[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: EXAM-
INING THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL REAL ESTATE
MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE COSTS FOR THE TAXPAYER
=======================================================================
(119-39)
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2026
__________
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
64-404 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 Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Maxwell Frost, Florida 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
Vacancy
------ 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. Kimberlyn King-Hinds, a Delegate in Congress from the
Northern Mariana Islands, and Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
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.............................................. 4
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.............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
WITNESS
Hon. Edward C. Forst, Administrator, U.S. General Services
Administration, oral statement................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
APPENDIX
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Edward C. Forst,
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration, from:
Hon. Kevin Kiley............................................. 37
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 38
Hon. Shomari Figures......................................... 38
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 27, 2026
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 ``The General Services
Administration: Examining the Future of Federal Real Estate
Management to Reduce Costs for the Taxpayer''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 4, 2026,
at 2:00 p.m. E.T. in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building
entitled, ``The General Services Administration: Examining the
Future of Federal Real Estate Management to Reduce Costs for
the Taxpayer.'' The purpose of the hearing is to examine the
General Services Administration's (GSA) priorities and plans
for the operations and management of Federal real estate to
improve efficiencies, reduce costs, and modernize the space
portfolio. At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from
the Honorable Edward C. Forst, Administrator of the General
Services Administration.
II. BACKGROUND
FEDERAL REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO AND RECENT REFORMS
The GSA currently manages more than 8,500 owned and leased
assets, totaling over 359 million square feet, and 500 historic
buildings.\1\ The GSA noted in its 2025 financial report that
managing building operations costs over $12.6 billion
annually.\2\ The GSA has made efforts to reduce the amount of
space, but the portfolio remains underutilized. Long-standing
concerns about underutilized Federal property were reinforced
in 2023, when GAO, while reviewing 24 headquarters buildings in
2023, found that 17 of the agencies under review were utilizing
25 percent or less of their capacity.\3\ That same year,
anonymized cell phone data showed an average building occupancy
of 12 percent from January to September.\4\ On the commercial
leasing side, with over 2,900 GSA leases expiring by 2030, the
GSA has an opportunity to pivot to an efficient, cost-
effective, and modern portfolio, including policies of shared
and leased spaces.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gen. Services Admin., Public Buildings Service (last updated
Jan. 23, 2026), available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/
public-buildings-service?topnav=about-us.
\2\ Gen. Services Admin., 2025 Agency Financial Report (2025)
[hereinafter GSA Financial Report 2025], available at https://
www.gsa.gov/reference/reports/budget-and-performance/annual-reports/
2025-agency-financial-report.
\3\ 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.
\4\ 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.
\5\ Gen. Services Admin., Inventory of GSA Owned and Leased
Properties (last accessed Feb. 17, 2026), available at https://
www.iolp.gsa.gov/iolp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of these findings, last Congress, Title III of
the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
(WRDA 2024) implemented new authorities to improve the
management of Federal real estate.\6\ WRDA 2024, among other
reforms, included the Utilizing Space Efficiency and Improving
Technologies (USE IT) Act of 2023, which mandated GSA and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establish standardized
methods for measuring office occupancy across Federal
agencies.\7\ The Use It 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.\8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\7\ Utilizing Space Efficiency and Improving Technologies (USE IT)
Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data required to be collected and reported on space usage
based on the new metrics was due on January 4, 2026.\10\ During
the December 2025 Subcommittee hearing, GSA indicated the data
will be provided by March 31, 2026, after delays caused by the
Fall 2025 government shutdown.\11\ In addition, agencies with
independent real estate authorities are also required to report
their data. There are over 40 departments and agencies with
some form of independent leasing authority outside of GSA's
authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
\11\ Cutting Costs, Adding Value: The Future of Federal Property,
119th Cong. (Dec. 11, 2025) (statement of Andrew Heller, (Acting)
Public Buildings Service Commissioner, General Services
Administration).
\12\ Technical Assistance on Identified Independent Leasing
Authority of Certain Civilian Federal Entities, GAO (Aug. 5, 2025) (on
file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of these delays, on February 13, 2026, the Full
Committee Chairman Graves and Subcommittee Chairman Perry sent
a letter to OMB and GSA requesting a briefing on the data, the
housing plan for headquarters buildings in the National Capital
Region, and the impact of the delays on other timelines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. &
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcommittee on Econ. Dev.,
Pub. Buildings, & Emergency Man. to Russell Vought, Director, Off. of
Man. & Budget and Edward C. Frost, Administrator, Gen. Services Admin.,
(Feb. 13, 2026) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).\14\ The FBF 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.\15\ While the FBF is funded
through agency rents paid to the GSA, it is not a true
revolving loan fund.\16\ 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 of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate.\17\
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.\18\ The FBF accrued $12.2 billion in
revenue in 2025, 60 percent of which was generated by five
customer agencies: the Department of Justice, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Federal Judiciary, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Social Security
Administration.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pub. L. No. 92-313, 86 Stat. 216.
\15\ 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.
\16\ See 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592(c)(1).
\17\ Id.; 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307.
\18\ 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.
\19\ GSA Financial Report 2025 supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND THE GROWING LIABILITY
The GSA reported a $6.1 billion deferred maintenance and
repair backlog in fiscal year (FY) 2024. This backlog grew from
$1.39 billion in FY 2017.\20\ While officially $6.1 billion,
civilian agencies collectively reported a deferred maintenance
liability of $80 billion in FY 2022.\21\ This number could be
significantly greater now and may not account for the full
costs associated with updating buildings and systems for modern
efficiencies and use. Most recent budget documents do not
communicate the amount of time or finance required to address
the ballooning bottleneck.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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.
\21\ 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.
\22\ GAO-25-108060 supra note 20.
\23\ 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.\24\ 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, 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.\25\ The PBRB intends to release its ``Third
Round'' recommendations before the board sunsets in December
2026.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Federal Register, Public Buildings Reform Board, available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/public-buildings-reform-board.
\25\ 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.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATING OPERATIONS AND TRANSMISSION DIVISION (HOTD)
The GSA's HOTD provides heating and chilled water to 62
buildings in Washington, D.C. Thirty-eight of these buildings
are GSA-owned buildings.\27\ Others include the Smithsonian
museums and buildings, the National Gallery of Art, the Ford
and O'Neill House office buildings, as well as local D.C. court
buildings.\28\ The GSA currently has a divestment strategy to
shut down this facility by 2032 given that the 1934 plant is
outdated and suffers more frequent issues.\29\ GSA allocated
$500 million of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding to
decouple 24 of its 38 buildings from the system.\30\ The
remaining 14 GSA buildings will be evaluated to determine if
they will be retained or sold before investing in their
decoupling.\31\ Other entities impacted, including the
Smithsonian, have developed potential solutions but have
expressed concerns about funding and timelines. The GSA plans
to convene meetings of impacted agencies to improve
coordination and planning.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure Staff Meeting with GSA
regarding the GSA Central Heating Plant (Feb. 13, 2026).
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER KEY ISSUES
There are other recent developments related to GSA and
Federal buildings. Some of the key developments include:
LReorganization: The GSA is in the process of
reorganizing the Public Buildings Service via a new ``function
and geographically focused'' approach to update the management
process.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Statement of Andrew Heller, (Acting) Public Buildings
Commissioner, Gen. Services Admin., at GSA Bi-Weekly Meeting (Sept. 29,
2025) (virtual meeting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRelocation of HUD and Building Disposal: The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is in the
process of moving to the National Science Foundation's (NSF)
former headquarters.\34\ Meanwhile, GSA recently executed
another Alexandria lease for a new NSF headquarters at 401
Dulany Street.\35\ This will allow for the disposal of the
current Robert C. Weaver Federal Building headquarters.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Press Release, Gen. Services Admin., HUD, GSA, and Governor of
Virginia Announce HUD Relocation (June 25, 2025), available at https://
www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/hud-gsa-and-governor-of-
virginia-announce-hud-relocation-06252025.
\35\ Press Release, Gen. Services Admin., GSA and NSF Announce NSF
Headquarters Relocation to Modern, Right-Sized, and Mission-Ready Space
(November 14, 2025), available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/
newsroom/news-releases/gsa-nsf-announce-hq-relocation-11142025.
\36\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LFBI Headquarters: In December, the Committee
approved two prospectuses to renovate and move the FBI into the
Ronald Reagan Building complex.\37\ Accordingly, FBI Director
Kash Patel announced the move and the closure of the J. Edgar
Hoover Building in late December.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, GSA Resolutions FY2025
(last accessed Feb. 17, 2026), available at https://
transportation.house.gov/gsa/gsa-resolutions-fy2025.htm.
\38\ Ashleigh Fields, Patel finalizes plan to close FBI's Hoover
building in DC, The Hill, (Dec. 26, 2025), available at https://
thehill.com/homenews/administration/5663971-fbi-hoover-building-
permanent-closure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDepartment of Agriculture Headquarters: The
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced last
year a massive reorganization, which includes outsourcing 2,600
positions to key agricultural regions across the nation. These
plans include vacating the Agriculture South Building and
maintaining its headquarters at the Whitten Building.\39\
Challenges with shared infrastructure between the Agriculture
South Building and the adjacent Whitten Building will need to
be addressed.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ R. Scott Nelson, USDA plans move from DC to regional
agriculture hubs, American Vet. Med. Association, (last updated Sept.
3, 2025), available at https://www.avma.org/news/usda-plans-move-dc-
regional-agriculture-hubs.
\40\ Statement of Christian Hazen, Deputy Regional Commissioner,
Pub. Buildings Serv., GSA Bi-Weekly Meeting (Sept. 29, 2025) (virtual
meeting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDOE Headquarters: 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
proposed by the PBRB and Members of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for several years.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.\42\ 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.\43\ 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.\44\ FASTA also codified the Federal Real Property
Profile (FRPP) government-wide database of real property and
made it available to the public.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (FASTA), Pub. L.
No. 114-287, 130 Stat. 1463.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ 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.\46\ 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.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ FASTA Reform Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC BUILDINGS REFORMS IN THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2024
As noted, in the 118th Congress, Title III of the WRDA 2024
introduced new authorities to improve the management of Federal
real estate.\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the USE IT Act discussed earlier, 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.\49\
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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Federal Use It or Lose It Leases Act, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
\50\ 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 buildings in the National Capital Region that will
result in building utilization rates of 60 percent or higher;
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.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272.
Thus far, none of these requirements have been completed
pursuant to the deadline.
IV. SUMMARY
This hearing will follow the Subcommittee's hearing from
December 11, 2025, ``Cutting Costs, Adding Value: The Future of
Federal Property,'' which analyzed the growing deferred
maintenance liability, the continued work of the PBRB, and the
implementation of public buildings reforms passed in the 118th
Congress. The hearing will provide Subcommittee Members with
the opportunity to hear from the new GSA Administrator, the
Honorable Edward C. Forst, who was sworn in in December 2025,
on GSA's priorities and plans for the operations and management
of Federal real estate to improve efficiencies, reduce costs,
and modernize the space portfolio.
V. WITNESS
LThe Honorable Edward C. Forst, Administrator,
General Services Administration
THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL
REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE COSTS FOR THE TAXPAYER
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 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 2:41 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kimberlyn King-
Hinds (Member of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. King-Hinds. The Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS OF THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS, MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Ms. King-Hinds. I would like to thank our witness for being
here today as we examine the management of Federal real estate
and how we can reduce costs to the taxpayer.
In December, the subcommittee held a hearing on Federal
real estate to discuss how we could minimize costs and maximize
value for the American taxpayer. Since that hearing, GSA
Administrator Ed Forst was confirmed by the Senate and sworn
in. Today is an opportunity for the subcommittee to hear from
the Administrator on GSA's plans and priorities for managing
its real estate portfolio.
Last Congress, significant public buildings reforms were
enacted as part of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
Development Act of 2024. Those reforms included new
requirements and limitations on Federal agencies when it comes
to their use of space. For example, the USE IT Act and the FULL
Act included in WRDA 2024 are intended to hold agencies
accountable for their space usage and set a requirement that,
if agencies do not actually have people physically coming in
every day using at least 60 percent of their space, they will
lose it. It also includes requirements that GSA and other
Federal agencies report to Congress and the public on the costs
associated with unused space and that the Office of Management
and Budget submit to Congress a plan to consolidate
headquarters buildings in the DC area.
As expressed at the last hearing, we are extremely
concerned that key deadlines have been missed. I understand OMB
is a key player here, especially in ensuring all agencies--
including those who have real estate authorities outside of
GSA--are in compliance. But, without that data, critical time
is being lost.
