[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 131 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10734-S10735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S10734]]
              OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND LEASES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe it is our responsibility as 
Members of Congress to do unglamorous work called oversight. It is our 
duty to make sure our governmental agencies are, on a daily basis, 
spending money wisely and not ripping off the American taxpayer. I 
believe that is a constitutional duty. I believe we are legitimately 
criticized in this body for not being more aggressive about that. I 
have tried to resolve it. I am going to do better. I am going to take 
some action with regard to what I consider to be poor expenditures of 
money.
  I initiated a project in my office I call ``Integrity Watch.'' We 
examine suspected cases of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal 
Government. I think that is healthy.
  I have exposed the enormous costs associated with the building of a 
new United Nations mission in New York. That building came in at $88 
million. It is nothing more than an office space for governmental 
employees who work at the U.N., and for two-thirds of the year almost 
half as many people are there. Only half the year will the space be 
nearly utilized.
  It came in on a per square foot basis as the most expensive building 
that this Government has ever built--more expensive than our great 
Federal courthouses, some of which have been criticized like the one in 
Boston. It is more expensive per square foot than those great Federal 
courthouses.
  Today I alert my colleagues to a problem I have noted. I hope we are 
not seeing a pattern of abuse of taxpayers.
  The General Services Administration, the Government's landlord, is 
responsible for purchasing, leasing, and refurbishing the buildings 
that house Federal agencies and Departments. My concern is that too 
often Congress is simply rubber stamping leasing requests of GSA 
without exercising careful oversight responsibilities. