[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11231-H11234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL BUILDING TRANSFER ACT
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 2513) to direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire
a building located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2513
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF BUILDING.
(a) Acquisition.--The Administrator of General Services
shall acquire by transfer from the United States Postal
Service the real property and improvements located at 30
North Seventh Street in Terre Haute, Indiana.
(b) Reimbursement.--The transfer under subsection (a) shall
be made without reimbursement, except that the Administrator
shall provide to the Postal Service an option to occupy 8,000
square feet of renovated space in the building acquired under
subsection (a) at no cost for a 20-year term.
SEC. 2. RENOVATION OF BUILDING.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services
shall renovate the building acquired under section 1, and
acquire parking spaces, to accommodate use of the building by
the Administrator and the United States Postal Service.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to the
requirements of section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of
1959 (40 U.S.C. 606(a)), there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
General Leave
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2513, a bill introduced by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pease), would require a no-cost transfer of a Postal
Service building located in downtown Terre Haute, Indiana, to the
General Services Administration. In return for the building, the Postal
Service would be granted an option to remain in a portion of the
building, 8,000 square feet, rent-free for 20 years.
The bill authorizes an appropriation of $5 million to renovate the
building and to acquire parking spaces to accommodate use of the
building by the Postal Service and the General Services Administration.
The subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology marked up this bill and reported it to the full Committee on
Government Reform on September 22, 1999. At the request of the ranking
member of the full committee the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
and the subcommittee's ranking member the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), the subcommittee held a hearing on September 30, 1999 to
further consider the legislation.
Witnesses at the hearing included the sponsor of the bill the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease); Terre Haute's mayor, Jim Jenkins;
and representatives from both the Postal Service and the General
Services Administration. Witnesses at the hearing testified about the
building's historical significance and the need to maintain a post
office and a Federal presence in the downtown area of this Indiana
community. A representative of the General Services Administration
testified the agency needed additional time to explore other
alternatives to conveying this property, including the possibility of a
no-cost conveyance to a public entity or a sale to a private buyer. An
agreement was reached at the hearing to postpone further consideration
of this bill for an additional 30 days to enable the General Services
Administration to find a viable alternative to H.R. 2513. The 30 days
have elapsed and the General Services Administration has been unable to
achieve a viable option for conveying this property.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill.
Attached is the ``Statement of Administration Policy,'' dated
November 2, 1999.
Also included are the letters between the chairmen of Government
Reform and Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page H11232]]
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, November 2, 1999.
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 2513--to direct the administrator of general services to acquire a
building located in terre haute, indiana, and for other purposes.
(Pease (R) IN)
The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 2513. The
bill would:
Compel the General Services Administration (GSA) to accept
into its inventory, and fully renovate, a building that has
not been reasonably marketed for use by other entities.
Further, GSA does not have the Federal tenancy in the Terre
Haute community to sustain this building.
Lead to certain losses in GSA's budget, since the
appropriations authorized are not guaranteed and would only
cover renovation costs, while GSA would certainly suffer
continuing shortfalls in rental income from the building.
These losses are particularly likely in light of the bill's
requirement that the United States Postal Service, in lieu of
payment for the building, receive an option to occupy 8,000
square feet of renovated space rent-free for 20 years.
The Administration appreciates and shares the desire to
preserve historical and architectural landmarks such as that
currently housing the Terre Haute Post Office, but believes
this preservation can and should be done in a financially
prudent fashion. GSA believes the Post Office should remain
in the Postal Service's inventory while all interested
parties, including GSA, continue to survey the market for
potential users.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, October 26, 1999.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in H.R. 2513, a bill to direct the
Administrator of General Services to acquire a building in
Terre Haute, Indiana.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2513 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
certain provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request a
sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
With warm personal regards, I remain
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, November 1, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of October 26,
1999 regarding H.R. 2513 a bill directing the Administration
of General Services to acquire a building located in Terre
Haute, Indiana.
