease letters. GSA sent letters to federal
    tenant agencies asking them whether the agency's ability to fulfill its
    mission would be ``irreparably compromised'' if GSA were to terminate
    these leases. GSA estimates $112 million in annual costs savings from
    over 260 completed lease terminations or leases for which GSA has sent
    an intent to terminate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ GSA often enters into leases for a ``full term,'' split into an
    initial ``firm'' term and a ``soft'' or ``non-firm'' term. The firm
    term is the part of the lease not subject to termination rights, while
    the ``soft'' or ``non-firm'' term is the portion of the lease following
    the firm term, which is subject to termination rights. See, for
    example, U.S. Gen. Services Admin. Leasing Desk Guide, chs. 2, 2.1-13-
    2.1-14 (2022); U.S. Gen. Services Admin, Global Lease Template--GSA
    Template L100, 2 (2023).

          In March 2025, GSA launched a program called Space Match
    to help federal agencies find available office space in underused
    space. According to GSA, potential benefits of the program include
    helping agencies find available space as employees return to in-person
    work; optimizing the use of underused space; and creating a
    collaborative work environment for agencies. GAO has not reviewed this
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    program.

        We are currently reviewing GSA's real property disposal and sales
    processes. We expect to issue reports on those topics in 2026.
    Data Reliability
        Effective real property management and decision-making is difficult
    without reliable data. GSA relies on federal agencies to submit
    accurate data to the Federal Real Property Profile, the governmentwide
    database of federal real property that GSA uses to manage buildings,
    structures, and land. We have identified problems with the reliability
    of federal real property data since we first placed management of
    federal real property on the High-Risk List.
        GSA has worked with federal agencies to improve the reliability of
    federal real property data. In 2020, we reported that 67 percent of
    addresses in the Federal Real Property Profile public database were
    incorrectly formatted or incomplete.\8\ GSA took actions to improve its
    process for validating and verifying addresses in this database. In
    2023, we found that over 98 percent of addresses were correctly
    formatted, but that location data errors continued.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ GAO, Federal Real Property: GSA Should Improve Accuracy,
    Completeness, and Usefulness of Public Data, GAO-20-135 (Washington,
    D.C.: Feb. 6, 2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In August 2024, the Federal Real Property Council, an interagency
    council of which GSA is a member, published guidance to help federal
    agencies improve the quality of data they submit to the Federal Real
    Property Profile.\9\ The guidance instructs agencies to concentrate
    their initial data quality improvement efforts on data elements such as
    property type and property use because these elements are most easily
    verified with external information. GSA established a strategic
    initiative to improve real property data accuracy through data
    standards and management in its strategic plan for fiscal years 2022-
    2026. GSA also implemented a tool that alerts agencies to potentially
    incorrect location data in the Federal Real Property Profile database.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Federal Real Property Council, Agency-Level Federal Real
    Property Profile Data Quality Improvement Program Guidance (August
    2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moving forward, GSA should continue to take steps to fully
    implement our 2020 recommendation to help federal agencies improve
    their data reliability by implementing the data quality standards
    identified in the Federal Real Property Council's August 2024 guidance
    and ensuring street address information is accurate.\10\ As of November
    2025, this recommendation was partially addressed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ GAO-20-135.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are currently completing an assessment of the reliability and
    utility of the Federal Real Property Profile. We plan to issue that
    report in early 2026.
    Building Condition
        In the 2025 High-Risk Update, we added building condition as an
    area for concern due to large increases in the cost of addressing
    deferred maintenance in federal buildings. This backlog of maintenance
    and repair needs more than doubled in estimated cost from fiscal years
    2017 through 2024, going from $170 billion to $370 billion. GSA's
    estimated backlog of total liabilities, including deferred maintenance,
    for the next 10 years is $26 billion, as of September 2025. GSA and
    Buildings Service tenant agencies are taking steps to improve building
    condition and configuration, but the continuing challenges led us to
    include the topic in the High-Risk update.
          In 2023, we determined that the spaces of federal
    agencies, many of which are tenants of GSA, are not well configured to
    meet modern office needs.\11\ If agencies continue to operate in poorly
    configured office buildings, they will continue to underuse space,
    spending unnecessary operating funds. Agencies ranked a shortage of
    funds in their budget to reconfigure space as the top challenge to
    increasing utilization of their headquarters buildings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ GAO-24-107006.

          In 2023, we reviewed GSA and three other agencies and
    found they did not fully communicate the potential costs of maintenance
    backlogs to Congress.\12\ None of the agencies provided sufficient
    information in their financial and budget documents to explain how much
    of their backlog was for projects necessary to fulfilling agency
    missions. As a result, Congress and the public do not have a clear
    picture of the anticipated costs to address the deferred maintenance
    that may impact critical government functions. We recommended that GSA
    and three other agencies fully communicate repair needs to Congress and
    the public. As of November 2025, all four of these recommendations
    remained open; two of the four are partially addressed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ GAO, Federal Real Property: Agencies Should Provide More
    Information about Increases in Deferred Maintenance and Repair, GAO-24-
    105485 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GSA's Buildings Service Reduced Staff and Took Initial Steps to
                 Implement a Reorganization as of October 2025
        As of October 2025, the Buildings Service had taken several
    reorganization actions, such as reducing staff and developing its
    proposed new organizational structure. We have not confirmed with GSA
    how the recent lapse in appropriations affected its implementation
    timeline. We spoke to Buildings Service officials as part of an ongoing
    review on the organization and management of the Buildings Service,
    which was directed by a provision of the Thomas R. Carper Water
    Resources Development Act.\13\ Buildings Service officials told us that
    the agency initially planned to complete its reorganization in July
    2025 but postponed implementation due to litigation and leadership
    changes. See Figure 1 for a timeline of events since January 2025
    related to the Buildings Service's reorganization.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Pub. L. No. 118-272, div. B, tit. III, Sec. 2305, 138 Stat.
    2992, 3225 (2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Figure 1: Events Related to the Public Buildings Service's
                                Reorganization,

                       January 2025 through November 2025
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Source: GAO analysis of administration directives, GSA documents,
    information from GSA officials, and court documents associated with Am.
       Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698, (N.D. Cal.). GAO-26-
                                     108785

        Our past work has shown that agency reforms are more likely to be
    successful in refocusing and enhancing agency missions and achieving
    efficiency and effectiveness if leading reform practices are
    followed.\14\ Following these leading reform practices could help the
    Buildings Service ensure that its reorganization is a success.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ We use the term ``reforms'' to broadly include any
    organizational changes--such as major transformations, mergers,
    consolidations, and other reorganizations--and efforts to streamline
    and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations.
    GAO, Government Reorganization Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform
    Efforts, GAO-18-427 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have work underway for the Congress which applies selected
    leading practices for agency reforms to the Buildings Service's
    reorganization to date. We plan to issue this work in the next few
    months. We selected these leading practices and associated key
    questions based on their relevance to Section 2305 of the Water
    Resources Development Act, which directed our work; the stage of the
    Buildings Service's reorganization; and relevance to administration
    priorities identified for Agency Reduction in Force and Reorganization
    Plans (ARRP) (see fig. 2).\15\ We interpret the administration's ARRP
    guidance as indicative of the administration's priorities in conducting
    agencies' reorganizations. We do not plan to assess GSA's ARRP, but we
    assessed the Buildings Service's actions related to its own
    reorganization.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ OMB, Guidance on Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans
    (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Figure 2: Selected Leading Practices and Key Questions for Agency
                                     Reform
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Source: GAO. GAO-26-108785

        In addition, we plan to report on selected tenant agency views on
    the strengths and limitations of the organization of the Buildings
    Service that was in place as of December 31, 2024. We also will
    describe former Buildings Service Commissioners' views on both the
    strengths and limitations of the organization of the Buildings Service
    as of December 31, 2024, and their perspectives on potential
    improvements.
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
    to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks our witness.
        Moving on to Congressman Capuano. You served on this
    committee with distinction. You have many friends here, and you
    are recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.

      TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, BOARD MEMBER, PUBLIC
                         BUILDINGS REFORM BOARD

        Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning. My name is Mike Capuano, Board member of the
    Public Buildings Reform Board and a member of this committee
    for 18 years. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Perry and
    Ranking Member Stanton for inviting the Board.
        And before I get into my real testimony, I want to also
    offer my completely insincere condolences for the Eagles' loss
    this past weekend. [Laughter.] It was terrible. I could fake
    that I care, but I can't do that.
        FASTA was enacted in December of 2016 as a bipartisan,
    bicameral effort that created the PBRB. It was most recently
    amended last year by this committee through the Water Resources
    Development Act. And our current Board members are Talmage
    Hocker, who is the acting chair; Nick Rahall, who is a former
    ranking member of this committee; Dave Winstead is a former PBS
    Commissioner; Dan Mathews is a former PBS Commissioner and a
    former staffer of this committee; Jeffrey Gural; and myself.
        The purpose of the Board is to identify Federal properties
    that should be disposed of and recommend them for disposition
    to the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services
    Administration. We look for properties that are underutilized
    and which have significant deferred maintenance. The Board is
    not empowered to force a disposition. All we can do is make
    recommendations.
        The amended law dictates four rounds of recommendations. To
    date, the PBRB has submitted three rounds, totaling $846
    million in sales proceeds, $5.7 billion in cost savings over 30
    years. The most recent recommendation submitted in May of this
    year identified 11 Federal properties encompassing nearly 7
    million gross square feet in 7 cities across the United States,
    plus the Washington, DC, area. Our next report is due next year
    by December of 2026.
        Today, I would just like to enlighten you about a few
    issues we have struggled with over the years.
        While every approved recommendation saves taxpayers
    millions, it costs money to achieve these savings. New
    locations have to be identified and fit-out for use, employees
    and office equipment must be moved, and the old property must
    be prepared for sale.
        Congress created the Asset Proceeds and Space Management
    Fund under the original FASTA law and directed the sales
    proceeds from PBRB recommended properties into that fund. WRDA
    amended that law to stipulate that future proceeds from sales
    be reverted to the land-owning agencies. In both cases,
    expenditures are subject to the appropriation process. The
    Board notes that faster access to these funds generated--
    billions have already been generated--would provide both an
    incentive to consolidate and the resources to support the next
    sale of the next property.
        The Board's independent analysis identified approximately
    $50 billion in deferred maintenance and repair liabilities
    across the entire GSA-owned portfolio. In contrast, the GSA
    currently receives about $600 million annually to address those
    needs. GSA's portfolio would have to shrink by about 80 percent
    to keep up with the maintenance within the budget of the
    appropriation. Everyone realizes this is unrealistic and
    undesirable.
        Moving Federal agencies to leased space does solve many
    problems. Leases, obviously, are known and predictable for the
    duration of the lease. Federal agencies don't have to contend
    with constantly degrading properties. Leases also offer the
    flexibility that can be expanded or shrunk according to the
    needs of the agencies, and taxpayers are not forced to pay for
    empty space that needs maintenance. However, the economic
    conditions that may encourage leasing in some markets also
    reduce the value of the real estate that we might want to sell
    in that same market. So, therefore, in some markets, there are
    competing interests depending on the market.
        The Board believes that the GSA agrees that the Federal
    portfolio really should be consolidated; however, we also
    recognize that GSA currently relies on the rents paid by their
    tenant agencies to fund a large portion of their normal
    operating budget. Any consolidation or reduction denies the GSA
    those funds, which makes their annual operations much more
    difficult to do. The Board believes it would be wise to address
    these conflicting interests and would be happy to work with
    Congress to achieve those goals.
        The Board has uncovered a fair amount of market--my time is
    coming to an end. I just want to wrap up then. I'm going to
    jump to the bullets.
        People realize that we have too many buildings that are not
    fully occupied. We are not getting the current information we
    need to give this Congress the information that we would like
    to give you and our recommendations are more thoughtfully put
    out, and we would like to find a way to get access to that
    information. I know the WRDA says that we shall get it. We
    shall see whether that is fulfilled. I have my serious doubts
    based on past experience that we will be able to get access to
    the information that we need.
        With that, I am going to yield back and not get into that
    red light.
        [Mr. Capuano's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael E. Capuano, Board Member, Public
                             Buildings Reform Board
        Good morning, I am Mike Capuano, Board member of the Public
    Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) and former Member of this Committee. I
    want to begin by thanking Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Stanton for
    inviting the Public Buildings Reform Board to speak. Congress created
    PBRB as the sole engine for the execution of the Federal Asset Sale and
    Transfer Act (FASTA) and we are pleased to be invited to this hearing
    to discuss our work. I will first provide you with a brief overview of
    PBRB and then describe what we are finding during our review of the
    federal real property portfolio.
                                    Overview
        FASTA was enacted on December 16, 2016, as a bipartisan and
    bicameral effort, and created the Public Buildings Reform Board.
    Current Board members are D. Talmage Hocker (Acting Chair), Nick Rahall
    (former Chairman of this Committee), David Winstead, Dan Mathews
    (former Staff for this Committee), Jeffrey Gural, and me.
        The purpose of the Board is to identify federal properties that
    should be disposed of. We look for properties that are either
    underutilized or in need of so much repair work that it would be
    financially wiser to relocate or consolidate. We try to focus on
    properties that offer the largest taxpayer savings. We work with the
    local stakeholders before we make our recommendations.
        The Board is not empowered to force a disposition--all we can do is
    make recommendations to OMB and GSA. If they agree with our
    recommendations, GSA has the sole authority as to how and when to
    dispose of the property.
        The law, as amended, dictates four rounds of recommendations. To
    date, PBRB has submitted three rounds that should total $846 million in
    revenues from sales and $5.675 billion in cost savings over 30 years.
    The latest of these recommendations, issued in May 2025, identified 11
    federal properties encompassing nearly 7.1 million gross square feet of
    office space in seven U.S. cities and the National Capital Region.
        The Board is currently assessing properties for its next round,
    which is due no later than December 31, 2026, when the Board is
    scheduled to sunset. That assessment includes recent site visits to
    Boston, Jacksonville, Denver, Savannah, Charleston, and Columbia, South
    Carolina and in-person meetings with stakeholders in each area. Plans
    are in the works to visit other U.S. markets including Bozeman and
    Minneapolis. To date, the local governments have been supportive of our
    approach.
        During our analysis, we have uncovered several issues that I would
    like to briefly highlight for you today.
            Disposing of Property Requires Some Upfront Expenditures
        While every recommendation the Board makes saves taxpayers millions
    upon millions of dollars, it does cost money to achieve those savings.
    New locations must first be located, that new location usually requires
    some amount of fit-out for its intended use, moving workers into the
    new location requires some expenditures, often the old property
    requires some degree of remediation before it can be offered for sale,
    and finally it costs some money to hire brokers to dispose of the
    property.
        Congress did create the Asset Proceeds Fund (APF) under FASTA and
    directed the revenues generated from the sale of PBRB-recommended
    properties into the fund for the purpose of supporting all the costs
    listed in the previous paragraph. For many reasons the funds in the APF
    have not been made available for the intended purpose and remain unused
    at this time. The amended FASTA stipulates that proceeds from the sale
    of properties be reverted to the land-owning agency. In both cases,
    appropriations must take place to make funds available for subsequent
    consolidations or even maintenance. The Board has noted that
    establishing a mechanism to provide agencies ready access to funds
    generated from property sales would provide an incentive and the
    resources to sell excess properties, improve maintenance in remaining
    properties and consolidate the workforce. A timely resource solution is
    urgently needed, as I will explain shortly.
        The Board would be happy to work with Congress to address this
    conundrum.
              The Deferred Maintenance Liability Is Extraordinary
        The Board is conducting an analysis of the total deferred
    maintenance liability for the federal portfolio owned by GSA. Many
    properties are owned by other agencies, but data from those other
    agencies is unavailable. The analysis will provide Congress with an
    independent, data-driven estimate of the deferred maintenance and
    repair liabilities across the GSA-owned portfolio.
        The Board's analysis has identified approximately $50 billion in
    deferred maintenance and repair liabilities across GSA's owned
    portfolio. This number is approximately twice as high as the highest
    number GSA has communicated publicly in its various testimonies before
    Congress. Using GSA's own rate of escalation (27%), in 10 years, the
    total deferred maintenance for GSA's portfolio will be approximately