That is why, on February 13, full committee Chairman Sam
Graves and subcommittee Chairman Perry sent a letter to OMB and
GSA requesting a briefing to update the committee on compliance
with the new requirements. Getting these bipartisan reforms
across the finish line under the previous administration was
not easy, and they represent the most significant checks on
Federal real estate costs in decades.
The reforms also give you, as GSA Administrator,
significant leverage over agencies that are resistant to
letting go of unneeded space. That is why effective
implementation of the reform is so critical.
With that said, we are pleased with some of the progress
that GSA has made so far in consolidating agencies and getting
rid of excess space, including moving HUD out of the Weaver
Building, preparing to move USDA out of the Agriculture South
Building and DOE out of the Forrestal Building. Decisions like
these are going to help reduce the massive deferred maintenance
liability that has accrued, which currently has a pricetag that
ranges anywhere from $26 billion to $340 billion, depending on
which report you read.
I don't think the American taxpayer or even the Federal
agencies themselves understand how much of a financial
liability Federal real estate has become. There is no excuse
for agencies to hold on to space just in case or hold on to a
building because they have always been there. With limited
funding to properly maintain and operate Federal buildings, the
deferred maintenance has grown significantly, and that's just
to keep the lights on and doesn't account for renovations
needed to make them functional for the long term. That is why
GSA's work on identifying core assets we may want to keep and
noncore assets that should be disposed of is important.
Finally, there are other key topics I hope to hear more on,
including the reorganization of the Public Buildings Service,
as well as plans to divest from the Heating Operations and
Transmission Division, which services steam and chilled water
for 62 Federal and DC buildings here in the core of the city.
[Ms. King-Hinds' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kimberlyn King-Hinds, a Delegate in Congress
from the Northern Mariana Islands, and Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I'd like to thank our witness for being here today as we examine
the management of federal real estate and how we can reduce costs to
the taxpayer.
In December, this subcommittee held a hearing on federal real
estate to discuss how we could minimize costs and maximize value for
the American taxpayer. Since that hearing, GSA Administrator Ed Forst
was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. Today is an opportunity for
the Subcommittee to hear from the Administrator on GSA's plans and
priorities for managing its real estate portfolio.
Last Congress, significant public buildings reforms were enacted as
part of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
(WRDA 2024). Those reforms included new requirements and limitations on
federal agencies when it comes to their use of space. For example, the
USE IT Act and the FULL Act included in WRDA 2024 are intended to hold
agencies accountable for their space usage and set a requirement that
if agencies do not actually have people physically coming in every day
using at least 60 percent of their space, they will lose it. It also
includes requirements that GSA and other federal agencies report to
Congress and the public on the costs associated with unused space and
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submit to Congress a
plan to consolidate headquarters buildings in the D.C. area.
As expressed at the last hearing, we are extremely concerned that
key deadlines have been missed. I understand OMB is a key player here--
especially in ensuring all agencies, including those who have real
estate authorities outside of GSA, are in compliance. But, without that
data, critical time is being lost.
That is why on February 13th, Full Committee Chairman Sam Graves
and Subcommittee Chairman Perry sent a letter to OMB and GSA requesting
a briefing to update the Committee on compliance with the new
requirements. Getting these bipartisan reforms across the finish line
under the previous Administration was not easy, and they represent the
most significant checks on federal real estate costs in decades.
The reforms also give you, as GSA Administrator, significant
leverage over agencies that are resistant to letting go of unneeded
space. That is why effective implementation of the reforms is so
critical.
With that said, we are pleased with some of the progress that GSA
has made so far in consolidating agencies and getting rid of excess
space, including moving HUD out of the Weaver Building, preparing to
move USDA out of the Agriculture South Building, and DOE out of the
Forrestal Building.
Decisions like these are going to help reduce the massive deferred
maintenance liability that has accrued, which currently has a price tag
that ranges anywhere from $26 billion to $340 billion, depending on
which report you read.
I don't think the American taxpayer or even federal agencies
themselves understand how much of a financial liability federal real
estate has become--there is no excuse for agencies to hold onto space
just in case or hold onto a building because they've always been there.
With limited funding to properly maintain and operate federal
buildings, the deferred maintenance has grown significantly--and that's
just to keep the lights on and doesn't account for renovations needed
to make them functional for the long-term. That is why GSA's work on
identifying core assets we may want to keep and non-core assets that
should be disposed of is important.
Finally, there are other key topics I hope to hear more on,
including the reorganization of the Public Building Service, as well as
plans to divest from the Heating Operations and Transmission Division,
which services steam and chilled water for 62 federal and D.C.
buildings here in the core of the city.
Ms. King-Hinds. With that, I look forward to hearing from
our witness. I now recognize Ranking Member Stanton for 5
minutes for an 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, Madam Chair, for leading
this important hearing.
Thank you to Administrator Forst for appearing before this
committee today.
I share your concerns about the liability of certain public
buildings, and I believe that there is a real lack of
transparency with the agency provided to the American public
regarding GSA's role and ICE's rapid expansion across the
United States of America. I am deeply concerned also by what is
happening outside of your agency overview with regard to ICE
and ICE facilities.
The Department of Homeland Security is on a warehouse
buying spree. Across the country, DHS is purchasing dozens of
large commercial warehouses to be converted into mass
immigration detention facilities. It is doing so entirely by
going around GSA, the agency that Congress has explicitly
charged with managing Federal real estate.
We are not talking about a handful of properties. We are
talking about facilities with a combined capacity of up to
80,000 detainees. Dozens of properties. These are not purpose-
built detention centers designed with appropriate oversight and
public input. These are commercial warehouses acquired quickly
and quietly, bypassing the procurement process, with no public
notice requirements, no consultation with local officials that
GSA standard procedures mandate.
One of these warehouses happens to be in my home State of
Arizona. Arizonans did not find out about it through any
Government transparency process. They found out because
advocates and journalists were paying attention. DHS did not
even notify city officials. And, once the community did learn
about it, the response was immediate. In less than 48 hours, my
office collected more than 7,000 comments from Arizonans
concerned about this proposal. Hundreds of residents turned out
to a local city council meeting.
Even my Republican colleague who represents the area, Paul
Gosar--he wrote a letter to Kristi Noem in which he emphasized
that ``DHS must respect the legitimate interests of the
communities that bear its local impacts,'' unquote.
This kind of response shows exactly why transparency
matters. Communities deserve to know what is being built in
their neighborhoods before decisions are already finalized.
Administrator Forst, your agency's mission is to construct,
manage, and preserve Government buildings, and to lease and
manage commercial real estate on behalf of the Federal
Government. That is your mandate from Congress. So, when DHS
cuts you out of billions of dollars' worth of real estate
acquisitions, acquisitions that will fundamentally reshape
communities across this country, that is not just a matter of
bureaucratic turf. That is a breakdown of the oversight
structure Congress has put into place.
And it comes with a real cost. No congressional oversight.
No community input. Nothing from school districts. Nothing from
neighborhood associations. They didn't even notify the local
mayor and city council before purchasing this real estate. The
American people are being left in the dark.
What's more, at your nomination hearing last October, you
said to the Senate that, quote, ``rightsizing our Federal real
estate portfolio'' was one of your top priorities. I would like
to understand how an agency conducting a shadow warehouse
acquisition program entirely outside of your oversight fits
into that vision.
And I would also like to address what we know GSA has been
involved in.
GSA has played a significant and largely hidden role in
ICE's buildout across the country over the past several months.
We know that, last summer, ICE approached your agency with
a massive request: Find space for 10,000 immigration
enforcement employees across 200 cities nationwide. That single
request turned into 249 individual procurements for GSA. Of
those, 196 are active. This is not a routine administrative
adjustment. That is sweeping, deliberate, and shady expansion
of Federal immigration enforcement infrastructure. GSA has been
at the center of it.
What's more, the manner in which this was carried out
raises serious concerns of its own. GSA employees were embedded
in the, quote, ``ICE surge'' team to find and expand office
locations at speed. ICE explicitly asked GSA to disregard
standard lease procurement procedures, and GSA has actively hid
these lease listings from the public.
The result is hundreds of ICE offices quietly planted in
the middle of communities--near preschools, elementary schools,
houses of worship, medical facilities--with residents none the
wiser until it was a fait accompli.
The American people deserve transparency, my constituents
in Arizona deserve to know what is being built in their
backyards, and this committee deserves honest answers about how
and why the oversight mechanisms Congress created are being
deliberately circumvented.
I look forward to your testimony, Administrator Forst. I
hope today will provide transparency that has been sorely
lacking.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
[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. Chair. And thank you, Administrator Forst, for
appearing before this committee today.
There's a real lack of transparency your agency has provided to the
American public regarding GSA's role in ICE's rapid expansion across
the United States.
And I'm deeply concerned by what is happening entirely outside of
your agency's purview.
The Department of Homeland Security is on a warehouse buying spree.
Across the country, DHS is purchasing dozens of large commercial
warehouses to be converted into mass immigration detention facilities.
And it is doing so by going entirely around GSA, the agency that
Congress has explicitly charged with managing federal real estate.
We are not talking about a handful of properties. We are talking
about facilities with a combined capacity of up to 80,000 detainees.
These are not purpose-built detention centers designed with appropriate
oversight and public input.
These are commercial warehouses, acquired quickly and quietly,
bypassing the procurement processes, the public notice requirements and
the consultation with local officials that GSA's standard procedures
mandate.
One of these warehouses is in my home state, Arizona. Arizonans did
not find out about it through any government transparency process. They
found out because advocates and journalists were paying attention. DHS
did not even notify city officials.
And once the community did learn about it, the response was
immediate. In less than 48 hours, my office collected more than 7,000
comments from Arizonans concerned about this proposal. Hundreds of
residents turned out to a city council meeting.
Even the Republican Congressman who represents the area, Paul
Gosar, emphasized in a letter to DHS that their goals have to ``respect
the legitimate interests of the communities that bear its local
impacts.''
That kind of response shows exactly why transparency matters.
Communities deserve to know what is being built in their neighborhoods
before decisions are already finalized.
Administrator Forst, your agency's mission is to construct, manage,
and preserve government buildings, and to lease and manage commercial
real estate on behalf of the federal government. That is your mandate
from Congress.
So, when DHS cuts you out of billions of dollars' worth of real
estate acquisitions, acquisitions that will fundamentally reshape
communities across this country, that is not just a bureaucratic turf
question. That is a breakdown of the oversight structure Congress put
in place.
And it comes with a real cost. No Congressional oversight, no
community input, form school districts, neighborhood associations, even
the Mayor and Council. The American people are being left in the dark.
What's more, at your nomination hearing last October, you told the
Senate that ``right-sizing our federal real estate portfolio'' was one
of your top four priorities. I would genuinely like to understand how
an agency conducting a shadow warehouse acquisition program, entirely
outside your oversight, fits into that vision.
I'd also like to address what we know GSA has been involved in.
GSA has played a significant and largely hidden role in ICE's
build-out across this country over the past several months.
We know that, last summer, ICE approached your agency with a
massive request: find space for 10,000 immigration enforcement
employees across 200 cities nationwide. That single request turned into
249 individual procurements for GSA. Of those, 196 are currently
active.
That is not a routine administrative adjustment. That is a
sweeping, deliberate, and shady expansion of federal immigration
enforcement infrastructure, and GSA has been at the center of it.
What's more, the manner in which this was carried out raises
serious concerns on its own. GSA employees were embedded on an ``ICE
surge'' team to find and expand office locations at speed. ICE
explicitly asked GSA to disregard standard lease procurement
procedures. And GSA has actively hid lease listings from the public.
The result is hundreds of ICE offices quietly planted in the middle
of communities, near preschools, elementary schools, houses of worship,
and medical facilities, with residents none the wiser until it was
done.
The American people deserve transparency. My constituents in
Arizona deserve to know what is being built in their backyards. And
this committee deserves honest answers about how and why the oversight
mechanisms Congress created are being deliberately circumvented.
I look forward to your testimony, Administrator Forst. I hope today
you will provide the transparency that has been so sorely lacking.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Ms. King-Hinds. I now recognize the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair, and thank you,
Ranking Member Stanton, for convening today's hearing on
Federal real estate.
Administrator Forst, thanks for participating in this
hearing--appreciate it--and your first before this committee.
I must say, it has been a tumultuous 14 months for GSA.
Staff have been reduced, regional offices shuttered, building
sustainability goals eliminated, leases terminated then
reinstated. Buildings have been on and off and on and off the
disposal lists.
The President has repeatedly made significant decisions on
Federal property renovations without consulting and
coordinating with legally mandated parties.
