[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14420-S14422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1896. A bill to amend the Public Building Act of 1959 to give 
first priority to the location of Federal facilities in central 
business areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


                    the downtown equity act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good 
friend, the senior senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing 
the ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999.''
  The location of federal buildings and facilities have a tremendous 
impact on local communities. We are introducing the ``Downtown Equity 
Act'' to ensure that the federal government is a good neighbor that 
promotes the vibrancy of communities throughout the country.
  Guidance for federal agencies on the location of their facilities 
exists in two executive orders. Unfortunately, these directives are at 
times inconsistent with each other and have been used to support 
different goals. This became clear to me when I worked closely with the 
General Services Administration (GSA), the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) and the city of Burlington. In 1998, I 
called together a meeting with all these interested parties to discuss 
eligible locations for a new INS facility in downtown Burlington. 
Officials from the city cited one executive order about locating 
buildings in downtown areas while INS officials countered with another 
executive order that promotes the location of federal facilities in 
rural areas. Instead of complementing one another to promote a 
reasonable policy, the two executive orders are negating each other and 
clearly neither have enough teeth to result in the policy proclaimed in 
either order.
  Mr. President, managing a city is a difficult enough task. Mayors and 
city managers across the country should not have to also wade through 
dueling executive orders when they share the same goals as the 
Administration to re-energize town centers. The federal government 
needs to set a clear policy on the location of federal buildings in 
downtown areas. Without legislation to clarify this policy, agencies 
make decisions about the location of buildings and operations that can 
undercut the viability of central business districts, encourage sprawl, 
degrade the environment, and have an adverse impact on historical 
economic development patterns. Federal facilities should be sited, 
designed, built and operated in ways that contribute to--not detract 
from--the economic well-being and character of our cities and towns. 
Federal facilities can have a tremendous impact and we need to make 
sure that location decisions do not erode the character and quality of 
life in our cities and towns. I want to prevent a repeat of the 
experiences in Vermont, and I know that Senator Baucus has many of the 
same concerns in Montana.
  The Downtown Equity Act of 1999 clarifies the intention of these 
dueling executive orders by directing federal officials to give 
priority to locating federal facilities in central business

[[Page S14421]]

areas. This bill does not pit urban areas versus rural areas, but 
instead promotes the siting of these facilities in downtown areas--
urban or rural. By adopting this legislation, the Federal government 
can become a leader in the effort to limit sprawl and support the 
economic vitality of central business areas.
  There is a fundamental problem with development that our bill also 
tries to address: it's more expensive to build and rent in a 
traditional downtown area than to build on an empty site outside of a 
business district. Downtown areas have great difficulty competing in 
the procurement process because of the higher costs generally 
associated with downtown areas. Sometimes, despite the best intentions 
of federal officials, sites with the lowest absolute cost are 
predisposed to win. This approach is too simplistic. Our ``Downtown 
Equity Act of 1999'' directs the General Services Administration to 
study the feasibility of establishing a system for giving equal 
consideration to both the absolute and adjusted costs of locating in 
urban and rural areas, and between projects inside and outside of 
central business areas. While the absolute cost of projects will always 
be important, a more balanced and robust consideration of the costs of 
a project is needed.
  The benefits of limiting sprawl, supporting historic development 
patterns, and revitalizing our downtown central business areas can 
mitigate the higher costs associated with constructing, leasing, and 
operating Federal establishments inside central business areas. Unless 
the overriding mission of the agency or economic prudence absolutely 
dictate otherwise, location of Federal facilities should be supportive 
of local growth management plans for downtown central business areas.
  When Federal landlords or tenants arrive in town, we have every right 
to expect that they will be good neighbors. Beyond that, the Federal 
government also needs to be a leader in the effort to limit sprawl and 
protect the environment and the character of our cities and towns. 
Livable and thriving central business districts can be a renewable 
resource, and the Federal government should be part of the solution, 
not part of the problem.
  Senator Baucus and I look forward to working with our colleagues and 
with the Executive Branch to bring much needed reform to the decision-
making process that governs the siting of Federal facilities. We all 
recognize that decisions to prevent or limit sprawl will always be made 
locally, but the Federal Government can do much to help our communities 
act on their decisions. And, the Federal Government must stop being an 
unwitting accomplice to sprawl by siting buildings outside of downtown 
areas.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and 
a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1896

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Downtown Equity Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that locating Federal 
     facilities in central business areas--
       (1) strengthens the economic base of cities, towns, and 
     rural communities of the United States and makes them 
     attractive places to live and work;
       (2) enhances livability by limiting sprawl and providing 
     air quality and other environmental benefits; and
       (3) supports historic development patterns.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that Federal agencies recognize the 
     implications of the location of Federal facilities on the 
     character, environment, economic development patterns, and 
     infrastructure of communities;
       (2) to ensure that the General Services Administration and 
     other Federal agencies that make independent location 
     decisions give first priority to locating Federal facilities 
     in central business areas;
       (3) to encourage preservation of historic buildings and 
     stabilization of historic areas; and
       (4) to direct the Administrator of General Services to 
     study the feasibility of establishing a system for meaningful 
     comparison of Federal facility procurement costs between 
     central business areas and areas outside central business 
     areas.