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this legislation, and I am most appreciative of
your decision not to request such a referral in the interest
of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by
foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of
letters will be included in the record during floor
consideration of this bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, October 29, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: In the interest of expediting floor
consideration of H.R. 2513, a bill to direct the
Administrator of the General Services to acquire a building
located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and for other purposes, the
Committee on Government Reform does not intend to exercise
its jurisdiction over this bill.
Originally, the bill was scheduled to be marked up by the
committee on September 30th. Congressman Horn and
Congresswoman Waxman, however, agreed to give GSA another
thirty days before passing H.R. 2513. After thirty days, both
resolved that the bill could be considered on the House
floor.
As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction
of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform
Committee with jurisdiction over ``government management and
accounting measures, generally.'' Our decision not to
exercise the Committee's jurisdiction over this measure is
not intended or designed to waive or limit our jurisdiction
over any future consideration of related matters.
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to
working with you throughout the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to deal with a problem in Terre
Haute, Indiana, represented by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
This problem he faces is not unlike a problem that many of us have or
will experience in our own districts. Many of us have Federal buildings
within our districts that oftentimes were built during the Depression
era, buildings that are no longer up to current standards and are
having difficulty being leased. These buildings, I think, are many
times located in prime areas of our communities, in downtown locations,
in commercial areas and many times these buildings have historical
significance that warrant preservation.
H.R. 2513 by the gentleman from Indiana deals with such a building
located in his hometown of Terre Haute and it is a building that is
currently owned by and partially occupied by the Postal Service. I have
committed to helping the gentleman from Indiana with this bill not only
because of my personal respect and admiration which I hold for him but
also because I know that any one of us can and do face the same problem
in our own districts. I am aware of the fact that the gentleman from
Indiana has worked diligently for over 2 years to try to find a
solution to this problem.
This bill would transfer the Postal Service building from the Postal
Service to the General Services Administration. The General Services
Administration as consideration for the transfer would be obligated to
permit the Postal Service to continue to occupy approximately 8,000
square feet of the building that has about 45,000 square feet of
rentable space for free for a period of 20 years. The bill would also
authorize an appropriation of $5 million to the GSA to renovate the
building and to acquire parking.
I fully appreciate the value of this building to the community of
Terre Haute. This structure, which was constructed through a public
works project during the Depression, is listed on the National Register
of Historical Places. Aside from its historical significance, the
building goes a long way toward enhancing the value of downtown Terre
Haute by providing citizens a host of services that are easily
accessible to the public. Citizens like to be able to walk across the
street to visit the post office, visit the Social Security
Administration. Time, however, has taken its toll on this building. It
is deeply in need of repair and diminishing standards have made it
difficult to keep the building operational. As I said, it is estimated
by the GSA that the building would require between $4 million and $5
million in renovation. The citizens of Terre Haute under the leadership
of the gentleman from Indiana have joined together to keep the Postal
Service building as a viable part of the downtown area.
In my opinion, the Federal Government has a clear duty to act as a
responsible property owner and should be a partner in finding a
solution to the future of this building. The building's historical
significance and its importance to preserving the economic viability of
the downtown area must be acknowledged by the Federal Government.
However, I am deeply concerned about one provision of the bill, that
provision which allows the Postal Service to occupy 8,000 square feet
of space for 20 years at no cost. I recognize that the purpose of the
free rent provision under the bill is to compensate the Postal Service
for the value of the building. Yet without the whole building
generating revenue, I anticipate that the expense of providing the
Postal Service with free rent will greatly reduce the fair market value
of the building. The free rent provision will amount to an encumbrance
which will diminish the building's economic value for the next 20
years.
As we all know, a lot can change in 20 years. All future prospective
owners of the building may be discouraged from acquiring the building
because of the heavy burden of free rent for the Postal Service. And
the Postal Service has acknowledged that it intends to stay in
[[Page H11233]]
the downtown area. They even acknowledged to us in a conference call
that were they not in this building, they would move to another
building a few blocks away where they would be required to pay rent.