So, Administrator Forst, I certainly want to hear how you
plan to stabilize GSA and deliver the highest value to the
American taxpayer.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has long complained
about GSA's poor management of Federal courthouses. So,
recently, the AOC transmitted draft legislation to Congress
that would grant the judiciary authority to acquire, lease,
operate, maintain, construct, and repair courthouses with
funding obtained directly from Congress. So, I look forward to
learning more about this request and how it impacts the
stability of GSA's Federal Buildings Fund.
Administrator, you recently, as well, signed an MOU with
the Defense Ministry of Pakistan to renovate the Roosevelt
Hotel in New York. The Roosevelt Hotel, as far as I know, is
owned by the Pakistan International Airlines. It is not a
property owned by the Federal Government. I want to hear about
the MOU and why the Federal Government is involved in the
redevelopment of a property that is owned by a foreign
government when, in fact, the role of GSA is to manage and
dispose of Federal Government-owned property. This doesn't make
any sense, and I hope that you are able to share any available
legal counsel advice that you received so that we can better
understand the legal justification for this action.
GSA is required to submit to this committee descriptions of
proposed construction, renovation, and leasing projects that
require funding in excess of established prospectus thresholds.
Previous GSA Administrators requested that Congress raise the
prospectus threshold to $10 million, and a bill was introduced
in the Senate to do just that. So, if you could share with us,
as well, if you support raising the prospectus threshold, why,
and to what amount.
Finally--a little close to home for me--GSA has made great
progress on three critical land ports of entry in Blaine,
Sumas, and Lynden in my district. The Public Buildings Service
Acting Commissioner Andrew Heller recently updated me on these
projects. I look forward to working with him and the GSA staff
to expedite delivery of all three of these LPOE construction
projects.
There is bipartisan support in Congress for reducing
unnecessary leases and disposing of excess Federal property to
increase efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. You heard that
from the chair of this committee. Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania
has been a leader in that. It is an area that we agree on, and
it's great to be able to work as a committee on a bipartisan
basis.
But that support does require consistent communication from
GSA. So I hope that, under your leadership, GSA can provide us
some transparency, improve communication with Congress, and
perhaps we can avoid what we saw in 2025, so that in 2026 and
beyond, we can have a better relationship with GSA as we move
forward to try to get best taxpayer value from Federal real
estate.
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 Chair and Ranking Member Stanton, for
convening today's hearing on federal real estate.
Administrator Forst, thank you for participating in this hearing--
your first before this committee.
It has been a tumultuous 14 months for GSA.
Staff have been reduced, regional offices have been shuttered,
building sustainability goals have been eliminated, leases have been
terminated then reinstated and buildings have been on and off disposal
lists.
The President has repeatedly made significant decisions on federal
property renovations without consulting and coordinating with legally
mandated parties.
Administrator Forst, I would like to hear how you plan to stabilize
GSA and deliver the highest value to American taxpayers.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has long complained
about GSA's poor management of federal courthouses.
Recently, the AOC transmitted draft legislation to Congress that
would grant the Judiciary authority to acquire, lease, operate,
maintain, construct and repair courthouses with funding obtained
directly from Congress.
I look forward to learning more about this request and how it would
impact the stability of GSA's Federal Buildings Fund (FBF).
Administrator Forst, you recently signed an MOU with the Defense
Ministry of Pakistan to renovate the Roosevelt Hotel in New York.
The Roosevelt Hotel is owned by Pakistan International Airlines. It
is not property owned by the federal government.
I would like to hear about the MOU and why the federal government
is involved in the redevelopment of property owned by a foreign
government when, in fact, the role of GSA is to manage and dispose of
federal government-owned property. This doesn't make any sense, and I
hope that you are able to share any available legal counsel advice that
you received so that we can better understand the legal justification
for this action.
GSA is required to submit to this Committee descriptions of
proposed construction, renovation and leasing projects that require
funding in excess of the established annual prospectus thresholds.
Previous GSA Administrators requested that Congress raise the
prospectus threshold to $10 million and a bill recently introduced in
the Senate would do just that.
Please share with us if you support raising the prospectus
threshold, why and to what amount.
Finally, GSA has made great progress on three critical Land Port of
Entry projects in Blaine, Sumas and Lynden--all in my district.
Public Building Service Acting Commissioner Andrew Heller recently
updated me on these projects. I look forward to working with him and
GSA staff to expedite delivery of all three LPOE construction projects.
There is bipartisan support in Congress for reducing unnecessary
leases and disposing of excess federal property to increase efficiency
and save taxpayer dollars. But that support requires consistent
communication from GSA.
Administrator Forst, I hope that under your leadership GSA will
provide better transparency and improve communication with Congress,
and perhaps we can avoid what we saw in 2025 so that in 2026 and
beyond, we can have a better relationship with GSA as we try to get the
best taxpayer value from federal real estate. Thank you for appearing
before us today.
Ms. King-Hinds. I would now like to welcome our witness,
Mr. Forst, and thank him for being here today.
But, before I yield the floor for his testimony, I would
like to take a moment to explain our lighting system. There are
three lights in front of you. Green means go; yellow means you
are running out of time; and red means please conclude your
remarks as soon as possible.
I also ask unanimous consent that the witness' full
statement be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witness has provided answers
to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments or information
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
So, as your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks
to 5 minutes. With that, Mr. Forst, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. EDWARD C. FORST, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Forst. Thank you very much. Everybody hear me okay?
Appreciate that.
Chair, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. My name is Ed Forst, and I began my service as GSA
Administrator when a local Florida mayor swore me in on
Christmas Eve. Today is my 44th business day in the job, and I
am proud to serve in President Trump's administration for the
American people.
During my career, I was the CEO of Cushman & Wakefield, the
third largest real estate service firm in the country, and I
was also a leader at a premier global investment bank. And here
is what I have learned over the last 40 years of working: If we
execute with discipline, we do things efficiently, we manage
risk, and we take care of our people, we will achieve results
at the highest level.
Today, I am here to fill you in on GSA's uphill battle to
fulfill our mission in real estate excellence. I have come to
realize that both GSA and Congress must forge a new direction,
and we must hold ourselves jointly accountable to the same
standards that we demand from private landlords when we lease
space. And we lease 7,000 of them.
To move forward, we need two immediate things from
Congress: Full access to the Federal Buildings Fund--and we
appreciate this committee's support--and we also need
prospectus thresholds that reflect real-world costs. Without
these changes, our buildings will continue to deteriorate and
taxpayers will ultimately pay more.
Since 2011, Congress has diverted almost $16 billion from
the Federal Buildings Fund, moneys that were appropriated to
our clients and that were collected by us. Adjusted for
inflation, that is over $22 billion in lost maintenance
spending. We have previously estimated $26 billion in
delinquent maintenance across the portfolio. However, I believe
that may meaningfully understate the true liability by tens of
billions due to some very simplistic methodology.
I have directed this agency to retain independent
construction and engineering consultants to catalog each
Federal property and quantify the real number, and when that
assessment is complete, I will bring those numbers to this
subcommittee. It may be eye-popping.
The maintenance delinquency is not abstract. A water leak
left untreated becomes mold. A minor repair escalates into a
major renovation. It accelerates physical decay, compounds
cost, erodes value. It should be unacceptable to all of us.
I would like a minute of show-and-tell, if I can. I have
heard from many of our Departments about the state of their
facilities and how it degrades their ability to perform their
mission. I have seen this firsthand.
First, we have the Hoover Building.
[Slide shown.]
That is somebody's office. And we are lucky it was the
weekend when this happened. No one should have to risk that.
Then there is Ag South. The image highlights damage from an
ongoing roof leak. Our delinquent maintenance liabilities on
that building have approached $1.7 billion. It is our largest
liability, and I am grateful for your support in disposing of
the structure.
Last week, alongside USDA Secretary Rollins and Senator
Ernst, we began the disposition process to free us from the
$1.7 billion and also more than $15 million in annual expenses
while we achieve the President's Executive order to
consolidate.
And then, finally, I will show you GSA's own DC
headquarters at 1800 F Street. The picture shows a corroded
hole in the wall near our elevator shaft on the third floor.
Our own headquarters exemplifies this maintenance crisis.
Approximately 40 percent--four-zero percent--of our building
has been deemed uninhabitable. It is a travesty that the agency
managing Federal real estate cannot properly maintain its own
building to execute even the return-to-work order. This is a
money problem. It is not a competency problem.
Now, this leads to my next point. To fix GSA headquarters
and many others, we need our prospectus approved by the full
committee, and I would ask us all to do this together. Our real
estate portfolio is one of the largest in the Federal
Government, yet our $3.9-million-per-project threshold is
inferior to our vast needs, and it is even inferior to other
agencies in the Federal Government.
Congress affords $9 million to the Department of War and
$30 million to the VA, and I support those agencies with those
levels and those efforts, but our sole mission is to go ahead
and focus on Federal real estate. That is our job. And this is
a misalignment of needs and methods, and it makes it impossible
for us to do our job, and our prospectus threshold must be
raised.
On my first day, I launched Project 410. It is named after
the Empire State Building. It was built using 1928 technology
in 410 days. Eighty-six stories. It stands as proof that
vision, execution, and urgency can overcome bureaucracy. We
will use this mindset to transform real estate.
May we please work together--authorizers, appropriators,
and the team at GSA--to craft renewed legislative framework
that is practical, actionable, and results-focused. Our
American people deserve a shared better stewardship. Thank you
for having me today, and I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Forst's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward C. Forst, Administrator, U.S. General
Services Administration
Good afternoon, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. My name is Edward C. Forst, and I serve as the Administrator of
the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). I bring nearly four
decades of experience in financial services, real estate, and executive
management to this critical role. I was sworn in on December 24, 2025,
and have been leading this agency for 10 weeks.
Throughout my career, I have learned a simple truth: disciplined
execution, efficiency, sound risk management, and investment in people
produce results at the highest level. I am operating by these
principles to drive excellence. By doing so, we will return this agency
to its core mission--being good landlords and responsible stewards of
taxpayer dollars. That means eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse
wherever it exists and delivering on President Trump's priority to
strategically rightsize the federal real estate portfolio.
I want to thank this Subcommittee for its sustained focus on public
buildings, space utilization, and most importantly, advocating for full
access to the Federal Buildings Fund. That access is essential if GSA
is to rightsize its portfolio and responsibly manage federal assets. I
look forward to our continued collaboration over the 147 business days
remaining in the current fiscal year, with the goal of delivering the
highest value for American people and our stakeholders.
GSA's Real Estate Portfolio
When GSA first opened its doors in 1949, a promise was made to the
American people: to manage the federal government's administrative
functions, including its real estate holdings, with efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability. Today, I must be candid with this
Subcommittee; we have collectively fallen short of this promise--GSA
and Congress together must chart a new path forward.
GSA is trusted to be a responsible landlord, and frankly, right now
we are not meeting that standard. When GSA leases space on behalf of
federal agencies, it holds private landlords accountable. Substandard
building maintenance is unacceptable and GSA works with lessors to
address any issues promptly. It is imperative that we hold ourselves
accountable to that very same standard in federally owned space.
This realization is sobering and demands immediate collaborative
action that includes addressing delinquent maintenance, rightsizing the
federal real estate portfolio, and streamlining repairs. We are charged
with maintaining one of the largest portfolios of office buildings in
the federal government--a portfolio comparable in size to some of the
largest in the private sector.
I say ``delinquent'' maintenance, because when maintenance is
deferred, it allows problems to grow and exacerbate. A small roof leak,
left unrepaired leads to mold growth and continual water damage. What
was once a small repair has now become a multi-stage renovation.
Currently, GSA cannot spend more than $3.9 million on any
renovation, repair, lease, or construction without multiple committee
prospectuses and congressional funding. This process takes a
considerable amount of time. Major repairs and alterations average 436
days for approval, new construction takes 325 days, and leases require
244 days, with some leases remaining pending for over 600 days. This is
compounded by the limited spending authority that GSA receives as part
of the annual appropriations cycle.
For example, cyclically replacing base building systems, like
elevators, is a routine and necessary part of our job as a landlord.
But we are unable to do that effectively, given our current spending
authority. With the limited Repair and Alterations funding authority
GSA receives annually, and an inadequate current prospectus threshold,
we are forced to replace elevators in standalone segments, one or two
at a time, rather than as a whole. These delays exacerbate costs and
extend disruptions to building operations.
Out of necessity, this is the approach we are implementing at the
Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters in Washington, DC.
This approach negatively impacts agency missions and costs the
taxpayers more money. Simply put, we can't get the job done for which
we are responsible.