    $546 billion, if there are no significant changes in Congressional
    funding or reductions to the portfolio. In contrast, GSA currently
    receives approximately $600 million annually to address these
    mushrooming needs. To put this into perspective, the estimated
    functional replacement value (FRV) of the portfolio--the cost to simply
    replace the properties, and not the market value--is $160 billion. The
    currently budgeted $600 million in annual capital funding would meet a
    2% of FRV target (which is industry standard) if the portfolio's FRV
    were $31B--a stark contrast to its current $160B FRV. This indicates
    that GSA's portfolio would have to shrink by around 80% to be
    maintained with a $600 million budget.
        The Board believes that GSA cannot adequately divest from and
    consolidate the federal presence with the speed required by the large
    pool of properties requiring vast amounts of maintenance. The effort to
    divest will take years and require funds that can be derived from the
    disposition of valued properties. However, those decisions must be made
    rapidly and in sequence, and appropriations of sale proceeds should be
    committed to the subsequent downsizing.
        The Board believes that its work represents only initial analysis
    in that we seek properties that provide value upon their sale. There
    are a large number of buildings that present no value or such low value
    that the cost to move employees and shut the facility exceeds the
    possible savings. But these unmarketable and often underused and under
    maintained properties are a drain on the federal budget and taxpayers.
    One solution would be to extend the life of the Board and grant it
    amplified authorities and budget to achieve the number of reductions
    urgently required across the portfolio.
        GSA Cannot Sufficiently Shrink Its Portfolio to Fit Within Its
                                 Appropriations
        Congress has sent a consistent and clear message to GSA through the
    appropriations process: downsize the portfolio wherever you can. In
    FY2024, GSA received $600 million \1\ for repairs and alterations of
    its entire portfolio. The Board can identify two properties that would
    consume this entire amount on their own. The is no realistic
    expectation that the federal government will ever be able to fund an
    amount sufficient to meet its needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GSA CBJ 2025
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is also unrealistic to expect GSA to shrink its portfolio so
    that $600 million is sufficient to bring federal property up to modern
    day expectations. Testimony to this Committee in May suggested that
    land ports of entry, courthouses, and law enforcement facilities should
    continue to be owned by GSA and funded from its appropriations. As of
    right now, federal real property data show that land ports of entry and
    border inspection facilities, courthouses, and facility security
    structures have a maintenance requirement of $6.8 billion. That means
    that even if GSA sold every single office building in its inventory, it
    still would require $6.8 billion to fix the remaining critical assets.
                    Leasing Could be a Part of Any Solution
        Moving federal agencies into leases solves several issues
    simultaneously. The biggest advantage to the taxpayer is that the lease
    costs are known and predictable for the duration of the lease, and
    federal agencies do not have to contend with exponentially degrading
    properties. Leases can be expanded or shrunk according to needs more
    quickly than buying or selling property. Lease rates are down in many
    areas of the country, meaning that agencies may be able to find leases
    which would cost less than what taxpayers pay in rent charged by GSA.
    Further, long-term federal leases are desirable to commercial building
    owners and agencies should be able to negotiate concessions that would
    enable moves and improvements to spaces, resulting in lowered or
    vanishing costs for the consolidations.
        However, one should note that the same market that creates cheaper
    rents also drives down the value of real estate. So, in some markets,
    any sale of Federal property may bring much less than what otherwise
    may be expected.
                 GSA Faces Conflicting Pressures on Downsizing
        As stated, GSA is under pressure to downsize from most observers
    and the Board believes that GSA shares those sentiments. However, this
    fact is often lost--federal agencies that occupy GSA-owned buildings
    pay market-rate rents to GSA and those payments are used to fund a
    large portion of GSA's operating budget. If agencies leave those GSA-
    owned buildings, the rental payments end and GSA loses significant
    revenue. The result is that GSA faces a real financial dilemma whenever
    federal agencies consolidate or vacate GSA-owned real estate.
        On occasion, taxpayers are forced to pay twice when a tenant agency
    voluntarily vacates a GSA-owned property. An example would be an agency
    that decides to move out of a poorly maintained GSA-owner property to
    lease a more appropriate space. In that case, taxpayers foot the bill
    for the cost of moving the agency and leasing the new space; plus the
    GSA is left with vacant space no other agency will lease but still
    requires some degree of maintenance and the costs associated with same,
    and the deferred maintenance costs continue to increase. Of course,
    this not-uncommon example also harms the host community that now
    suffers all the harms associated with vacant and unwanted space.
        The Board would be happy to work with Congress to address these
    conflicting pressures.
             The Board Has Uncovered a Market for Federal Buildings
        As noted earlier, the Board has been busy meeting with
    municipalities, historic preservation groups, and real estate brokers,
    and has uncovered significant interest in federal properties. At a
    recent meeting with local stakeholders in Savannah, Georgia, the local
    preservation organization and the city expressed interest in acquiring
    one of these historic properties. The Board has also been working with
    brokers to understand how GSA could divest large tracts of land for
    data centers. One property the Board has identified in Northern
    Virginia is potentially valued at about $800 million, according to
    brokers.
        Although the Public Buildings Reform Board does not have a planning
    role, we agree with the efforts by the District of Columbia and the
    National Capital Planning Commission to create a master plan for
    Southwest DC, which has the largest concentration of underutilized
    Federal buildings and will benefit all stakeholders It is also the
    location of two of our Round 2 recommendations (the Dept of Energy
    Forrestal Building and the former GSA National Capital Regional Office
    Building). We are reviewing some of the remaining buildings in the
    southwest for potential inclusion in Round 3. However, the value will
    be greatly dependent on the plans for this area as well as the
    absorption period for existing vacant property.
        The Board notes that GSA does not routinely engage with local
    communities, historic preservation groups, and local brokers to explore
    market possibilities when considering which properties it may want to
    divest. Instead, it creates internal priorities and then, as funding
    becomes available from appropriations, it works to effect
    consolidations.
        In contrast, the PBRB happily engages any stakeholder we can
    identify and the local real estate community who is most familiar with
    the local market.
        Given the level of engagement and interest demonstrated by
    municipalities and historic preservation groups, the Board is preparing
    a set of more urgent property recommendations where potential buyers
    have already been identified in order to seize the market opportunities
    we have uncovered.
                     The Lights Are On, But Nobody Is Home
        Despite the return-to-office mandates, it is apparent to the Board
    as it travels around the country, analyzing properties and talking to
    communities that many federal properties are not occupied near
    capacity. The 2024 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) stipulated
    that properties that did not meet a space use rate of 60% on average
    over a year, would be required to be divested from the portfolio.
        The Board notes that agencies appear to be having trouble
    collecting real data on daily use despite readily available technology
    that would support collection and produce the valid and consistent
    information required to effectively manage properties. We understand
    that OMB is pushing agencies hard to gather and provide the required
    occupancy information. The PBRB has not be allowed access to this data,
    even though we readily acknowledge it may not be perfectly accurate at
    this time. Nonetheless, we anxiously await access to whatever data any
    agency has in order to better assess various properties we have
    identified for possible disposition across the country.
        The Board's own work in determining the costs of maintaining
    properties ``as is'' versus downsizing and moving is hampered by a lack
    of use data, and the data are not expected to become validated until
    too late in the Board's analysis cycle. Extending the life of the Board
    would allow for continued analysis and incorporation of better daily
    use data, making our recommendations more accurate.
        The Board will continue to talk to communities and gather
    information about what markets and properties present opportunities in
    preparation for its next report. We appreciate the support of this
    committee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
                                    Summary
          The PBRB was created by Congress to encourage federal
    agencies to consolidate and dispose of unnecessary properties in order
    to increase efficiency and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
          It costs a little money to save lots of money when it
    comes to disposing of property.
          The Board has conducted an analysis that estimates a $50
    billion cost to address the backlog of repair problems in federal
    properties. In 10 years, that backlog will grow to $546 billion if
    nothing is changed.
          Even if GSA sold every property it owns, current funding
    levels could not meet its repairs and maintenance requirements.
          Leasing can and should be a part of the solution.
    However, more affordable rents also mean lower sales proceeds.