     SEC. 3. LOCATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 22. LOCATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Priority for Central Business Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     as otherwise provided by law, in locating (including 
     relocating) Federal facilities, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall give first priority to central business areas.
       ``(2) Exception.--The priority required under paragraph (1) 
     may be waived if location in a central business area--
       ``(A) would materially compromise the mission of the 
     agency; or
       ``(B) would not be economically prudent.
       ``(b) Implementation.--
       ``(1) Actions by administrator.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 
     implement the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to 
     locating Federal facilities--
       ``(i) in public buildings acquired under this Act; and
       ``(ii) in leased space acquired by the Administrator under 
     section 210(h) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(h)); and
       ``(B) report annually to Congress--
       ``(i) on compliance with subsection (a) by the 
     Administrator in carrying out--

       ``(I) public building location actions under this Act; and
       ``(II) lease procurement actions under section 210(h) of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (40 U.S.C. 490(h)); and

       ``(ii) on compliance with this section by Federal 
     agencies--

       ``(I) in acting under delegations of authority under this 
     Act; and
       ``(II) in the case of lease procurement actions, in using 
     leasing authority delegated under the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).

       ``(2) Actions by federal agencies.--Each Federal agency 
     shall--
       ``(A) comply with the regulations promulgated by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(B) report annually to the Administrator concerning--
       ``(i) the actions of the Federal agency in locating public 
     buildings under this Act; and
       ``(ii) lease procurement actions taken by the Federal 
     agency using leasing authority delegated under the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     471 et seq.).''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 (40 U.S.C. 612) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Central business area.--The term `central business 
     area' means--
       ``(A) the centralized business area of a community, as 
     determined by local officials; and
       ``(B) any area adjacent and similar in character to a 
     centralized business area of a community, including any 
     specific area that may be determined by local officials to be 
     such an adjacent and similar area.
       ``(9) Federal facility.--The term `Federal facility' means 
     the site of a project to construct, alter, purchase, or 
     acquire (including lease) a public building, or to lease 
     office or any other type of space, under this Act or the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 471 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY OF PROCUREMENT COST ASSESSMENT METHODS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``central 
     business area'' and ``Federal facility'' have the meanings 
     given the terms in section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 (40 U.S.C. 612).
       (b) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall conduct a study and report to Congress on the 
     feasibility of establishing a system for--
       (1) assessing and giving equal consideration to the 
     absolute and adjusted comparable costs (as determined under 
     paragraph (2)) of--
       (A) locating Federal facilities in rural areas as compared 
     to locating Federal facilities in urban areas;
       (B) locating Federal facilities in central business areas 
     of rural areas as compared to locating Federal facilities in 
     rural areas outside central business areas; and
       (C) locating Federal facilities in central business areas 
     of urban areas as compared to locating Federal facilities in 
     urban areas outside central business areas;
       (2) for the purposes of paragraph (1), adjusting the 
     absolute comparable costs referred to in that paragraph to 
     correct for the inherent differences in property values 
     between rural areas and urban areas; and
       (3) assessing and giving consideration to the impacts on 
     land use, air quality and other environmental factors, and to 
     historic preservation, in the location of Federal facilities.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available under any other law, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
                                  ____


               Summary of the Downtown Equity Act of 1999

       The ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999'' clarifies a multitude 
     of Federal laws and regulations governing the location of 
     Federal office