As the primary real estate agency, GSA's permitted project
thresholds are inferior to other agencies. For example, the Department
of War receives $9 million for minor military construction without
specified repair caps, and the Department of Veterans Affairs is
allocated $30 million for minor medical facility construction.
Now, I am not here to advocate for cuts to those agencies--they
serve critical needs. However, I am here to point out a fundamental
misalignment. The GSA is responsible for managing a significant amount
of the federal government's portfolio of office space and operates
under substantially restrictive funding authorities.
This misalignment directly contributes to the growing crisis of
delinquent maintenance. To correct this misalignment, GSA needs two
critical reforms: full access to the Federal Buildings Fund annual
collections and increased prospectus thresholds that reflect today's
construction costs.
These reforms would empower GSA to begin fulfilling its core
mission of real estate management while reducing long-term costs to the
government.
The prospectus process, designed to provide Congressional oversight
of major federal real estate projects, has become increasingly
problematic. While this Subcommittee diligently reviews prospectuses
for critical repair and alteration projects, these authorizations too
often fail to translate into actual funding. The existing disconnect
among the authorizing committees, appropriators, and GSA creates a
broken system that causes urgently needed projects to be indefinitely
delayed and left in limbo.
The consequences of this mismanagement are severe. Projects
awaiting final Congressional action may sit for years, during which
building conditions deteriorate further and costs escalate
dramatically. Meanwhile, GSA must repeatedly resubmit and update
prospectuses to reflect new cost estimates, creating administrative
burden and further delays. This cycle wastes public resources, as we
spend time and money documenting the same needs year after year while
buildings continue to crumble.
I urge us to collaborate on fixing this issue, thereby allowing GSA
to successfully execute its mission.
Project 410
Much of my career unfolded in New York City, where the Empire State
Building continues to inspire me. Built in just 410 days using 1928
technology, it stands as proof that vision, execution, and urgency can
overcome bureaucracy.
On my first day, I launched a ``Project 410'' mindset at GSA. Speed
and agility will define our culture--without compromising safety,
compliance, or integrity. We are evaluating our processes, aggressively
adopting new technologies, managing risk more intelligently, and
removing barriers that slow progress.
We are accelerating all property disposals, prioritizing
maintenance in our most critical assets, and fundamentally rethinking
how we manage federal real estate.
Every decision will balance workforce needs, long-term building
viability, and the true cost of delinquent maintenance. Put simply, we
need to shrink to a better, consolidated core.
The historic Des Moines U.S. Courthouse was the first property
disposed of under GSA's accelerated disposition initiative under
President Trump. This sale has significantly benefited taxpayers,
resulting in an annual cost avoidance of over $891,000 in operating and
maintenance, and avoiding more than $27 million in capital repairs over
the next decade. This successful disposition demonstrates the
effectiveness of our strategy to engage the market, attract interested
parties, and implement informed approaches to expedite future sales.
And, we conveyed the former Federal Executive Institute campus to
the University of Virginia for their new ROTC (Reserve Officers
Training Corps) campus, which will train future military officers.
These examples demonstrate how strategic dispositions not only reduce
our maintenance burden, but also redirect assets to their highest and
best use while generating significant savings for the American people.
Our Priorities
Priority One: Scale and Accelerate Portfolio Management
We are accelerating property dispositions across the portfolio. A
smaller, healthier portfolio enables us to reinvest in remaining assets
and better support agency missions.
To do this, we need:
Comprehensive optimization program funding and authority;
and
Full access to proceeds from Federal Assets Sale Transfer
Act (FASTA) property sales to reinvest in higher-priority assets.
Priority Two: Centralize Real Estate Management
We are transforming our approach to real estate portfolio
management with a laser focus on cost control and strategic planning.
Rather than simply reacting to problems, we will proactively identify
and concentrate resources on our core assets while systematically
reducing our footprint. Through hands-on, disciplined building
management, we will ensure partner agencies have the facilities they
need to deliver on their missions while they focus on their core work.
This strategic approach allows us to manage federal property more
effectively and efficiently than ever before.
Delinquent Maintenance
Since 2011, $15.7 billion has been diverted from the Federal
Buildings Fund--money that was specifically intended for building
maintenance and improvement of federal properties. When adjusted using
the Turner Construction Index, this represents approximately $22
billion in today's cost inflation. This isn't just an accounting
exercise; this represents real buildings deteriorating and real safety
hazards developing when we do not address problems when they arise.
The funding shortage is systematic and devastating. Over the past
15 years, Congress has appropriated an average of $646.6 million
annually for repairs and alterations projects, while our actual annual
need averages $1.2 billion. This is nearly half of what is required to
maintain these critical federal assets. This is not a minor shortfall;
this is a crisis of stewardship. We must work together to bridge this
gap.
I am committed to assessing the total liability of delinquent
maintenance on a property-by-property basis. Based on historical GSA
Building Assessment Tool data, GSA has estimated approximately $26
billion in delinquent maintenance across our portfolio. I believe this
previous methodology to be flawed and understated by tens of billions.
That is why, we are launching a comprehensive initiative to conduct
this detailed analysis, and we expect the total of delinquent
maintenance to increase significantly. When this assessment is
complete, I look forward to sharing our findings with the Subcommittee.
This chronic underfunding has produced a staggering delinquent
maintenance crisis that threatens the integrity of federal operations
nationwide. The backlog represents crumbling infrastructure,
inefficient systems, unsafe working conditions, and ultimately, the
inability of federal agencies to meet mission-critical needs.
Every dollar withheld in the short term costs taxpayers multiple
dollars down the road.
I would like to thank the Congressional appropriators and ask for
this Subcommittee's and Full Committee's support to move the 1800 F St
prospectus forward, as there is no better example of our maintenance
crisis than GSA's own headquarters. This building illustrates the
problem vividly--approximately 40 percent has been deemed
``uninhabitable,'' a shocking statistic that represents our current
predicament. The agency that manages the federal real estate portfolio
has not been permitted to properly maintain our own building.
It is an embarrassment; and GSA headquarters is just one of many
buildings that face significant delinquent maintenance challenges. In
support of the President's return-to-office order, we have had to lease
additional space for our workforce because we refuse to put people in
harm's way. Ignoring this maintenance inevitably results in demolition
by neglect--a wasteful outcome that serves no one.
Just as with other federal buildings requiring our immediate
attention, I will be laser-focused on the complete restoration of 1800
F. This is more than just our headquarters; it is a living piece of
federal architectural history, and we will preserve its historical
significance while transforming it into a 21st-century model of
innovative workplace design and operational excellence that other
federal agencies can emulate.
While we can restore 1800 F Street, other properties have
deteriorated beyond the point of responsible reinvestment. The United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) South Building, right here in
Washington, DC, exemplifies when disposal becomes the only prudent
option. This iconic structure, which should serve as a flagship federal
facility in the nation's capital, instead stands as a testament to the
consequences of chronic underinvestment. The accrued delinquent
maintenance liabilities have now reached, according to GSA analysis,
approximately $1.675 billion, making it the federal government's
largest liability.
Disposition would avoid approximately $15.2 million in annual
operations and maintenance costs while achieving President Trump's goal
of rightsizing USDA's workspace needs. Continuing to invest resources
into this failing, nearly vacant structure represents poor stewardship
of public funds--the responsible path forward is strategic disposal of
this property. This asset illustrates the necessity and willingness to
make difficult decisions about underperforming assets rather than
perpetuating a cycle of endless, wasteful spending.
The Alexander Hamilton Customs House in New York, New York, serves
as another instance of delinquent maintenance. By all accounts this
building exemplifies American classical architecture. It is beautiful,
and a national treasure. However, for the last decade, GSA has
requested funding for its repairs, but requests have been ignored,
causing the necessary repair costs to increase dramatically.
The neglect of essential repairs since 2016 and piecemeal funding
over the years has resulted in a cost escalation of $78,596,000. This
delay has not only inflated costs but has also significantly compounded
the required maintenance. This isn't just inflation--this is the
augmented cost of institutional neglect, where every year of delay
makes the desperately needed repair exponentially more expensive.
This is the hidden cost of insufficient funding for repair and
alteration projects: when Congress doesn't appropriate enough funding,
GSA must delay needed work on buildings. As we delay, problems continue
to deteriorate and become exponentially more expensive. The ``savings''
achieved today translate directly into much higher costs later. If we
do not address the root problem, we are simply bailing water out of a
boat with a hole in the hull.
GSA and this Subcommittee must partner to fix this systemic issue
through two critical reforms:
First, we must fund urgent maintenance promptly so minor
problems don't escalate into major failures.
Second, we must raise prospectus limits to allow larger repair
projects to move forward instead of languishing for years
awaiting approval. The current thresholds no longer align with
today's market conditions, forcing GSA to delay necessary
projects or break them into inefficient phases that ultimately
increase overall costs.
Increasing these limits to accurately reflect significant rises in
real construction costs and inflation would provide GSA with the
necessary flexibility to meet comprehensive building needs. This, in
turn, would allow for economies of scale in executing projects. This
adjustment would not only improve GSA's operational efficiency but also
provide better long-term value through strategic facility management--
fixing buildings right the first time rather than managing their
decline.
The restrictive prospectus thresholds, combined with the delinquent
maintenance crises, aren't isolated problems but symptoms of a systemic
failure that demands comprehensive reform. Beyond raising prospectus
limits, we must apply disciplined building management best practices
that are standard in the private sector, ensuring we catch problems
early and address them cost-effectively before they spiral into
billion-dollar liabilities.
Our federal real estate portfolio requires an updated legislative
framework that empowers GSA to manage assets proactively rather than
reactively. This means full access to the Federal Buildings Fund,
higher prospectus limits that reflect current construction costs, and
the ability to reuse proceeds from property sales into priority assets,
without needing a separate congressional appropriation, is necessary.
Rightsizing the Federal Portfolio
Another key priority is fundamentally transforming how we manage
the federal real estate footprint. We must face the reality that our
portfolio includes too much underutilized real estate that drains
resources without delivering proportional value.
We are moving strategically and responsibly to expedite the
disposal of these buildings. We appreciate Congress for enacting new
reporting requirements within the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources
Development Act of 2024, particularly the emphasis on space
utilization. These new reporting mechanisms are welcome as we work to
rightsize the federal real estate portfolio.
By reducing the number of buildings we maintain, we can focus on
invigorating our remaining assets, ultimately better supporting the
critical missions of the agencies that rely on us.
As my colleague, Acting Public Buildings Service (PBS) Commissioner
Andrew Heller noted during his testimony a few months ago, the William
O. Lipinski Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois, is a prime example
of the common-sense real estate solutions GSA can implement. By
disposing of this underutilized property the federal taxpayer will
realize over $161 million in outyear cost avoidance by eliminating
delinquent maintenance.
I want to emphasize that these are the types of common-sense real
estate solutions that GSA can and should implement. This cannot be a
partisan issue; we should be working to rightsize our real estate
portfolio and return value to the American people.
To that end, I will cut red tape, eliminate unnecessary steps, and
find smarter, more efficient ways to move properties off our books. It
simply takes far too long to sell underutilized and unnecessary federal
property. Under my leadership, I am personally committed to
dramatically reducing the time it takes to offload a building from our
portfolio while strategically utilizing leased space to support tenant
relocation. Leasing provides speed, flexibility, and lower upfront
capital requirements, enabling us to execute more consolidations and
dispositions within existing funding constraints. With improved access
to capital GSA could more deliberately balance leasing and ownership--
retaining high-performing and architecturally significant assets where
long-term stewardship creates the greatest value for taxpayers, while
swiftly moving properties that are underperforming.
The American people deserve federal buildings that work--buildings
that are safe, efficient, and worthy of the important work conducted
within them. With congressional support, we will deliver exactly that.
We Are GSA
Another core focus of mine is to equip GSA with a unified,
motivated workforce that strives for excellence across all levels of
the organization. This commitment is central to my vision for GSA, and
it is why one of my first initiatives as Administrator was the launch
of We Are GSA.
The We Are GSA initiative is designed to align our employees around
a common mission and shared values that transcend individual offices
and regions by breaking down silos, and fostering accountability and
collaboration.
We will enforce the highest ethical standards, reward excellence,
and strategically adopt technology to continuously improve our
operations.
That means providing GSA with the operational tools it needs to
truly transform the federal real estate portfolio in a way that better
serves the public better. It won't be easy, and it will require
sustained effort and congressional support, but I am completely
confident that this transformation can be accomplished.
This effort demands urgency, discipline, and accountability at
every level. By executing these priorities systematically and
professionally, we will reduce waste, improve service delivery, and
restore the American people's confidence in federal real estate
management.