Why then should the Postal Service not continue to pay rent in the
Postal Service building? That is a question that I do not know that we
have a clear answer to. The Postal Service simply says that if they are
going to transfer a building to the General Services Administration,
they are due some consideration, that it has some value. This argument
certainly is a sound one, if the building does in fact have economic
value. But the estimates provided by the GSA indicate that the building
in its current condition has little if any economic value and will
require an expenditure of over $4 million to bring it up to a standard
to attract tenants at market rates. And then, of course, the payout
over the years of $4.2 million perhaps would make the building less
attractive not only to the government but to any private investor
considering such an investment.
So having expressed my concern about the particular provision of the
bill, I want to say again that I commend the gentleman from Indiana for
his diligence in trying to deal with a problem common to all of us. I
think that the proper thing for us to do is to support this bill, to
move it forward, and in fact when we had a hearing on this bill, the
gentleman from Indiana delayed moving the bill forward for 30 days to
allow the GSA to come up with any viable option that they may have.
Their efforts thus far have been unsuccessful, but he kept his
commitment to do so and our commitment on this side of the aisle was to
allow this bill to move forward and perhaps to move it to a point where
some of the suggestions that I have made could be incorporated in the
bill. We are supportive of the effort that the gentleman from Indiana
has made. I commend him for what he is attempting to do for his
community. I would urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very thorough
proposal of this particular building. As I noted, the Congressional
Budget Office said this is a negligible cost in terms of the amounts
involved.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I will submit a
written statement for the Record.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for
their tremendous support and assistance in an effort that is very
important to my hometown and the citizens who reside there.
As the gentleman from Texas has said, we have spent almost 2 years
trying to resolve this situation in a fashion that meets the needs of
the community but is also responsible in its stewardship of limited
financial resources.
{time} 1245
We believe we have the best possible option before us at this time,
though we understand that there are still points in the agreement that
need to be negotiated, and obviously will be, between the GSA and the
Postal Service and our colleagues in the other body.
The staff of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner) and many members of the Postal Service staff and GSA staff have
been extremely helpful to us. I want to acknowledge their work in what
is admittedly a difficult area and thank each of them for their
cooperation in bringing this proposal forward. We believe it provides
the basis for a constructive resolution of a difficult matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2513. I represent the
Seventh District of Indiana, which includes the city of Terre Haute
where the building which is the subject of this bill is located. In
September 1935, the Federal Building, which is located at the
intersection of Seventh and Cherry streets in Terre Haute, IN, opened
its doors to the public. Its original tenants included a Federal court,
a post office, the Social Security Administration, and the Internal
Revenue Service. This grand structure is a product of the Works
Progress Administration during the Depression under the Roosevelt
Administration and is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. It is a fine example of Art Deco architecture, utilizing
Indiana limestone, marble, and ornate decor.
Pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, some of the
buildings in the Federal inventory were conveyed to the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS). The postal facility located in downtown Terre Haute,
IN, is one such building that was included in the transfer. Since the
transfer, numerous Federal agencies have leased space in the Terre
Haute facility for their operations. However, the building is currently
in need of modernization, and many of these agencies, including the
Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have
relocated to other locations in the city of Terre Haute under private
leases.
According to the most recent figures from GSA and the USPS, the total
rentable space for the Terre Haute facility is approximately 41,300
square feet. Of this space, 30,902 square feet are currently occupied
by the USPS and other Federal agencies, thus placing the current
overall occupancy rate at 75 percent. Currently, the building houses
several Federal offices, including a U.S. District Court, a U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, a U.S. Attorney's office, Federal Probation, and one of
my district offices. In addition to this Federal presence, space is
also leased by two private attorneys and Jelene Kennedy, a blind senior
citizen who operates a concession stand for the building.
In 1997, a new postal processing and distribution center was opened
in Terre Haute, IN. Due to the construction of this new postal
facility, the presence of the USPS in the Federal building has been
reduced to box and window services only. For a time, there were
indications that the USPS might terminate its presence at this
facility.