          The Board has found some properties with no value, so
    that leasing presents the taxpayer with a bill for the lease, plus the
    cost for day-to-day operations in a partially vacant building, and the
    extraordinary unfunded capital requirements for deferred maintenance.
          GSA faces conflicting financial pressures when
    considering disposition and consolidations.
          The PBRB and others have concluded that many federal
    properties are seriously underutilized. However, official data on
    utilization rates is not currently made unavailable for the Board to
    analyze.
          Taxpayers would be better served if the Board and GSA
    were granted faster access to proceeds generated from prior sales in
    order to fund the next round of sales. Such changes would require legal
    and policy changes to ensure market-timed dispositions were feasible.
          There are numbers of buildings that present no value or
    such low value that the cost to move employees and shut the facility
    exceeds the value. But these unmarketable and often underused and under
    maintained properties are a drain on the federal budget and taxpayers.
          The PBRB will submit our next report no later than Dec.
    31, 2026. The Board may submit partial reports before that date. If the
    Board is extended by Congress, the PBRB will continue its mission and
    save taxpayers billions more.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And we also
    thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of the world
    champion Eagles, Philadelphia Eagles. Fascinating.
        All right. Thank you all for your testimony. We will now
    turn to questions.
        The chair is now recognized for 5 minutes of questions. I'm
    going to start with Mr. Heller. By January, all agencies are
    required to meet the 60-percent minimum occupancy target, and
    if they don't, they must correct or release the space. Data in
    this regard is also critical--I think I just screwed up my
    notes here--to the work of the Public Buildings Reform Board.
    We received a notification just this week that data release
    will be delayed due to the shutdown.
        Look, I know there was a shutdown, but--and we will use
    that slide in the next question. But I am assuming you are
    collecting data, and maybe you are delayed because of the
    shutdown, but you have a certain amount of data now. Can you
    give us the preliminary data that you have now and then commit
    to us receiving the data on a timely basis based on the time
    lost for the shutdown? I would say that would be about March,
    March 31. Can we get the preliminary data that you have now,
    now? And can you commit to us getting all the data no later
    than March 31?
        Mr. Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
        GSA has been working closely across the executive branch,
    including with the Office of Management and Budget and all of
    our occupant agencies, to collect the data that is required by
    the USE IT Act. We very much appreciate this committee's action
    to pass the public buildings reform earlier this year. We
    believe it gives us a lot of the tools that are going to be
    necessary to rightsize the portfolio.
        We will require resources, as Congressman Capuano and I
    noted in our opening testimony. The shutdown really did create
    a situation where many agencies were asking for extensions to
    be able to submit and verify the data that we have been
    collecting, and so I believe this was communicated to the
    committee yesterday.
        Mr. Perry. Right.
        Mr. Heller. The administration is committed to providing
    the information by the end of March this year. We want to make
    sure that we are providing the committee with accurate data
    that you all can trust and use to conduct oversight and to make
    decisions. I would be happy to work with the committee to
    discuss your question regarding receiving interim data at an
    earlier date. Happy to follow up and talk with your staff.
        Mr. Perry. Okay. So that is a long answer, but what I think
    I gleaned out of that is you are committed to March 31?
        Mr. Heller. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Perry. And you will work with us on preliminary data
    that you have received or partial data that you have received
    to this date, assuming and recognizing and acknowledging the
    delay that might have been caused by the shutdown for some
    agencies?
        Mr. Heller. Happy to discuss ways that we can provide the
    committee with----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And we will understand it is not
    complete and not completely reflective and might need to be
    adjusted pending further review, but we want to make sure that
    the process stays on track. We want to start looking at what
    you have now, and we want to make sure that that is just not
    some reason to not provide the full panoply of data on March
    31, and then on March 31 you say, well, look, we are still not
    complete yet. We want to kind of use the opportunity to gauge
    how fast you are going and how far you are getting.
        Let me turn to the next question, and then you can put the
    slide up.
        As I understand it, GSA is working to reduce liability to
    the taxpayer by focusing its core, owned assets on things like
    courthouses, land ports of entry, and other specialized spaces
    while moving to leased space for traditional offices. In order
    to manage this, I think it is critical for the GSA to leverage
    real estate expertise.
        [Slide shown.]
        And I think, if you look at this slide, it shows that the
    expertise from the outside market of brokers really does very
    well for the taxpayers and for the Government, and so--where
    the GLS or brokers contracts play an important role in keeping
    lease costs low. These are no-cost contracts, leveraging
    experts at no cost to the taxpayers, because the experts are
    paid on commissions by the buildings' owners, and they share
    that commission with the GSA currently.
        That having been said, where is the GSA in renewing the
    current GLS contract for leasing services, and how is the GSA
    effectively leveraging the current brokers to work through
    expiring leases?
        We feel like you are well behind, and we need to catch up
    to this, and that the program needs to be modified so that it
    incentivizes the accurate and efficient work of the outside
    experts.
        Mr. Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
        We agree with you, and we have been partnering with
    private-sector brokers to supplement our workforce in the
    Public Buildings Service for over two decades. We recognize the
    value that they bring to the table.
        The current contract expires in January of 2026. Our plan
    at this time is to enter into what we would call a 1-year
    bridge contract while we sort of work with our incoming
    political leadership to make sure that we structure the
    contract in a way that simplifies ordering procedures, reduces
    inefficiencies, but still allows industry competition and
    participation, and make sure we are getting the best expertise
    to get the job done.
        Mr. Perry. And I apologize to my colleagues for going over
    time here, but I just want to delve into this a little more. I
    don't know that I was aware of this bridge contract, and I want
    to make sure that we are not creating a bunch of uncertainty
    for the year with a bridge contract. It should pretty much
    reflect where we hope we are going to go.
        And so, is there an--will there be an opportunity for
    Members of both sides of the aisle here to review that bridge
    contract prior to it coming out, and what is the--like, January
    is next month. We are coming pretty fast here.
        Mr. Heller. Yes. We have been working on this for the past
    couple of months and happy to follow up with the committee to
    provide additional information that would be helpful.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, we would very much like to see that and
    provide an opportunity to weigh in where necessary.
        All right. Again, I apologize. I am over time.
        The Chair now turns to the ranking member, Representative
    Stanton from Arizona.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This subcommittee also has jurisdiction over FEMA. A draft
    of the FEMA Review Council's report is out. In my opinion,
    unfortunately, it still plans to keep FEMA within the Homeland
    Security Department, but the report also recommends the
    movement of most of the remaining FEMA employees out of
    Washington, DC.
        Commissioner Heller, has GSA been involved in any
    discussions or efforts to move FEMA employees out of
    Washington, DC, to Texas or anywhere else?
        Mr. Heller. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking Member.
        I am not aware of any of those conversations occurring. We
    have been in discussions with FEMA regarding their headquarters
    lease here in Washington. That lease is coming up for
    expiration in 2027. So I have not read the report that you just
    referenced, but our partners at FEMA have been communicating to
    us that receiving that report is a very important milestone as
    they plan for their headquarters occupancy.
        We will continue to partner with FEMA and get an
    understanding of what their requirements are in terms of
    headcount, where they need to be, and we will provide FEMA with
    options to meet those requirements in a cost-effective and
    efficient way.
        Mr. Stanton. As part of your ongoing discussions with
    Homeland Security with regard to their current lease, you have
    had no conversations regarding whether or not they want to
    significantly reduce headcount and move headcount out of
    Washington, DC, as part of the planning for the future
    disposition of their building?
        Mr. Heller. I think--I certainly don't want to speak for
    the Department of Homeland Security, but I think----
        Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. I just want to talk about your
    conversations that you have had with them. You indicated you
    are in conversation with them regarding the disposition of
    their lease.
        Mr. Heller. Absolutely, we are. I think those
    requirements----
        Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. What have they said to you
    about their desire for the future of that lease?
        Mr. Heller. At this point, they have really been waiting
    for the release of the report that you referenced to get an
    understanding of what impact that report would have on their
    headquarter's occupancy. But we will continue to partner with
    them, and happy to follow up with this committee on any