Closing Statement
GSA serves as the engine of the federal government--and while we
have our own distinct mission, our ultimate charge is to ensure that
our partner agencies operate effectively and that taxpayer resources
are managed responsibly. I am fully committed to energizing our
workforce and fulfilling President Trump's mission of strategically
shrinking the federal footprint while maximizing the effectiveness of
our remaining assets.
The American people deserve better stewardship of their real estate
assets--and under this Administration, and with our collaboration with
this Subcommittee, they will receive it. I look forward to working with
this Subcommittee to deliver these results. Thank you, and I welcome
your questions.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you for your testimony, and now we
will now turn to questions for our witness, and I will now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
So, just last week, the Judicial Conference formally
requested that Congress grant the judiciary real property
authority to directly manage the 396 courthouses currently
operated by the GSA, stating that ``continuing the status quo
is no longer sustainable.'' This new proposed authority would
also give the judiciary the ability to build or acquire new
courthouses and property without the GSA.
Do you have a response to this proposal and their
characterization of the current situation with the GSA?
Mr. Forst. I do. And thank you very much for the question.
The judiciary is the largest real estate client of the GSA in
terms of building square footage.
I was taken aback by the meeting that I had last week,
quite frankly. I believed it was my first relationship meeting
with the two Justices, one who runs the AOC, and then one is a
subcommittee chair for real estate, and they did present to me
their thoughts that they desired to, as a pilot, manage 10--I
think 10 of their 93 judicial districts. They left my office,
the story was dropped immediately to The Wall Street Journal,
and they went straight to the Hill to meet with several
committees.
It was my introduction to joining the bigs at that point,
and so I have learned from that. It is not how one should work,
I think, agency to agency. I do think they are naive; I think
they are uninformed, and I think they are ill-equipped to go
ahead and manage this as they suggest.
They have a docket to pursue. We are the real estate
experts. And I think we should keep ourselves separate in that
way. And one can cite metrics on every bit of the equation. We
don't propose to say how they should manage the docket.
I would note that, at this point, we are at the all-time
high of the amount of time it takes for a civil case to get
through trial: 38 months in the Federal judicial system. It is
the longest in history. It has me dig deeper, too, about our
relationship. It sparked me to get smarter about the judicial
relationship.
Over the last 5 years--because I think any 1- or 2-year
period of the data can skew--but over the last 5 years, they
have accounted for 20 percent of the rent that we accumulate
from the rest of the agencies. Yet 46 percent of our repair
expenses have been afforded to the judiciary. Twenty percent of
the rent, 5-year average; 46 percent. That is at the expense of
every other agency that we serve. That doesn't make sense to
me, and that won't stand any longer now that I am focused on
it.
I have already in my short time visited three courthouses:
Tennessee, New York, and recently, Huntsville, Alabama. It is
where Senator Shelby and Judge Burke collaborated with us to go
ahead and create what is a tremendous neoclassical new
courthouse. There were 40 or more judges of all stripes at that
opening celebration. I spoke at the event, which was my honor.
Neither of the two administrative Justices responsible for real
estate actually chose to participate in that event. And I am
proud to say we completed the project under budget at a cost of
around $690 a square foot.
Now, in the judicial pipeline is an annex project for the
Puerto Rico courthouse. I am going to spend a lot more time on
this proposed project, because right now, the estimate is twice
the cost per square foot of Huntsville. It doesn't make sense
to me to do that. And so this misguided process started a week
or so ago is actually going to have the GSA in a better place
and more razor-focused and put everything under the microscope
so that we can work together and make sure we spend the
taxpayer dollars wisely.
Ms. King-Hinds. All right. Thank you for that answer.
So, in your testimony, you discussed launching a Project
410 mindset at the GSA to have speed and agility define the
GSA's culture. Can you describe your desired outcomes for
Project 410?
Mr. Forst. Yes. And thank you for the question. And it is
not just directed to the PBS or the Public Buildings Service of
which I manage. GSA is several businesses rolled into one.
Project 410--it just enlightened me when I focused on the
fact that that 86-story building with marble lobbies,
elevators, and survived a plane crash was completed in 410 days
in 1928. I know things are different. But that is going to be a
North Star for the GSA going forward, which is things take as
long as we let them, and it's inexcusable. So we are going to
apply that same kind of rigor and discipline and urgency to
every single thing that we do.
For example, in terms of prospectuses--and we have talked
about the amount per prospectus--but, on average, for us to get
a major R&A project through the various committees, it takes us
436 days to get a prospectus approved. For new construction,
325 days to get a major project of new construction done.
Leases, 244 days through the process. That is to begin the work
at that. And, in fact, we have six leases in front of
committees that have sat there for over 600 days.
So, if our North Star is 410 days to build an 86-story
building, we should be able to move the paperwork and analysis
through a heck of a lot quicker than that.
Ms. King-Hinds. All right. I am out of time. Thank you for
that.
I now recognize Ranking Member Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My ears perked up when you suggested that the judiciary was
ill-equipped to manage real estate, particularly at the size
and magnitude of the number of buildings that they have. I am
going to make the same argument about Kristi Noem, that she is
ill-equipped to manage the massive amount of real estate that
she is purchasing right now, cash money, without any
notification of the neighborhoods, without any involvement of
you and your agency which is tasked with managing Federal real
estate.
The people of my community are angry. They are mad as hell
that they have purchased a light industrial warehouse in the
middle of a neighborhood right near a school. Nobody knew about
it. Not a single phone call to the mayor, the council, the
local school district, the nearby neighborhood association. No
community contact at all. And they are going to put a detention
center the size of seven or eight football fields for 1,500
detainees plus staff right in the middle of a neighborhood. I
know your agency would not do that. So that raises some
important questions, as you mentioned, of someone being ill-
equipped.
What authority does DHS and ICE use to lease this space and
buy these warehouses across America without GSA?
Mr. Forst. So, sir--and I very much appreciate the
question. As much as I would like to say we have an aggregated
unified real estate mantle, we don't. Of the office space in
the Federal Government, we manage 40 percent.
There are many different authorities across many different
agencies. We have a federative approach in that sense, not a
unified approach, although I would like to see us get to a more
unified approach, and I believe the President would as well. I
think it would bring greater discipline to it, greater
intelligence to it, and be able to focus and achieve better
results in terms of----
Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. Yes. You couldn't do much worse
than DHS has done with buying these warehouses across the
country for 80,000 detainees without any communication to the
local community. I would agree with that.
In my community, the city of Surprise was completely caught
off guard by DHS' purchase of an industrial warehouse it does
intend to convert to a detention facility for up to 1,500
individuals.
As head of the agency that oversees Federal real estate,
does it concern you that a Federal agency is purchasing
properties that will have a significant community impact
without involving GSA?
Mr. Forst. As I was trying to finish up my comment,
different agencies and different Departments have different
authorities around that. There is an Executive Order 10886----
Mr. Stanton [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. The President issued on January 20
of 2025. It went ahead and declared an emergency situation, and
under that, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency,
which needs space, was authorized to go ahead and pursue it at
their pace----
Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. Mr. Administrator, let me ask
you a question. If GSA was the agency purchasing the property,
would your agency work with local stakeholders, school
districts, neighborhood associations, and the city--work with
local stakeholders before making any such purchase of property?
Mr. Forst. It is very difficult for me to answer the
hypothetical around that situation. In different circumstances,
different constituencies are considered.
But understand, Ranking Member, we serve our clients. Our
clients determine their needs, and we go ahead and provide the
specs and try to get that executed to the best of our ability.
Mr. Stanton. How many leases is GSA executing for ICE, and
how many leases has ICE undertaken without GSA?
Mr. Forst. I am sorry. I can't answer that question, but I
will return to you with an answer.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that.
Since January of 2025, has GSA limited or withheld public
notice of new DHS or ICE leases?
Mr. Forst. Again, sir, I can't answer that question yet. I
will----
Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. Has GSA invoked national
security justifications to avoid publishing leases for DHS or
ICE?
Mr. Forst. Yes. On September 24, we received instruction
from the agency that, under that Executive order, we were not
to publish certain upcoming lease awards.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. Do you know the reason why?
Mr. Forst. At their determination and under their
authority.
Mr. Stanton. That is not a GSA determination?
Mr. Forst. It is not.
Mr. Stanton. According to press reports, DHS and ICE have
requested that GSA bypass normal procurement procedures, citing
unusual and compelling urgency. Is that accurate?
Mr. Forst. Correct.
Mr. Stanton. Has DHS or ICE requested that GSA bypass the
Competition in Contracting Act?
Mr. Forst. I can't answer that specifically, sir. I will
respond to you.
Mr. Stanton. Why was full and open competition of these
contracts deemed not needed or not feasible?
Mr. Forst. Again, sir, I will respond to you in writing.
Mr. Stanton. With regard to the ICE surge team to find new
office locations for ICE across the United States of America,
is it common practice to create a, quote, ``surge team'' for a
particular agency?
Mr. Forst. When our agencies, our clients, have urgent
needs, then it is something that we choose to do to go ahead
and provide them the best service in the quickest fashion we
can. I think it is good client service.
Mr. Stanton. Is there any other agency besides DHS for
which GSA has created a, quote, ``surge team''?
Mr. Forst. I am not aware of any at this point in time.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. Well, I am out of time, so I will yield
back, and I look forward to getting written answers to those
questions.
Mr. Forst. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Administrator.
Ms. King-Hinds. I now recognize full committee Ranking
Member Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair.
Administrator Forst, in my opening statement, I mentioned I
wanted to ask you about this MOU with the Defense Ministry of
Pakistan. Do I have it accurate that you signed an MOU with the
Defense Ministry of Pakistan?
Mr. Forst. Correct. I did.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Okay. Yes. So this quote--because
we have not seen the MOU. So, one, I want to see the MOU. But
this quote is from a reporter in Pakistan--and that is how we
got this quote, rather than from you all--``that both
participants have mutual interests in the renovation,
operations, maintenance, and redevelopment of a certain
building called Roosevelt.''
Assuming that is true that you have a mutual interest, the
question I have is whether you have a legal authority to do
that--that GSA has a legal authority to do that. What is
exactly the U.S. Government's interest, first off, in
redeveloping this hotel?
Mr. Forst. Well, I think if you have been to New York, you
have seen it is a very hotly interested location. The
Government of Pakistan approached Special Envoy Witkoff with
the opportunity to collaborate on that property where they have
not had good success thinking it through. Obviously, the
Federal interest is broad and deep across cities like New York
City. And so this is really a first-stage conversation to begin
to work together to see if there is an opportunity that also
benefits the U.S. Government from a location standpoint.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Let me go back to the legal
authority side of things. And, as I noted, if you can, I will
request that we get information on legal advice you received
that says GSA has this authority, because from what I can
gather, this isn't--it might be a really great idea for your
former employer to do, but not for--it is not GSA's job to do
this, in other words.
I can give you more work if you want it. We have got plenty
of work for GSA to do. But I don't need--I don't think you need
more work that you don't have authority to do in the first
place. Do you have--did you get a legal counsel--legal counsel
advice on this?
Mr. Forst. Wouldn't have signed an MOU without legal
advice.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I wouldn't have signed it either,
but yes. Can you share--are you able to share that?
Mr. Forst. That MOU?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. The MOU and the legal advice with
the committee?
Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.
Mr. Forst. We will respond to you with that. I don't have
it with me, obviously.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Please do that, because I
would sure like to understand the legal authority.
So what does the MOU then obligate you to do? Or obligate
the GSA to do. I don't want to be personal with it. Obligate
GSA to do.
Mr. Forst. Yes. Or obligate the Federal Government, quite
frankly.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
Mr. Forst. It obligates us to do nothing, quite frankly. It
obligates us in good faith to work together to see if there is
a very good outcome for that particular site. I would not
personally get held up with the fact that it had been a hotel.
It could be anything upon redevelopment. It could be things
that are quite interesting to the Federal Government.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, but why----
Mr. Forst [interrupting]. And we are in the business of
actually building structures as well.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. But why GSA? Like, seriously.
And, again, not to bring up your previous employer, there are
plenty of companies that do this.
Mr. Forst. I guess we could have turned it over to the
judiciary.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Fine. Whatever. Like, they also
would not have the authority to do this. Then we would have
questions about that, too.
Mr. Forst. I believe Special Envoy Witkoff and the Federal
Government believe that, since we are the principal
organization charged with Federal real estate, that we would be
in a good position since we buy, we build, we renovate, and we
turn over properties.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. But this is not--so are you
planning to buy this property in order to renovate it?