H.R. 2513 would transfer the Terre Haute facility to GSA at no
charge, providing the USPS with an option to remain in a portion of the
building (8,000 square feet) rent-free for 20 years. In addition, the
bill would authorize $5,000,000 for necessary renovations to the
building and to acquire parking spaces to accommodate existing and
future offices.
H.R. 2513 has many merits for both the city and the Federal
Government. It would help maintain the presence of the USPS in downtown
Terre Haute, which is a high priority with the community and numerous
interest groups. Anticipated renovations would make the facility more
attractive to public and private lessees, including Federal agencies
seeking to relocate when their leases in other Terre Haute locations
expire in the next few years. At this time, the Social Security
Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of
Agriculture, and armed forces recruiting offices operate outside the
facility, but within the city of Terre Haute. Ideally, these Federal
agencies would move into the building, thus occupying, at a minimum,
16,095 additional square feet, increasing the occupancy rate to 90
percent. Under this plan, the moneys currently being paid under private
leases would be paid to the Federal Government, thereby saving
taxpayers money. In addition, a central location for Federal agencies
and their services would provide improved accessibility for the Terre
Haute community.
Two additional aspects that should be considered when examining H.R.
2513 are the demand for additional space by those Federal agencies
currently in the Terre Haute facility, as well as the demand for space
in the facility by state and private entities. The FBI and the U.S.
District Court, both of which currently occupy space in the building,
have indicated that additional space is necessary for their operations.
In addition, a private lessee has expressed interest in leasing
approximately 1,800 square feet. The Governor of Indiana has indicated
his interest in this project and his willingness to work in filing
vacant spaces in the building with state agencies if there is space
remaining after other Federal agencies relocate to this property.
Moreover, Mayor Jim Jenkins, Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana,
STAMPS Downtown, Indiana State University, Downtown Terre Haute, Inc.,
Terre Haute Chamber of Commerce, the Deming Center, and others have
expressed their willingness to assist in finding tenants to occupy any
vacancies in the building.
One final factor that should be taken into consideration is the
recent decision by the United States Bureau of Prisons to designate the
Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute as the sole location in the United
States for the execution of Federal death sentences. The potential
impact of this designation on the Federal court at Terre Haute is
currently unknown, but is likely to be substantial.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2413 was introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives on July 14, 1999. The bill was subsequently referred to
the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure for consideration. On September 22, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of
the
[[Page H11234]]
Committee on Government Reform marked up H.R. 2513 by a voice vote. On
September 29, 1999, a hearing on H.R. 2513 was conducted by the
subcommittee, and testimony was presented by representatives of the
Terre Haute community, myself, and representatives of the USPS and GSA.
At the hearing, concerns about H.R. 2513 were raised by GSA officials
and Representative Henry Waxman, ranking member of the Committee on
Government Reform.
H.R. 2513 was scheduled to be marked up by the Committee on
Government Reform on September 30, 1999. However, at my request, H.R.
2513 was withdrawn form the Committee's agenda for that day. Ranking
Member Waxman and I agreed to allow GSA 30 days to review whether there
were realistic alternatives for management of the Terre Haute facility,
other than ownership by GSA. Under this agreement, if GSA failed to
move forward and provide a viable option in the 30-day period, then the
ranking member agreed to moving the bill forward in its current form on
the House suspension calendar. To date, GSA has been unable to provide
a viable option, though it has worked diligently on the project and has
been in regular communication with my staff, committee staff, and
representatives of various government entities in Terre Haute.
For more than 2 years, my staff and I have been working with GSA, the
USPS, and the Terre Haute community to resolve this matter. Though we
have made progress, a comprehensive solution has not yet been reached,
but this bill helps us advance the negotiations toward the only viable
option yet discovered. To expedite this matter, Representative Dan
Burton, chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, with the
concurrence of Ranking Member Henry Waxman, agreed to waive the
committee's consideration of H.R. 2513. In addition, Representative Bud
Shuster, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
agreed to forego his committee's sequential referral on the bill.