    information related to that lease that you would like to
    obtain.
        Mr. Stanton. As of this time, as far as your conversations
    with them, there is no planning for another FEMA building or
    lease of a building for FEMA employees outside of Washington,
    DC?
        Mr. Heller. I am not aware of one at this time. My staff
    does have conversations with FEMA on an ongoing basis. As part
    of those conversations, there is a chance that this may have
    come up, but I am not aware of any active plans at this time to
    enter into leases anywhere else.
        Mr. Stanton. Okay. They better act quick because, according
    to the report that just came out today, as we speak in this
    hearing, they are planning to move their employees out of
    Washington, DC. At least that is what Secretary Noem wants to
    do. The bill that I have with Ranking Member Larsen and
    Chairman Graves very much goes in a different direction. We
    want to make sure that we continue to grow FEMA here in
    Washington and move the FEMA Director to a Cabinet-level
    position. So I appreciate that information.
        Congressman Capuano, good to see you. Welcome back to this
    august committee. As GSA eliminates space, should customer
    service operations, such as Social Security field offices and
    VA health facilities, be treated the same as general office
    space? How can GSA ensure that the taxpayers who pay for these
    Federal services still have access to them?
        Mr. Capuano. The answer is, we don't look at that type of
    stuff. We are interested in buildings. Obviously, as a former
    Member, I fought to keep my Social Security office in my
    district for the same reason I am sure you would want it in
    yours. People need access to it. That is not--doesn't
    necessarily have to be in a Federal building. It could be in a
    leased property. There are plenty of ways to deal with this.
        We are aware of that when we look at buildings as to who is
    in them and who needs to be where. However, the Board is not
    empowered to make those decisions. We can and do make
    recommendations to GSA, but most of what we focus on is the
    building itself, the physical assets.
        Mr. Stanton. All right. I mentioned that I am a recovering
    mayor. Congressman, should the Federal Government work with
    local governments to determine future land use and zoning
    principles before taking properties to market?
        Mr. Capuano. Very much so. I am also a--not a recovering
    mayor. I still----
        Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. Recovering Congressman,
    recovering mayor.
        Mr. Capuano. Recovering Congressman, maybe. Mayor was a
    great job. You get to actually do things as opposed to talk to
    them.
        The answer is, yes, very much so. Again, I wasn't on the
    Board from the get-go, and I know there were some issues with
    certain properties before I got there, but in these last
    several rounds, last several years, very much so.
        Every one of the buildings we look at are pretty major
    assets in the cities and towns. We look at them. We know there
    will be a major impact on them. We have tried very much to work
    closely with them as best we can, and so far, to my knowledge,
    since I have been on the Board, there have been not an ounce of
    problems. We actually have had less problems with the local
    communities, because we talk to them, than we have had with
    some of the Federal agencies.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Congressman.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
    Representative Ezell.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    being here today and spending time with us.
        When I entered Congress, I was unaware of the big Federal
    footprint of real estate in this country, both owned and
    leased. Not only is it one of the largest holders of real
    estate in the country, but the Federal Government is now facing
    a possible financial crisis due to these holdings.
        Since 2003, the GSA has been on the high-risk list due to
    the financial ruin it faces. Maintenance and repairs alone are
    over $370 billion and growing worse each year. The general
    management of many of these buildings costs over $10 billion a
    year.
        Until this year, most of these buildings sat partially or
    fully empty while the taxpayers footed the bill for them. If
    there is any place where a conversation about the need to rein
    in Government spending can be on hand, it could start here.
        The Federal Government should not own buildings it cannot
    maintain, and it should not lease offices that are not staffed.
        Mr. Heller, given the significant cost of ownership, is
    there an overall plan from the GSA to significantly shift from
    ownership to leasing?
        Mr. Heller. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Yes, I
    would say there has been a shift, specifically with respect to
    general office space requirements. Those are the types of
    requirements that can typically be met in a very satisfactory
    and cost-effective way in the leasing market.
        Where we are concentrating the limited resources that we
    have with the Federal inventory is on those more highly
    specialized spaces, such as courthouses, land ports of entry,
    laboratories, major law enforcement centers.
        So we do seek to enhance our partnership with the private
    sector in terms of leasing for general office space as we move
    forward. I think our financial situation just dictates that we
    must do so, and it is a sensible thing to do.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Could you tell me what has been the
    main burden of transitioning from ownership to leasing?
        Mr. Heller. Yes. The main burden--and thank you for the
    question--is really funding to relocate agencies. I think
    Congressman Capuano did a really good job in his opening
    remarks outlining some of the costs associated with relocation.
    You have got to build out space in a new location to meet the
    tenant's needs. You have got to physically move them. You have
    got to buy personal property like IT and furniture.
        And so I would say really the chronic underfunding of the
    Federal Buildings Fund is to the tune of $15 billion over the
    past decade and a half. We have developed a program called the
    Optimization Program, and we appreciate this committee's
    support of that program. We were able to allocate about $250
    million of funding in fiscal year 2025 and have requested $365
    million more in 2026.
        And we also seek to partner with the Public Buildings
    Reform Board on the Asset Proceeds Fund where we have requested
    $193 million in fiscal year 2026. Our issue is that we need to
    get access to that funding to make some of these relocations
    happen so that we can dispose of the assets effectively.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
        Last question. Beyond eliminating commission credits and
    recompeting at the task order level, what else might be used to
    help attract and retain the best brokers for GSA services?
        Mr. Heller. Well, I think sort of relying on a merit-based
    system and rewarding those high performers. And so as we seek
    to strategize around our longer term broker contract over the
    next several months, we are going to be looking at ways to
    incentivize strong performance and to minimize inefficiencies
    and simplify the ordering procedures.
        Mr. Ezell. That is going to help speed up the process?
        Mr. Heller. I hope so.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Representative Larsen from Washington.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair.
        First for Representative Capuano. Now that you have May of
    2025 recommendations out, you said 11 Federal projects, 7.1
    million gross square feet, what happens next with those
    recommendations?
        Mr. Capuano. Well, the recommendations require the approval
    of OMB, which they have already given, and now it goes to GSA
    to make the dispositions the way they see fit. We have no
    authority to tell them how to do it.
        I will say that in this round, GSA--we have been pushing
    the use of brokers for years now. Up until now, GSA has
    resisted that. It has basically just put the properties on
    websites, which has resulted in not such great results, in my
    opinion.
        But this round, I will say that the GSA has hired a few
    brokers to try to help them get rid of some, and I think I am
    looking forward to a more successful round than we have had in
    the past.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. And following up, you said you
    have another round and then the Board sunsets at the end of
    next year. Is that right?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Do you have a goal for that next
    round, or do the recommendations come organically?
        Mr. Capuano. Little bit of both. I mean, the goal is to try
    to do the best we can. I mean, none of us are in favor of
    leaving empty buildings in the portfolio. However, it is
    difficult to locate them. We don't have any access to the
    information that this committee is also looking for. We do the
    best we can with what we have.
        We have a very small staff, and so, therefore, we don't try
    to bite off more than we can chew. I do think that that argues
    in favor of either extending the Board or creating some other
    entity that would then carry on the work of the Board, if for
    no other reason, to keep the other agency's feet to the fire. I
    think it has been very helpful to focus people's attention.
    When we start looking at a building, others start looking at it
    as well.
        So for the next round, we have had internal discussions of
    not waiting till the end to make one big recommendation. We
    might make an approach where we make a few smaller
    recommendations as we go along. No reason to keep buildings in
    the portfolio that are ready to be disposed of.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Great. Thanks.
        Dr. Krause, GAO added building condition back as a high-
    risk issue this year. What are the issues on your radar for the
    high-risk update?
        Ms. Krause. Yes, we will continue to track the four areas
    of our high risk related to Federal properties. So you
    mentioned building condition, which is something we will
    continue to monitor, but the other areas are related to
    facility security; data reliability, having good data to make
    decisions like we are seeing with the USE IT Act and the data
    we will have on utilization come the beginning of the year; as
    well as addressing underused property.
        So we will continue to look at that and have a number of