Mr. Forst. The MOU has no obligations whatsoever. It is as
much of a one-way option as I think you could probably strike.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, okay. I am not trying to be
too harsh here. It just doesn't seem like--like, the original
sin, if you will, is in fact that you don't have this authority
to do anyway.
Now, you may--your job is as you describe it. That's true.
For Federal property. To build, construct, and manage Federal
property and dispose of it as well. And I just don't see where
this fits in at all. I mean, why doesn't Pakistan's GSA do
this? They own the property--or the Pakistan International
Airlines owns it.
So, all right. We are going to follow up with you. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. On to a more pleasant topic. On
the prospectus limits bill in the Senate, can you provide us
some insight on your thoughts on that particular bill?
Mr. Forst. We talked about some of the limits here. There
are other agencies with more significant limits than what I
talked about. None of them were in the real estate business.
And so I hope we can agree--I think it's $3.96 million today.
Whether it is $10 million--I think the number, quite frankly,
should be more dramatic.
These are not issues that should require a lot of debate.
If we want to replace a boiler or roof, an elevator is about
$1.1 million a pop to go ahead. When you build a building,
those elevators are all of the identical vintage. They tend to
go at the same time. And so, if you have three or more
elevators, we can't actually just jump in and replace those. So
we may wait 436 days for prospectus approval while they are in
entrapment.
I get a daily email whenever there is an entrapment
anywhere in the United States now. I want to be very focused.
We manage 4,400 elevators and escalators. It is a problem. It
is an embedded problem. I would think everybody should want
us--if you have confidence in us as the real estate arm of the
Federal Government, then let us go fix these things when they
happen. There is a geometric progression to the problems when
we don't address them early.
And so that is the prospectus issue, and I would candidly
argue for a much more significant number than what people have
talked about. Again, it can be defined according to the
category of work that we want to do that I think all of us
should agree is uncontroversial. But, if we could take hundreds
and hundreds of days out of this, we would take hundreds and
hundreds of millions of dollars of problems down the road off
the table.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks. I am done with my first
round, but I hope we have a second round opportunity.
Chair, thank you very much.
Ms. King-Hinds. I now recognize Representative Kiley from
California.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Administrator Forst, for being with us today.
I have just one pretty simple question. The FBI is moving
into the Reagan Building, and there are some questions among
existing tenants about what is going to happen. One of those is
the National Children's Museum. They do quite a bit. They do a
lot of work that dovetails with some of my priorities on the K-
12 education subcommittee.
So I just wanted to know if you had any information about
what the plans for the National Children's Museum might be with
the FBI moving in.
Mr. Forst. I appreciate the question, sir. And I recognize
the president of the museum is sitting behind me. I was able to
say hello before we started today. I also had a meeting in
person with Mayor Bowser this week, and this is a topic that we
jointly agreed to discuss and work on together.
I have toured the building. I have seen the museum. And we
need--this is an important thing for us to work on together to
not, in any way, abandon it and its important mission, but help
it get on to its next place.
Mr. Kiley of California. Maybe find a new home that would
be----
Mr. Forst [interrupting]. I am sorry?
Mr. Kiley of California. Finding a new home, you mean, that
would be well-suited? Is that the idea, or----
Mr. Forst [interrupting]. I am sorry. Again, I----
Mr. Kiley of California [continuing]. Finding a new home
for them. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Forst. I am going to----
Mr. Kiley of California [interrupting]. Finding a new home
for the museum?
Mr. Forst. Oh, yes. That is an important priority. I
apologize. That is an important priority for us. Yes, it is.
Mr. Kiley of California. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate
it. I yield back.
Mr. Forst. You are welcome. I am sorry I couldn't hear it.
Mr. Kiley of California. I am happy to yield my time if the
ranking member wanted more.
[A remark is made by a subcommittee member off the record.]
Mr. Kiley of California. Okay.
Ms. King-Hinds. Is Member Titus on her way?
[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. King-Hinds. All right. We are going to start another
round of questions, all right? We are going to keep you in the
hot seat.
So, since 2011, the GSA has not had full access to the
Federal Buildings Fund. As you know, the FBF was created to
fund the operating, maintaining, repair, construction, and
acquisition of Federal buildings and facilities. The GSA's
tenant agencies pay rent to the GSA, and that rent goes into
the FBF. Unfortunately, the amount of those funds that the GSA
can use has been limited each year.
Can you talk a little bit more about how this is impacting
your ability to properly maintain Federal buildings, since we
have been talking about concerns about maintenance?
Mr. Forst. I very much appreciate that question, and this
is a clear and present danger for us to continue on the path
that we are on. We are one of the very few self-financing
agencies. Different elements of Congress provide money to
different Departments and agencies. They transmit that money in
part to us to service the rent on their locations, two kinds of
rent. When we lease space, we collect it, and we pass it on to
the landlord. When it is owned real estate, we keep it, and
that is what we use to go ahead and service the building and
also to provide for the repair and maintenance expenses in that
sense.
Since 2011, almost $16 billion in nominal terms has been
taken from that Federal Buildings Fund set of collections. When
one inflates that under the Turner Construction Index--which is
a commonly used construction inflation tool--that is $22
billion in today's money that could have been spent on repairs
and maintenance. It's an astronomical sum of money.
It happens to have some parallelism to the $26 billion in
our financial statement, which is the underfunded delinquent
maintenance. And we changed that term. The accounting term is
``deferred maintenance.'' In my confirmation hearing, I kind of
changed it up a little bit to delinquent maintenance. I think
you defer to a point in time, and if you just never get to it,
it is delinquent.
With our private sector landlords who we pay rent to, we
would never stand for leaky roofs, broken elevators, broken
curtain wall, windows that don't function. We wouldn't stand
for that, and we would bring very serious pressure to bear. We
don't operate in a symmetrical sense, and we should, which is
we should be good, competent landlords to all and stewards to
all of the other members of the Federal Government.
But, when that billion dollars a year is taken from us,
aggregated to $22 billion, it is not the competency of our
team. Our career staff are world class. What they don't have is
access to the capital that they were entitled to have that
Congress intended for them to have on the one hand by providing
it to agencies, but on the other hand, taking it back.
Ms. King-Hinds. So let me just ask one more followup
question.
Mr. Forst. Please.
Ms. King-Hinds. How has the impact been to your tenants?
Mr. Forst. How does it impact our tenants?
Ms. King-Hinds. Yes, within an agency.
Mr. Forst. Well, I showed you a little bit of the show-and-
tell. Here is a piece of Hoover concrete that fell down as
well, which I am happy to leave with everybody [indicating a
piece of concrete on the table next to him].
It is hurting their ability to prosecute their missions
when you get stuck in an elevator. In the VA--I had a terrific
meeting with the Secretary--that happens quite frequently in
their headquarters building. That is disruptive, and by the
way, it creates some fears on the part of the population.
We should just go ahead and get the right thing done. We
have got to start today. We then have to keep things going, and
then we have got to work the backlog problem. Our focus on
disposing of real estate, though, right now--like with Ag
South--we are focused on those buildings that have
insurmountable amounts of repair work that need to be done, and
we just have to call the day and turn those over to private
sector or other uses. But we need to shrink to a better core.
One other suggestion I would make--to follow Congressman
Larsen--is when we sell a building, it would be terrific if we
were able to go ahead and recycle those proceeds towards
renovations. And I think it is the right incentive structure.
Shrink, sell, monetize, redeploy the money on the current stock
that we choose to keep. I think that self-funding mechanic
would also give us a jump-start on some of the work that we
need to do.
Ms. King-Hinds. Well, thank you for that. I yield back the
balance of my time for questions, and I now recognize the
ranking member for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I only have a couple of
additional questions for the second round.
According to GSA's ``Leasing Desk Guide,'' GSA must
consider local planning and economic development goals when
making location decisions. We discussed earlier about the ICE
surge and the lack of transparency with regard to the location
decisions of the hundreds of new locations for ICE offices
across the country.
Do you think GSA should be placing Federal agency tenants
like ICE near critical infrastructure, schools, medical
facilities, and houses of worship?
Mr. Forst. Sir, we serve our clients. And, in the case of
ICE--and I know that has been a principal focus of your
questions--we are operating under the authority of an Executive
order and under the Department of Homeland Security's interests
and needs and determinations. And so that is what governs how
we prosecute those particular situations.
Mr. Stanton. I respect that answer. Are they asking you
then to go against your own guidelines for location decision of
offices because of the sensitive nature of what they are asking
you to do, or are you following your own guidelines in making
leasing decisions for ICE offices across this country?
Mr. Forst. A lot of tough decisions have to be distilled to
zero-one, on-off, yes-no. And, in this particular case, the
Executive order is clear, the instruction from the Cabinet
Secretary is clear, and we execute according to that mission
just as we would for any other agency that has asked us to
serve on their behalf.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. I totally respect the request that has
come to you to do these leases for ICE essentially in secret,
not providing the normal information that you would provide to
the public before acquiring or leasing space for Federal
Government agencies.
The question, though, was, by having them ask you to
operate the way they are, are you in fact then not following
GSA's own leasing guidelines for what I would describe as
normal leasing situations?
Mr. Forst. Sir, I am just operating under the instructions
of the moment with those rules of engagement.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. I appreciate the nature of the question.
Could you talk a little bit about PBRB, the Public Buildings
Reform Board? How has the PBRB been of assistance to GSA? We
know there is a determination date upcoming. Do you think that
date should be extended?
Mr. Forst. So I think the gentlemen that serve on the PBRB
are seasoned professionals in that space, and I look for help
in any direction that we can go ahead and find it.
One thing that is important, I would say, in terms of
collaboration with that group--and I would like to see it even
better, and that is one of my intentions in the office now--is
there is tremendous disruption if we preannounce that a
building should be sold when we haven't worked specifically
with that agency or Department and, in particular, its people.
The House is, the Senate is, and we are--we are people-based
organizations, and it can be quite disruptive and therefore an
impediment to going ahead and pursuing some things if we
haven't collectively worked.
I am very optimistic right now about several conversations
that we have underway where we will have two agencies combined
in the same space. We have lived in a world of sovereignties
where each agency needs its own building, its own fax machine,
its own everything. And I am now quite heartened by the fact
that we have three or four possible combinations, one of them
in the headquarters building of my agency.
Mr. Stanton. Yes.
Mr. Forst. We are working with another possible
organization to team with us on that.
Mr. Stanton. Yes.
Mr. Forst. But I just--I think the preannouncements can
create some angst and some difficulty and ultimately slow us
down in trying to get to the right place.
Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that. I can't help but
note the dichotomy, though, in your approach that you are
concerned about the chaos that would be created without doing
the appropriate work--without appropriately working with, in
this case, the agency employees--but seemingly be unconcerned
about the chaos in a community when you are moving in something
like ICE and ICE officials and the fact that you--that this--
apparently, the White House is asking you to hide those
leases--to not have the same due care for the neighborhood as
you are suggesting you should have in this other process.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Forst. Thank you.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Onder for 5 minutes for
questions.
Dr. Onder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Forst, thank you for testifying today. It was
great to meet you in my office last week.
Mr. Forst. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Onder. And thank you for your willingness to take on
the challenge of reforming our Government's massive real estate
portfolio.
The Federal Government owns or leases thousands of
buildings, totaling hundreds of millions of square feet, and
far too much of that space is sitting empty. The GAO has found
that many Federal buildings operate at roughly one-quarter of
their capacity, and other analyses show occupancy levels
averaging around 12 percent. At the same time, taxpayers are
paying billions of dollars every year to maintain these
facilities. That disconnect is unacceptable. If the Federal
Government expects Americans to manage their homes and
businesses responsibly, it should hold itself up to the same
standard.
I believe Congress took an important step with WRDA 2024 by
establishing new occupancy metrics and requiring agencies to
report utilization data and return underused office space.
These reforms were intended to help rightsize the Federal
footprint, reduce unnecessary costs, and better align
facilities with the realities of the modern workspace.
Administrator Forst, my bill, the SPACE Act--which was
passed by the House last year--directs the GSA to collaborate
with Federal tenant agencies to identify opportunities for
shared space and establish measurable goals for colocation.
From your perspective, how could expanding space-sharing
help reduce the Federal Government's real estate footprint and
lower costs for taxpayers?
Mr. Forst. Thank you very much for the question. I think
there is nothing like shining the bright, white light on some
of these statistics. I think we will learn a lot both in terms
of the numbers produced, the metrics behind them, but also what
were the questions asked. We may learn there are some other
questions we need to ask once we release that.