In conclusion, it makes sense to transfer its property from the USPS
to GSA. The General Services Administration is familiar with building
management and better suited to properly manage this multitenant
facility--a historic structure architecturally and structurally similar
to facilities managed by GSA in other cities. I believe that the
figures clearly indicate a strong federal presence, as well as a strong
demand, for space in the Terre Haute facility. For many reasons, the
transfer of the facility to GSA is a sound transaction which will prove
to be an asset to the Federal Government and to the citizens of the
Terre Haute area. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2513.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation because I
entered into an agreement with the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease,
and the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn. Under our understanding, I
agreed to support moving this legislation through the House if the
General Services Administration did not find a viable alternative for
the postal building in Terre Haute within 30 days. The 30 days are up,
and although GSA is continuing to analyze and investigate the property,
it has not yet found an entity interested in buying or taking the
property.
Nevertheless, although I am supporting moving this legislation
through the House, I continue to have genuine reservations about H.R.
2513. I hope Mr. Pease will work to resolve these issues as this
legislation moves forward.
H.R. 2513 provides that the postal services building in Terre Haute
will be transferred to GSA. It also provides the U.S. Postal Service
with an option to remain in the building rent-free for 20 years. In
addition, this bill authorizes $5,000,000 for necessary renovations to
the building and to acquire parking space to accommodate existing and
future offices.
I am not sure that this is the best policy. It ordinarily does not
make sense to force GSA to own a building it does not want or need. GSA
has explained the many difficulties it will have in leasing space in
the facility. The building has a 55 percent vacancy rate, and it is not
clear that this rate will increase enough to cover the costs of the
renovations. In addition, there now appears to be little justification
for allowing the Postal Service to have office space rent-free for 20
years.
In essence, I fear that this bill could require GSA to sink millions
of dollars into a property when there is little chance that the Federal
Government will be able to recoup those costs.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to my concerns about the substance of this
bill, I am also troubled by the inconsistent information that has
circulated regarding this bill.
During a September 29, 1999, subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2513, which
was held at my insistence, the parties concerned came to an agreement
to postpone a decision on how to proceed with the Terre Haute Post
Office building for 1 month. During that month, GSA was to review the
potential options for the building, including a directed sale, and
report to us no later than October 29, 1999, regarding those options.
If GSA did not report in that timeframe or failed to report a viable
alternative to H.R. 2513, I agreed to move H.R. 2513 to the floor under
suspension of the rules.
On October 29, 1999, GSA reported to us that there was a potential
purchaser, the Vigo County School District. My staff also contacted the
treasurer of the Vigo County School District about their interest. The
treasurer indicated that the school district was interested and that it
needed more space. The treasurer also said that the school district
needed another month in which to do a cost-benefit analysis. It thus
appeared that there was a viable alternative for the property.
Mr. Pease's staff disputed this point, however, and by the end of the
day the school district's interest appears to have evaporated. Late in
the day, my staff received a call from the superintendent of the Vigo
County School District. With Mr. Pease's chief of staff present in his
office, the superintendent indicated that the school district was not a
viable alternative and that its interest was just lukewarm.
In addition, I have received conflicting information regarding the
Postal Service's intentions. It was my understanding initially that the
provision in the bill giving the Postal Service free rent for 20 years
was justified because but-for the free rent, the Postal Service had no
intention of staying downtown. On October 29, however, we learned that
Postal Service had always intended on keeping a presence in downtown
Terre Haute, just not in the Federal building in question. As the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, has rightly pointed out, it doesn't
seem necessary to give free rent to the Postal Service. This is
especially true if it intended on paying rent in another building.
This point has significant ramifications. The fact that the Postal
Service must receive space rent-free detracts from the building. In
fact, it may be the reason that GSA has to date been apparently unable
to find a viable alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote against this bill. However, I
hope that Mr. Pease and my colleagues in the Senate will take my
comments into consideration as this bill moves through their Chamber.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge
the adoption of this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2513.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________