[[Page S14422]]

     space and other facilities by requiring that first priority 
     be given to central business areas. Currently, the location 
     of federal offices and other facilities is governed by 
     several different laws and executive orders, which often 
     creates confusion and conflict. For instance, current law 
     gives a strong preference to locating Federal facilities in 
     rural areas, while an Executive Order (No. 12072) promotes 
     the location of Federal facilities in central business areas. 
     These conflicting policies can have serious adverse 
     consequences to communities, such as promoting sprawl and 
     contributing to the decline of downtown areas.
       The ``Downtown Equity Act of 1999'' seeks to eliminate this 
     confusion by establishing a clear, statutory preference for 
     locating Federal facilities in central business areas, both 
     in rural and urban areas. Thus, Federal facilities will help 
     strengthen the economic base of cities, towns and rural 
     communities and make them more attractive places to live and 
     work. Locating Federal facilities in downtown areas will also 
     support historic development patterns, limit sprawl, and have 
     other important environmental benefits.
       The bill also requires the General Services Administration 
     (GSA) to study the feasibility of establishing a procurement 
     assessment system which considers both the absolute and 
     adjusted costs of locating Federal facilities between central 
     business areas and outside those areas.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1. Title.
       Section 2. Finding and Purposes
       Section 3. Amends the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 USC 
     601 et seq.) to add a new section establishing a preference 
     for locating Federal facilities in central business areas in 
     both rural and urban areas. This preference could be waived 
     if locating a facility in such area would either materially 
     compromise the mission of the agency or would not be 
     economically prudent. GSA is required to adopt rules to 
     implement this provision and also to report annually to the 
     Congress on the location of Federal agencies under this 
     section. This section also defines ``central business area'' 
     as the centralized business area determined by local 
     officials.
       Section 4. This section requires that within two years, the 
     GSA conduct a study and report to Congress on the feasibility 
     of establishing a system for comparing the absolute and 
     adjusted costs of locating Federal facilities in rural areas 
     as compared to urban areas and in central business areas as 
     compared to outside central business areas. The bill 
     authorizes a total of $400,000 for the study.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Vermont, Senator Leahy in introducing the Downtown Equity Act of 
1999. This bill will make the federal government a better partner with 
local officials when it comes to locating federal offices in a 
community. It will establish in statute a clear preference for federal 
offices to be located in the central business areas of a community. Why 
is this important?
  We all know the many problems facing community leaders as they chart 
the future course of their cities and towns. They must balance 
development patterns, employment, historic preservation, city services, 
transportation, and many other factors to arrive at a plan that makes 
the most sense for them.
  In many cases, the Federal government is a major source of employment 
and economic activity in these communities. That is particularly true 
in smaller cities and towns, where federal employees can make up a 
larger percentage of the employment base than in our large metropolitan 
areas.
  But too often, local officials find themselves battling with federal 
agencies over where to locate, or relocate, Federal facilities. The 
desires of agencies to locate on the outskirts of a small town can 
conflict with the needs of the community to preserve a vital business 
center downtown.
  I have seen firsthand some of these location battles in Montana. 
Communities such as Helena, Billings and Glasgow, have seen agencies 
threaten to move out of the downtown area, removing a linchpin of 
economic development that supports other local businesses. In another 
case, this time in Butte, an agency looked to abandon an historic 
building downtown in favor of a new site closer to the Interstate.
  The impact on these communities from such actions can be devastating. 
In Helena, for example, the relocation of the federal building would 
have removed over 400 Federal workers from the area and dealt a major 
blow to plans to revive the downtown core, known as Last Chance Gulch. 
And in Glasgow, a small town even by Montana standards, the relocation 
from the central business area to a new site on the outskirts of town 
threatened the survival of other businesses downtown and contributed to 
sprawl. Yes, even in the Big Sky state, sprawl is a threat to the 
vitality of our communities and the beauty of our environment.
  Many of these conflicts between communities and Federal agencies 
stems from the confusing, and sometimes conflicting, jumble of laws, 
executive orders, and regulations. It almost seems as if there is a 
provision to justify almost anything an agency wants to do. One law 
tells agencies to locate in rural areas. An executive order tells 
agencies to give priority to central business areas. No wonder agencies 
are confused and community leaders are angry.
  Mr. President, that's not right. We should have a clear, simple to 
understand policy when it comes to location of Federal facilities. 
Furthermore, that policy should make it easier for the Federal 
government to help community leaders who seek to maintain the vitality 
of their downtown areas. And that is what our bill does.
  First, as a matter of policy, it states that locating federal 
facilities in central business areas is good for the economy and the 
livability of communities.
  But more importantly, the bill implements that policy by requiring 
that the head of each Federal agency give first priority to central 
business areas when locating, or relocating, Federal facilities. This 
requirement could be waived if it would materially compromise the 
mission of the agency or if it would not be economically prudent. But 
those would be exceptions to the general rule that downtown areas 
should be the preferred area for Federal offices. And the downtown 
areas will be determined by local officials, not Federal agencies.
  This bill will be good for our communities. And it will be good for 
the Federal government.
  In closing let me express my appreciation to my colleague from 
Vermont for all the work that he has put into this issue. His 
leadership has been instrumental in crafting this bill. I look forward 
to working with him to bring this bill through the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and before the Senate early next year.
                                 ______