And we commit to the committee that, as of March 31st, the
committee will have the information. It will be released on the
GSA.gov website as well, so it will be there for everybody to
take a cold, hard look at it.
The impediments to getting some of this to happen, I think,
are important. Until now, we actually haven't designated a
swing space or two when you want to move an agency out of a
space. Otherwise, it has been the perfect match. Do you have
this or that? We now have something where we have dedicated a
swing space. That is going to enable us to go ahead and create
the velocity of action that we need here as well.
I also think in terms of getting agencies to work together
towards this, as I said, we have three or four twinning
opportunities in front of us right now. We have not had those
before. And I think now that we are making some of those
steps--and that is why GSA and our prospectus that is in front
of Congress is really important because we are going to bring
another agency in with us. And I think no one ever wants to go
first----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. On some of these things, but then,
once somebody does, they see the wisdom of it. By the way, down
the road, there may be industrial logic reasons why certain
people tenant together, and I think----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. That will be a terrific thing to
see as an outcome as well.
Dr. Onder. Very good. Well, you have also highlighted the
need to raise the prospectus threshold to allow the GSA to more
quickly respond to repair needs at GSA buildings. This is not a
new request from GSA, and adjusting the threshold would impact
congressional oversight.
What are your concerns related to repairs and alterations?
Mr. Forst. I have to say, having now met the career staff
and worked with them and having brought real estate experience
of my own to bear, the team is fantastic. I think we should
trust the team to do their job. Their job is not to deliver the
mail. Their job is not to deliver justice. It is to deliver
real estate responsibly. And I feel very good about it. If
Congress has seen fit to give other agencies more authorities
than us, I don't understand the mismatch and misalignment of
that at all.
Dr. Onder. And can you provide any examples of relatively
minor repair or alteration requests that would exceed the
current threshold that increasing the threshold would result in
lower costs and more efficiency?
Mr. Forst. I would say, if we needed to replace three
elevators in the building. It's not a big deal when we have
4,400 elevators and escalators.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Forst. That would approach the limit, just that kind of
a repair. A large boiler system, a complicated roof--$3.9
million today--I don't mean to speak arrogantly about $3.9
million, but it is not----
Dr. Onder [interrupting]. Right. But, given the size of
some of these Federal buildings----
Mr. Forst [interposing]. These buildings are enormous.
Dr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Forst. And, if you look at our deferred maintenance
liabilities on them----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. They are gargantuan numbers that we
should be embarrassed about, but let's stop the embarrassment.
Let's start the action. And we want to team with you on finding
a legislative approach that you can be comfortable with that
can get us back to business.
Dr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Forst. Thank you, sir.
Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ranking Member Larsen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thanks for a second
round as well.
So the GSA has announced its intention to dispose of
several properties: Liberty Loan Building, a former GSA
regional office building here in DC, other buildings here in
the DC area. The challenge is disposing of those also could
flood the market space.
Mr. Forst. Yes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And so how can--what is the
balance on the disposal timing versus maximizing the
redevelopment potential of a site by undermining the value by
putting too much out there, if you will?
Mr. Forst. That is a heck of a commercial question. I
really appreciate it.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Well, I am a heck of a guy.
Mr. Forst. And I think, in that instance, we have to be
smart about this, okay? We have to bring a private sector
mentality to how we are going to deal with that, okay? And, by
the way, we have a broader set of possible disposition
opportunities than necessarily just the for-profit sector has
in that regard.
It is also the use intelligently of commercial brokerage
firms. I used to run the third largest in the United States.
There are others. And I think it is important how we get their
advice about what else is--it's not just what we are doing in
the market, it's what other people are doing in the market.
And, if we just live within our shell, we will not have the
benefit of that information.
So I am very much let's get the right intelligence about
the market. Let's plan the timing and the approach well. And
there could be certain instances where partnering with a
private sector organization, disposing that way, or to other
urban-based groups that may have an interest in something. I
think we should be open and flexible about that, but I think we
need the intelligence, and we don't just run down a path.
That is why I am not a fan of just putting something on a
website, putting it out there, and having it happen. I think we
ought to curate this process to maximize the benefit for the
Federal taxpayer.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Well, I think, if you watched
this committee's response last year to the DOGE
recommendations, we are also not fans of just putting things up
on a website. And we were able to get those taken down quickly.
Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And I think there is a danger
there for this reason and other reasons as well.
Mr. Forst. These are not commodity properties.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Right.
Mr. Forst. These are special, and they have to be treated
as such.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. And, on that point, I know
there is a--we talked about the USDA Ag South headquarters
building, but that building itself has unique infrastructure
challenges, including underground infrastructure, connecting
other buildings and so on. But their Federal building is
connected to Federal buildings, and so that creates--we just
can't put that on the market for the private sector and then
allow that to be connected to a Federal building when we are
trying to be sure we are protecting the Federal employees----
Mr. Forst [interposing]. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington [continuing]. In these buildings,
too. So you have some unique challenges. Could you discuss that
particular one and maybe what the lesson is there?
Mr. Forst. Well, it is a great point. I am glad you raised
it. The interconnectivity of some of these buildings.
I will just say one thing. GSA is getting out of the
utility business, okay? It is not a good place to be. And, by
having its connectivity today--building the building, utility
structure of the building--it inherently limits our liquidity
in those particular assets. So that is a negative. So we need
to go ahead and begin the extraction process and move that way.
I think, at its peak, there were probably 120 or 125
buildings on the HOTD system. I think we are down to 62 right
now, and we need a path to get down to zero, quite frankly. But
that is why, again, you don't just pop the Ag South building on
a website and say ``bids received'' for something like that. It
is a complicated process. We have to work carefully with those
who would be bona fide intelligent acquirers of it and see if
we can get to the right place.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Thanks.
I want to underscore what the chair said at the beginning.
We have done a lot of work here within the Carper bill--the
Carper WRDA bill--with the USE IT Act and some other things.
There is a process in place for leased space. There is a
process for the PBRB to dispose of properties. These are tools
that GSA should use, because we told you we should use them,
and they actually, as it turns out, are pretty well-thought-out
and provides a structured system to dispose of property that we
don't need anymore.
And, in a bipartisan way, we agree there is some property
we don't need anymore. And we have outstanding leases. We have
2,000 leases coming up in the next couple of years that you
have got to decide are we going to re-up or not re-up.
Mr. Forst. I know. We do.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. So you have got some work ahead
of you.
Mr. Forst. We do.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. That is why--I can give you more
work if you want, but you don't need more work. You have got
plenty to do.
Mr. Forst. Day 44, I feel swamped but energized.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
Mr. Forst. Because I think there are a lot of these
problems, and I think we share very much where do we want to
find ourselves on a durable path post when I leave office. But,
until that time, we are working intensively on that.
I also think in the category of leases, they serve a
purpose. I am not negative on leases. I am negative on the path
that we are on, which is let's just do leases because the
ownership path doesn't work the way we fund it today. I don't
think that is necessarily sensible.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
Mr. Forst. So let's just get to the common ground, create
some symmetry between leasing and owning, and then we can get
to the right purpose, the right math, the right longevity, and
pick the asset type or pick the financing type, if you will,
that we want to pursue.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Thanks. I yield back.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Forst. Thank you, sir.
Ms. King-Hinds. The ranking member yields back.
I now recognize Representative Titus for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
Welcome, Administrator. I want to change the subject a
little bit.
During President Trump's first term, I was pretty outspoken
about him using Federal land and real estate to benefit his own
financial interests, and one of the most egregious examples of
that was the Trump Hotel--turning the Old Post Office into the
Trump Hotel.
I introduced a bill called OUR Public Buildings Act that
would have prohibited any President, Member of Congress, or
head of an agency from entering into subleases, or outleases,
rather, with the GSA. And now that we did that and we talked
about it and it has got called up in the courts and stuff, we
are hearing that President Trump is in talks to sell the hotel
now.
This is a landmark year in the National Capital, and it is
all rumor and all, but I wonder if you could comment on if that
is happening and who is interested and what kind of talks are
going on and what kind of price you are looking at.
Mr. Forst. So----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. What kind of safeguards are there
to keep anybody from personally benefiting using the White
House?
Mr. Forst. So my limited understanding on that is that the
hotel went into bankruptcy, and the creditors have gone ahead
and they are exercising foreclosure and looking to purchase
that property. I don't have details on where that stands right
now, though.
Ms. Titus. Well, would that be the role of your agency, to
oversee that----
Mr. Forst [interrupting]. I believe our remaining role in
that is just on the land lease, ma'am. It is nothing to do with
the building.
Ms. Titus. Well, when you find the answers to that, could
you get back to me.
Mr. Forst. I surely will. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Another issue that has come up, of course, is the Kennedy
Center, and that has been the cultural center of the country
for a long time. We are very proud of the acts that are there
in the Center and the people that it draws, and now we are kind
of hearing in horror what the President is planning to do with
that.
He fired the board, made himself chairman, stuck his name
up on the side of the wall, and then, when people started not
coming and acts starting canceling, he just closed it down and
said he is going to remodel it. He is not going to tear it all
down, but he is going to do something extensive.
Would you tell us what the GSA's role is in that process or
what oversight you have or what you know about that?
Mr. Forst. Congresswoman, we have no involvement at all in
the Kennedy Center.
Ms. Titus. Do you think you should?
Mr. Forst. I think I have plenty to do.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Well, who is overseeing that, if it is not
you?
Mr. Forst. Honestly, I don't know the structure of the
Kennedy Center. I am sorry.
Ms. Titus. Well, who should I ask that question to then if
it is not the GSA?
Mr. Forst. I can't even hazard a guess. I am sorry.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Well, maybe I can find out since you are
not very helpful. My last question--see if we can get any
further with this one--has to do with design of Federal
buildings. There is a directive about--coming out of the White
House again--about having the fallback position being the
neoclassical style, I think, here in Washington buildings,
despite the Democracy in Design Act and the longstanding
provisions about using architecture of the region and the
latest styles and things.
And the question, it says in the Executive order, ``In the
District of Columbia, classical architecture shall be the
preferred and default architecture for Federal public buildings
absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of
architecture.''
Now, most people I know don't want Washington to look like
Mar-a-Lago, and they are not all that keen on having this as
the style that is preferred. But this sounds pretty much like a
directive or a mandate to me, but could you tell us what
``exceptional factors'' are that would----
Mr. Forst [interrupting]. I am sorry, Congresswoman, I
can't----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. You are just not----
Mr. Forst [continuing]. But I am happy to follow back with
you.
Ms. Titus [continuing]. Can't answer any of my questions.
Mr. Forst. That hasn't come to my attention yet.
Ms. Titus. Okay. So we don't know what the factors are, we
don't know who is in charge at the Kennedy Center, and you
don't have any oversight over the Trump Hotel. That is not a
very good lineup, I don't think.
All right. I yield back since I am not getting any help
here.
Ms. King-Hinds. The gentlelady yields back.
From what I understand, the actual chair of the
subcommittee is on his way back----
Mr. Forst [interposing]. Okay.
Ms. King-Hinds [continuing]. And so the subcommittee shall
stand in recess subject to his call as soon as he gets back.
Mr. Forst. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will
reconvene the previously recessed hearing.
The Chair now yields himself 5 minutes for questioning.
Thank you, Mr. Forst, and I apologize to everybody in the
room for the delay and the continuation. Some of these things
are beyond our control.
At our last hearing, Mr. Forst, Acting Commissioner Andrew
Heller shared that the release of utilization data, mandated by
the USE IT Act, was delayed by the fall 2025 Government
shutdown.
However, Mr. Heller committed to releasing the finalized
data by the end of this month, on March 31st. As I expressed
previously, of course that is not ideal.
The question is, has GSA made any determination as to
whether the data can be provided faster, and is GSA at least on
track to deliver the data by the 31st?
Mr. Forst. Thank you very much for the question. And
consistent with Andrew's testimony to you, we will be
delivering that to you and posting it on our website at GSA.gov
by March 31st.
Mr. Perry. Okay. It is good to know, and I am glad for the
commitment.
I just want to state now that you're here and you're fully
ensconced in things--I know you were kind of in the audience
the last time--I am going to request all of the data, not just
the revised data beyond the shutdown. Do you know what I am
saying?
I want the data--it is my understanding that the agencies
have been collecting and reporting occupancy data to OMB on a
biweekly basis since last May.
Now, I understand there is a period during the shutdown
where they might not have done that, but what I am telling you
is, I want all of the data, unredacted, unfiltered, un---
whatever you--unmolested, prior to that as well.
And I am going to just tell you why. I don't want anybody
else cooking the books. We want to see it all. We are smart
people here. We are the elected officials that are accountable
at the end of the day, and we want to make appropriate
decisions based on all the information, not the cleaned-up
information.