    reviews and reports. We anticipate issuing it next year.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay. Great.
        Commissioner Heller, I mentioned at the beginning of my
    comments how many folks GSA Public Buildings Service employed
    at the beginning of the year. It's about 2,400 or so fewer. Is
    that the right number, or should it be higher or lower? I mean,
    are you able to get your work done? Because we have a lot
    through the USE IT Act. We gave you work so that we could get
    to the right size, the footprint.
        And there is a separate question about what the right size
    of the Federal Government employee base should be, but do you
    have the people you need? Because you did as well hire back 392
    people after cutting--not you personally, but we all know how
    that happened. So where are you in terms of people?
        Mr. Heller. Thanks for the question, Mr. Congressman.
        So we did effect our reorganization formally on October 20.
    And as you noted in your opening comments, we are now an
    integrated, functional organization where we organize sort of
    by major program area. We call it integrated because we work
    together across our different disciplines to deliver services
    to our customers.
        Our current political leadership at GSA is very focused,
    laser-focused on the Public Buildings Service being able to
    effectively provide services to the occupant agencies that pay
    us for those services and to provide value to the taxpayers,
    and that is why I was able to get the approval to offer the
    opportunity to come back to almost 400 folks across PBS, and
    very happy to report that almost 300 of them did decide to come
    back and have since rejoined us.
        We are really going through an exercise now to determine if
    there are additional gaps in our workforce. And I know that our
    leadership has been very supportive of our needs and PBS, and I
    am confident that, to the extent that we do have additional
    needs, that we will get the support to fill those needs through
    maybe a combination of Federal employees and contractor
    employees. But we are certainly going to be staffed in a way
    that enables us to deliver our services effectively.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. We will have to
    certainly monitor that as we go forward.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
    Representative Kiley.
        Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
    you convening this hearing and your work on this important
    topic, and we are seeing, I think, some major improvements for
    taxpayers, which is a great thing.
        Mr. Heller, I wanted to get your thoughts on an Executive
    order that the President issued making Federal agriculture--
    Federal architecture, I should say--beautiful again, which I
    think is a pretty exciting idea, so much so, in fact, that I
    have introduced legislation to codify it.
        Do you know how that is going in terms of its
    implementation?
        Mr. Heller. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
        It is going well. The Executive order requires us to have
    qualified professionals within the Public Buildings Service who
    are expert in classical and traditional architecture. It
    requires us to hire a senior adviser for those types of
    matters, and we are in the process of doing so.
        We have been able to analyze our ongoing design and
    construction projects and realign them to ensure that they do
    align with the President's Executive order. Like all of the
    President's Executive orders, our job is to implement them to
    the maximum extent possible, and we are certainly doing so with
    that particular Executive order.
        Mr. Kiley of California. Yes. One rationale for the E.O. is
    that some of our public buildings have just kind of become
    eyesores. But on the flip side, there is this idea that the
    public buildings that we have--courthouses, other places where
    citizens gather, and we see it here in DC with our well-known
    national buildings--should evoke--they should be beautiful, but
    they should also evoke this sort of civic spirit about what
    democracy is all about.
        Do you want to just say a word about how that philosophy is
    informing the process?
        Mr. Heller. Happy to do it, and maybe do so with a real
    life example.
        So last week, I was in Huntsville, Alabama, to meet with
    the Federal Judiciary, their Space and Facilities Committee,
    and we met in the new courthouse that GSA recently constructed
    in that city. Happy to report that we conveyed the former
    courthouse out of Federal ownership earlier this year as well.
    And I think when you sort of drive up on that building or walk
    into that building, you get a sense that you are in a Federal
    courthouse. And I think all of the meeting participants that
    were there last week kind of agreed upon that. So I think that
    is just an example of how we are putting the Executive order to
    action.
        Mr. Kiley of California. That is great to hear. Thank you
    for your work on that. I have the bill here. Senator Banks has
    a companion measure over in the Senate. So hopefully we will
    get that in statute as well.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms.
    Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I could not disagree more with my colleague about the need
    for classical architecture on every one of our Federal
    buildings. I support the notion that has been in place for
    decades, that our Federal buildings should reflect the culture,
    the talent, the history of the places where they are built. We
    don't want a courthouse in Boston looking like it is from Santa
    Fe, we want the Santa Fe courthouse to look like that.
        So with all due respect, one man's eyesore is another man's
    Notre Dame. So I have a bill called Democracy in Design that
    would do just the opposite. So you don't have to thank me for
    that question. I want to put that out there as a statement.
        Now, through its fine arts program, GSA maintains one of
    the oldest and largest public collections in the United States.
    Some of this work goes back to the 1850s. It is displayed in
    Federal buildings all around the country, courthouses. It
    carries deep cultural meaning, significance, helps us
    understand our culture and our history.
        Now, as you work to get rid of some of these buildings and
    to oversee the Federal real estate portfolio, I want to be sure
    that this art is being protected, taken care of like it should
    be. So we have a Fine Arts Protection Act, directs the GAO to
    survey the art that is out there in the collection, provide a
    recommendation of how we can protect it. I am wondering if
    maybe you are aware of that, if you are doing that. Are you
    working with other institutions like the Smithsonian? And what
    about the murals that are on the outside of the buildings that
    you are selling and tearing down? What are you doing to protect
    those?
        Mr. Heller. Thank you for the question.
        Ms. Titus. Answer the question.
        Mr. Heller. All right. All right. Well, we certainly want
    to respect the artwork in any facility that GSA is disposing
    of, and that is our goal. GSA has options available to itself
    to include covenants in the deed, maintain ownership in the
    artwork, and those are strategies that we would utilize to
    ensure that that artwork is preserved appropriately.
        Ms. Titus. Could you give us some of that information about
    what those covenants are and what is actually being done,
    instead of what you might have in place to protect that art?
        Mr. Heller. Yes, ma'am, happy to follow up with the
    committee and provide that information.
        Ms. Titus. Okay, good. I look forward to getting that.
        Now, another question I have is that, recently, the State
    Department X account posted that they had renamed the Peace
    Institute, the Institute of Peace, to now the Donald Trump
    Institute of Peace. Now, I have some personal reservations,
    political reservations about putting his name on the Institute
    of Peace given his foreign policy and some of his renaming of
    the Department of Defense and all that.
        But I wonder, what is the GSA's role in allowing that name
    change to have happened?
        Mr. Heller. The GSA did have no formal role in that
    renaming. GSA transferred the building back to the U.S.
    Institute of Peace earlier this year, and we had no involvement
    in the renaming of that facility.
        Ms. Titus. Well, according to our legislative counsel, it
    is still a GSA building. So why wouldn't you be involved in
    that, or did you just abdicate your responsibility?
        Mr. Heller. The transfer back to USIP occurred--I don't
    have an exact date, but it occurred within the last month or
    so, and would be happy to follow up with you and your team to
    clear that issue up.
        Ms. Titus. That would be great. And so if you could also
    send us maybe any of the communication that we had between GSA
    and the State Department about renaming that. Surely they told
    you they were going to do it even if you didn't have any input
    into it. Or did you just see it driving by?
        Mr. Heller. If the committee does have written requests for
    information between GSA and the State Department, happy to
    follow our normal customary procedures and providing that.
        Ms. Titus. Great. Well, thank you.
        Now, also, this is not the only thing that is happening
    here. I mean, we have torn down the East Wing. I mean, that is
    outrageous enough, but now we are hearing from the President he
    has got other plans. We are going to have an Arc de Trump. He
    is putting together some commission of unknown people, I don't
    know who they are, to look at other changes to the White House
    and other reforms and other rebuilding, make everything look
    like Mar-a-Lago. How is the GSA involved in that?
        Mr. Heller. I am not familiar with those conversations,
    and, respectfully, I would have to defer to the White House on
    that matter.
        Ms. Titus. But isn't that your job to those Federal
    buildings, to oversee----
        Mr. Heller [interrupting]. Well, there are multiple
    agencies involved with the management of the White House. GSA
    is one of them, but----
        Ms. Titus [interrupting]. What about this new arc?
        Mr. Heller. I am not familiar with those details, no.
        Ms. Titus. It seems like GSA is kind of helpless or
    hopeless in light of what is going on with our Federal
    buildings and the dictates that come from the President. Is
    there any reason to keep you around?
        Mr. Heller. Well, I think there is a lot of reasons to keep