We can give--and be fair about it--we can give latitude, so
to speak, for things like a shutdown where employees may not
have come to work, understandably so.
But what we are not going to allow is that period of time
to be used to modify the data to make things look better,
right?
So we have got a job to do here, and it was a hard-fought
victory at 60 percent occupancy, which is 10 points above half,
right, which quite honestly--look, you are in Congress. You
make concessions where you have to, to move the ball forward,
and 60 percent is better than zero, which is what we were
getting before, right?
But it is certainly not optimal, and if an agency can't
fill its facility at that point, like, we need to know that,
and we are going to take some action, right? That is the point
of all of this.
And, look, Mr. Forst, I know you know this, but I am
telling you now in front of God and the whole world, that is
what we want.
And let me just add one other thing. I am so happy that I
have had time to think about this while I was at the other
place.
There have been accusations, so to speak, from one person,
one agency or another that so-and-so is not giving me the
information, so-and-so agency is not giving me the information.
Okay, fair. Maybe they're not, for whatever reason--maybe
they're sick, maybe it's unavailable, maybe it's in Fortran and
they got COBOL, or whatever, I don't know.
But here is what I do want to know. If you can't provide
that information--if you can't provide that information, you
better darn well find out why it is not being given to you, and
I want the name of who is not giving it to you.
Because we are going to run it down. We are not going to
have any of this, oh, he and she, and this agency, and that
agency--and I don't want just the agency, because there is a
bunch of them involved here, a couple in particular.
I want to know the name, because I will call them up,
because we are going to get to the bottom of it. Okay? We are
going to get the information. It is not going to be career
bureaucrats that are trying to live out this administration or
that are in this administration that are trying to punish the
last one or the next one. We are not dealing with any of that.
We want the information unencumbered, unmolested, and then
we will figure it out from there, and we are not going to take
``no'' for an answer. Okay? So just so you know what the terms
of the circumstances are.
All right. Have I probably--well, look at that, I just
about used up my time. One more question.
The steam/chilling plant that services 60-some-odd
buildings----
Mr. Forst [interposing]. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. In Washington, DC, tell me about
the plan for that.
Mr. Forst. I think when it was built in, I think, 1934, I
think it was the best of intentions to service at that time----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. 128 buildings in the unified
Federal construct. GSA, the Federal Government, should not be
in the utility business in this kind of a way. So it services,
I think, 62 buildings today, and it is our belief, and it is
going to be our process, to find the extraction from that.
We now have two to nine shutdowns a year because of its age
and its maintenance characteristics. It serves these buildings.
It is important to those buildings. We have to find an off-ramp
for all of them.
It also prevents better liquidity in terms of selling real
estate when they are tied to this, and so----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Wait; you mean if they are
untethered to it, correct?
Mr. Forst. We need to untether.
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Forst. It is going to be easier to go ahead and find
another buyer for those----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. Buildings than if they maintain
that kind of coexistence.
And so our approach is going to be to go ahead and to
withdraw from it, have a very sensible path to do that, and we
are not going to do that again.
Mr. Perry. Okay. I just want to clarify so I understand.
Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. Maybe I am a little slow here. When you say we
are going to kind of divest from it, but it has to be building
by building, right? Each building has to have its own
autonomous system at some point.
You can't just shut the----
Mr. Forst [interposing]. Correct.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Steam/chill plant down.
Mr. Forst. Can't do it, no.
Mr. Perry. You can't do that.
Mr. Forst. And, since these are our buildings or related
Federal Government buildings, we have to do this carefully, but
we have to help everybody get to that path and get to that
plan, yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. And do you--with your indulgence, Madam Ranking
Member--do you have a plan that we could see at some point to
know how that is going to kind of happen?
Mr. Forst. So today is day 44 of----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Yes, right. I get it, okay.
Mr. Forst [continuing]. I don't have a plan yet, but we
will have the makings for a plan.
Mr. Perry. It would be--I think it would be good for us to
kind of see that there is some kind of vestiges of an
architecture that this is how this could happen so that we can
get there. Otherwise, it is going to be, I think, by fits and
starts and individual circumstances that are going to be
difficult.
If we have a plan, it might not survive first contact, but
at least we have something we can adjust from and get there.
All right.
Mr. Forst. I appreciate your skepticism.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
All right. I yield the balance, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, DC, Delegate Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While I strongly oppose the Trump administration's plans to
move Federal agencies outside DC, there are specific Federal
buildings in DC that should be disposed of. These disposals
would save the Federal Government money, generate tax revenues
for DC, increase housing supply, and lead to new mixed-use
neighborhoods, such as occurred in the Navy Yard.
However, the General Services Administration does not
appear to have a plan for disposing of Federal buildings in DC
that maximizes sale prices and drives economic development.
Instead, it is selling Federal buildings in southwest DC on
a piecemeal, ad hoc basis.
Administrator Forst, does the General Services
Administration have a plan to dispose of Federal buildings in
DC that maximizes sale prices and drives economic development,
and if so, what is it?
Mr. Forst. So, thank you very much for the question,
Congresswoman, and thank you for your 35 years of service in
Congress.
I had a meeting this week with Mayor Bowser, actually, to
engage her in some of these conversations as well, so that I am
fully aware of the interests and the needs of the community,
but also our responsibility to the Federal taxpayer to maximize
the outcome for these buildings.
And one of those measurements of maximizing outcome is the
dollars received for that real estate. We do not have a grand
plan for the disposition. At this point, we are looking at
buildings that are not needed, and we are trying to be more
expeditious about realizing return on those and moving the
people out of underutilized real estate into areas,
collaborating together, so we have more density of usage,
because that is an intelligent design as well.
And so the mayor and I talked about ways that we could
engage with some of the private sector community to go and
explore other options and redevelopment opportunities.
I am, though, very focused on the urgency, and the urgency
measured by time as well, on this, and so that we have to bring
to the equation.
So there's dollars, there's time, there's progress, there's
bringing agencies to work together in common space, which then
will result, I believe, in some industrial logic. When agencies
agree to be together, they may choose to work together in ways
they hadn't thought about already.
So I believe there are some excellent things that we can
accomplish that way. I am in the early learning curve, though,
about the community and about some of the ways and the degrees
of freedom we have to realize upon a shared mission that we
have with you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
The Department of Homeland Security recently began
demolishing historic buildings on the St. Elizabeths West
Campus in DC.
Administrator Forst, why are these buildings being
demolished now after all these years, what is the Federal
Government's authority to demolish these buildings, and what
measures are being taken to protect employees and the
surrounding community from health hazards during demolition?
Mr. Forst. I very much appreciate the question. The
Secretary of Homeland Security gave us an emergency declaration
to act upon these buildings. That did not mean, though, that we
just immediately brought bulldozers in to conduct the work.
We went ahead and we gave formal notice to the National
Trust, we gave formal notice to the DC preservation commission,
and after those notices, we also hired a very reputable firm
that we have used for construction and demolition in the past,
Clark Construction.
I have met with that firm, and they have assured us that
their workers are doing this in every regulatory appropriate
way with the safety guards that are part of their corporate
practices. So, from that standpoint, the work is proceeding.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Are there further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing and hearing none, that concludes our hearing for
today. I would like to thank the witness for his testimony. The
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Edward C. Forst,
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Kevin
Kiley
Question 1. Administrator Forst, there are now available to GSA
modern asset management platforms that could help agencies reduce
operations and maintenance costs, improve sustainability, or optimize
facility performance. How does GSA evaluate whether newer asset
management tools would provide greater efficiency, real time analytics,
and lifecycle cost savings compared to older legacy platforms? Are
agencies encouraged or required to reassess whether their current
systems remain the most cost effective?
Answer. GSA, in coordination with the Federal Real Property Council
(FRPC), evaluates both data collection needs and opportunities to
improve the efficiency of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). We
appreciate the passage of the USE IT Act and any input from Congress
that might promote further efficiencies. Currently, agencies are
responsible for procuring and maintaining their own internal asset
management systems and are encouraged to reassess those systems to
identify deficiencies, address challenges associated with legacy
platforms, and adopt modern technologies that may be more cost
effective.
Question 2. The modern platforms referenced in the prior question
are created and implemented by small and mid-sized companies. Asset
management technology procurements are traditionally dominated by large
vendors, leading federal agencies to ``vendor lock in,'' with these
legacy asset management platforms. What steps is GSA taking to open
this markets to newer, more cost-effective technologies by ensuring
small and mid-sized companies have a fair opportunity to compete?
Answer. GSA has taken steps to reduce barriers to entry for small
and mid-sized firms interested in competing for these types of
requirements. First, we've placed an increased emphasis on improving
the forecasting process so that small and mid-sized firms have earlier
awareness of potential contract opportunities. The earlier awareness
prior to a solicitation being posted gives businesses advanced time to
plan and determine whether or not to pursue the opportunities. In
addition, 85% of GSA's Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) contract holders
are small businesses and 36% of Federal spend is awarded to MAS small
business contract holders. The MAS program makes it easier for Federal
buyers to access innovative small businesses and makes it easier to
market the services they offer. Lastly, Oasis + one of GSA's
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts where asset management services
can be procured, has implemented a continuous onramping period. This
prevents vendors from being locked out and missing out on contract
opportunities. It has a small business pool and socioeconomic pools
which provide streamlined access to small business firms who offer
asset management solutions.
Question 3. What steps is GSA taking to promote interoperability
and open standards requirements in asset management platforms so
agencies can integrate data more easily and avoid long-term dependence
on a single solution?
Answer. GSA has advanced efforts in this area. In close
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies, we have developed
government-wide approved real property data standards [https://
ussm.gsa.gov/fibf-RPM] through the Federal Integrated Business
Framework (FIBF) process.
Post-Hearing Question for the Record to Hon. Edward C. Forst,
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Eleanor
Holmes Norton
Question 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
headquarters lease expires in 2027. What is the General Services
Administration's (GSA) plan for FEMA's headquarters? Is GSA considering
extending the current lease, and if so, for how long?
Answer. FEMA is currently headquartered at 400 and 500 C Street,
SW, in Washington, DC. The leases at these buildings are set to expire
on August 16, 2027. GSA, in coordination with the current federal
occupant, is evaluating all options (including a short term extension)
to solve its long-term space requirement. If GSA requires additional
Congressional approval to deliver space for FEMA, it will work with the
appropriate Committees in accordance with 40 USC 3307.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Edward C. Forst,
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Shomari
Figures
Question 1. Mr. Forst: What formal consultation process, if any,
does GSA use to engage local communities, Members of Congress, and
tenants before designating a property as ``excess'' or ``for sale''?
Answer. GSA takes a deliberate, transparent, and collaborative
approach to these decisions, recognizing the important role federal
buildings have to federal missions, local communities, and the
surrounding economy. Following the determination of an evaluated
disposition business case, GSA sends a disposition decision
communication to congressional delegates, tenants, local/city
officials, and occupant agency points of contact as the first step of
engagement. We then coordinate with these stakeholders to understand
the potential impacts and redevelopment opportunities for additional
consideration. Once GSA determines it no longer has a mission-related
need for a property, it reports the property as excess for disposal.
Through the disposal process, GSA first screens for other federal
interests, followed by a screening to public bodies and eligible non-
profit organizations for negotiated sale or public benefit conveyances.
If no transfer or conveyance occurs during this surplus screening
phase, the property is then offered through a competitive public sale.
Question 2. Mr. Forst: Would GSA support a statutory framework that
requires congressional approval before disposing of properties like the
Freedom Riders Museum, and what changes would GSA need internally, if
any, to implement such a safeguard?
Answer. GSA does not believe a statutory framework requiring
congressional approval before disposing of properties is necessary or
consistent with the shared goal that we have to rightsize the federal
portfolio in a timely and cost effective manner. During the process
that GSA normally undertakes to excess a property, we strive to engage
with all stakeholders that would be impacted by that decision,
including congressional representatives.
Question 3. Mr. Forst: When GSA evaluates whether to dispose of a
facility in this district, how do you quantify and weigh local economic
impact, tourism, and educational value against potential savings for
the federal government?
Answer. GSA applies a holistic framework to decision-making,
integrating financial analysis with stakeholder input to arrive at
decisions that best serve taxpayers, affected communities and other
stakeholders. While cost savings to the federal government are a
primary consideration, other factors are considered. GSA incorporates
both qualitative and quantitative considerations across several key
areas, including community interest, impacts, and opportunities, with
the goal of reducing federal liabilities while enabling beneficial
reuse that supports local economies and communities.
[all]