    GSA around. We deliver savings for the taxpayer, provide high-
    value services to our customers. But with respect to the
    projects at the White House, I would have to defer to the White
    House.
        Ms. Titus. Or the public art or the arc or any of that?
        Mr. Heller. Well, as I mentioned----
        Ms. Titus [interrupting]. I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Heller [continuing]. A few moments ago, we are
    certainly committed to preserving artwork and respecting its
    historical integrity.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Michigan,
    Representative Barrett.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    being here. Merry Christmas, and I appreciate your testimony.
        I am probably the least qualified person to opine on
    architecture and what is artistic and aesthetic. I am just an
    Army grunt, so I will leave it to the professionals to make
    that determination.
        One interesting point I was thinking about is the last
    major restoration or renovation in the White House was about 75
    years ago, and I think they tore it down to the wall studs and
    rebuilt entirely from the inside. And, Mr. Chairman, my great-
    grandfather was actually on the commission that helped oversee
    that 75 years ago, which was kind of interesting.
        But, anyway, the questions I had for you. When I heard we
    were having a PBS in our hearing, I thought maybe we were all
    going to go viral today, but it turns out you are with a
    different PBS. So thank you for being here nonetheless.
        I wanted to ask--so I had a Social Security office in my
    district that closed for several months. It was a leased
    building, and it felt like the property owner was not really
    diligently working in earnest to remedy the issues of concern
    there before the building and the office could be reopened.
        Do you feel that we have adequate enforcement capability
    with our--like the leased spaces that we have that are owned by
    a landlord, do we have adequate leverage to make sure that they
    are enforcing their obligations appropriately?
        Mr. Heller. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Yes, generally, I think we do have the right enforcement
    mechanisms embedded into our leased contracts to remedy issues
    such as that, in an expeditious manner. Unfortunate to hear
    about the Social Security office in your district, and I would
    be happy to follow up with you to get more details and get a
    better understanding of what took place there and how we can
    make sure----
        Mr. Barrett [interposing]. Sure.
        Mr. Heller [continuing]. That doesn't reoccur elsewhere.
        Mr. Barrett. Yes. Thankfully, they have since reopened.
    Appreciate the work to get that done. But it did give me
    concern that if we were constantly in this dispute with a
    landlord with an important office that affects, obviously,
    constituents in my district but could be equally applicable
    anywhere else in the country, that we want to make sure we have
    the appropriate negotiating leverage over the landlord for any
    leases that we are engaged in.
        I am also curious to know, I mean, we talked a lot about
    deferred maintenance and how a lot of legacy buildings are
    going to cost a lot more to upkeep or renovate or build back
    into a condition of serviceability. So there has been a shift
    to kind of go into more leased spaces, which I think in today's
    evolving workforce environment might make a lot of sense, that
    we have a little bit more of a nimble ability then to scale up
    or scale down based on the needs that we have without owning
    the underlying assets.
        You pointed out some costs associated with that, kind of
    more startup costs maybe. Have you done or has there been any
    analysis of kind of the break even point, if we were to do
    everything that the three of you think may be necessary to get
    done to perfectly move into the right appropriate size space
    and maybe shed off some of these legacy buildings that may not
    be necessary anymore? At what point do you think the taxpayers
    could break even on those leased spaces?
        Mr. Heller. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        We really look to analyze financially every one of those
    transactions that you just described, and typically, we like to
    see that we are able to recoup throughout the firm term of the
    lease at least the amount of savings in terms of reduced rental
    cost to the taxpayer that it costs to move the tenant upfront.
        So if it is going to cost $10 million to move the tenant
    out of a Federal building into a leased space, we want to
    ensure that the Government is going to save at least $10
    million during the occupancy of that lease. So that is one of
    the ways that we look at it.
        Mr. Barrett. Do you take into account--I assume if we
    vacate a building, do we sell that, or what happens to the
    building in the inventory, or is it, like, by the time it is in
    that condition, it is like when you try and trade in your car
    when you are in college and it is not worth anything anymore?
        Mr. Heller. Every asset is different. There is usually a
    market for every one. But, primarily, the savings that we
    capture are associated with the deferred maintenance costs and
    the annual operating costs that the asset incurs related to
    janitorial services, keeping the lights and the heat and the
    cooling on, and----
        Mr. Barrett [interposing]. Right.
        Mr. Heller [continuing]. The operations and maintenance of
    the mechanical plan.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. My last question, Mr. Chairman.
        A lot of our Federal buildings are historic in nature. If
    we have deferred in a lot of maintenance due on them, are we
    obligated by a lot of the historic preservation requirements to
    replace the building facade with the exact same material that
    might be difficult to source, or can we be a little bit more
    pragmatic with how we do that?
        Mr. Heller. I am not an expert on all of those details. I
    certainly have folks within our staff that are. But there are
    generally different approaches that you can take to mitigate
    different adverse impacts to a historic building. And we work
    closely with stakeholders, such as State historic preservation
    officers, other consulting parties, where applicable, to put
    those measures in place.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the Representative from
    Washington, DC, Delegate Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I strongly oppose the Trump administration's plans to move
    Federal agencies outside the District of Columbia and the
    National Capital region. However, there are specific Federal
    buildings in DC that GSA should dispose of and then relocate
    the employees in these buildings to other buildings in DC These
    disposals would save the Federal Government money, generate tax
    revenue for DC, increase housing supply, and lead to new mixed-
    lease neighborhoods.
        I am deeply concerned that the Trump administration has not
    developed a plan to dispose of Federal buildings in DC in a
    manner that benefits both Federal taxpayers and DC.
        My question for all three witnesses is, what is your view
    of establishing an entity like the Pennsylvania Avenue
    Development Corporation or using a mass developer, as was done
    for the Southeast Federal Center, now known as The Yards, to
    develop a plan for and to manage these disposals? This is for
    all three witnesses.
        Ms. Krause. I can start. That seems like a reasonable
    proposal to explore. I think anytime you have a number of
    assets in a similar location, you need to take a strategic look
    at how you are redeveloping them. So, that redevelopment really
    requires deliberative planning and partnering with local
    partners or working, coordinating with local partners to ensure
    you are maximizing taxpayer value.
        Mr. Capuano. Again, the Board, per se, would have no role
    in that, but we have had our discussions. We would strongly
    support the general concept of it, especially in the DC area,
    but not only in the DC area. There are other cities around the
    country that have concentrations of Federal buildings that
    would be seriously impacted, depending on what we do with them.
        We like the idea of working with local communities or city
    leaders to try to come up with what they want. And some of
    these areas--especially DC--are just too large, it is more than
    just one building, have a major impact on the community, have a
    major impact on the real estate values that are underlying. So
    we very much favor the concept of creating some sort of entity
    to do it. Again, I would say not just in DC, but around the
    country. DC is not the only place that has those concerns, but
    I think the concept is absolutely right.
        Mr. Heller. Yes, I will agree with my colleagues here on
    the panel. GSA has begun to make good progress in disposing of
    unneeded buildings here in the district. We sold the Webster
    School earlier this year. Liberty Loan and our former regional
    office building at 7th and D are both currently on the market,
    and we would welcome an opportunity to partner with this
    committee and other stakeholders to ensure that as we dispose
    of these facilities, that they are either reused and
    redeveloped in a way that benefits the local community and the
    taxpayers.
        Ms. Norton. Commissioner Heller, GSA has not been
    coordinating closely enough with DC on the disposal of Federal
    buildings here. Do you think such coordination is important,
    and will you commit to close coordination with DC on all future
    disposals?
        Mr. Heller. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        We agree that stakeholder engagement is an important facet
    of disposing of buildings effectively, and we seek to partner
    with local communities in every community that we dispose of
    Federal buildings in. So, yes, we will continue to partner with
    the district and, again, make sure that as Federal buildings
    are redeveloped or reused, that they are done in a way that
    benefits the local community and the taxpayer.
        Ms. Norton. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The gentlelady yields back. I thank the
    gentlelady.
        Are there further questions from any of the members of the
    subcommittee who have not yet been recognized?
        Seeing none, and sadly saying so, that concludes our
    hearing for today. I would like to thank each of the witnesses
    for your testimony.
        This subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix

                                  ----------

       Questions to Andrew Heller, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings
      Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Rick Larsen

        Question 1. Is the White House a public building? Has GSA been
    involved in the destruction of the East Wing and the planning for the
    construction of a new ballroom on the White House grounds?
        Answer. GSA did not participate in the recent decision to demolish
    the East Wing or any contracting to obtain the services of a demolition
    company. GSA has taken no actions, and has no plans to take any
    actions, to contract for the planning, design, or construction of the
    proposed ballroom.

        Question 2. 42 U.S.C. Section 8259 establishes requirements for
    energy and water management in federal buildings and defines the term
    ``Federal building'' as ``any building, structure, or facility, or part
    thereof, including the associated energy consuming support systems,
    which is constructed, renovated, leased, or purchased in whole or in
    part for use by the Federal Government . . . ''
        Will the new White House ballroom meet the energy and water
    requirements included in 42 U.S.C. Section 8259?
        Answer. Please refer to the prior response.

        Question 3. President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14057 which
    required federal buildings to achieve net-zero building emissions by
    2045.
        Will GSA continue to participate in the Energy Star program?
        Answer. In accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act
    of 2007 (EISA) Section 432 and Energy Act of 2020 requirements, GSA
    will continue to use the Department of Energy (DOE) Compliance Tracking
    System and the DOE identified benchmarking system (i.e., Energy Star
    Portfolio Manager) for its EISA Section 432 covered facilities (75
    percent of GSA's utility usage and cost).

        Question 4. President Trump revoked President Biden's electric
    vehicle mandate and rolled back investments in EV charging
    infrastructure.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.gsa.gov/directives/files?file=2025-
    03%2FPBS%205605.1B%20-%20EVSE%20Order.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What does EV charging infrastructure at federally owned facilities
    under the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) jurisdiction,
    custody, and control look like today?
        Answer. GSA has 184 active electric vehicle charging stations in
    its inventory at federally-owned facilities under GSA's jurisdiction,
    custody and control.

        Question 5. The Trump administration established a 25 percent
    tariff on all imported steel and aluminum.
        How have these tariffs impacted GSA's construction and renovation
    projects?
        Answer. GSA continues to see construction cost increases across its
    projects for a multitude of reasons including construction material
    costs, skilled trade labor shortages in the labor market, and
    competition with other infrastructure and private sector construction
    work. For example, GSA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Land Port
    of Entry projects have seen cost increases upwards of 40-70 percent
    from the original funding levels set in 2017-2018.

        Question 6. How is GSA providing adequate fire, life, safety and
    building operations and management services to federal tenants when
    their staff has been cut by nearly 44 percent? Many buildings lack
    onsite building managers.
        Answer. GSA is following the Administration's guidance to
    strategically assess workforce needs and optimize staffing. Our
    commitment to providing fire, life, safety, and building operations
    remains a top priority. At this time, all GSA facilities have an
    assigned building manager and contract support staff to ensure safe
    occupancy. GSA continues to explore options to adjust staffing levels
    to enable better service to tenant agencies.

        Question 7. How many Full-time Employees (FTEs) were working in
    GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS) on January 31st, 2025, and how
    many are employed by PBS today? What skill gaps have resulted from
    staff reductions and what impacts are they having?
        Answer:
    January 31, 2025 FTE:  5614
    December 31, 2025 FTE: 3268

        In October 2025, PBS implemented a new organizational structure
    designed to improve customer service and business operations, and
    provide a more agile workforce to respond to customer needs. While
    these changes are intended to enhance our service delivery, we expect
    some challenges given the size of the change and GSA's portfolio during
    this period of transition. However, the aim is for customers to
    experience minimal impacts on operations or service, and GSA remains
    committed to maintaining the appropriate staff and skill sets to
    consistently deliver excellent service to all of our customers and to
    meet customer's mission-critical real estate needs.
        Thanks to this Committee, GSA now has more tools to achieve the
    goal of right-sizing the federal real estate portfolio. Chronic
    underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) through the enacted
    net negative annual budget authority level remains a major challenge to
    implementing these reforms.

        Question 8. Is GSA currently working with OMB or specific agencies
    to relocate operations from DC?
        Answer. GSA is working closely with the Office of Management and
    Budget and agencies to optimize the Federal real estate portfolio.
    Specifically, GSA is partnering with agencies to evaluate agency space
    needs, requirements, occupancy data and then examining options and
    solutions that support agency mission needs at the best value to the
    American taxpayer.

        Question 9. What is the status of the Department of Agriculture's
    Beltsville Agriculture Research Center in Maryland? Are GSA and USDA
    planning to relocate the tenants on the property and dispose of the
    land?
        Answer. The Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is owned and
    operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GSA defers any
    questions related to this Center and its tenants to the Department of
    Agriculture.

        Question 10. In 2019, GSA issued FMR Bulletin B-49 which clarified
    that ``sleeping in buildings under the jurisdiction, custody or control
    of GSA, including those buildings delegated to other Federal agencies
    by the Administrator of General Services, is prohibited, except when
    expressly authorized by an agency official.'' \2\ According to press
    reports \3\, staff from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
    resided on the sixth floor of the General Services Administration
    headquarters from February 2025 through June of 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/05/2019-
    24102/federal-management-regulation-fmr-sleeping-in-federal-buildings
        \3\ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/11/21/doge-elon-
    musk-succession-00641110
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question 10.a. Who authorized DOGE staff to reside in GSA's
    headquarters building?
        Question 10.b. What expenses did GSA incur because of people
    sleeping in the building? For example--the purchase of washing
    machines, beds, toys, kitchen appliances, as well as cleanup and
    disposal costs after the DOGE staff moved out?
        Answer to 10.a. & 10.b. Primarily due to increased work demands
    associated with the transition period, GSA set aside certain rooms on
    an as needed, first-come, first-served basis to accommodate
    intermittent sleep. The Government incurred approximately $6,800 to
    supply the building with these intermittent sleeping areas.

                               [all]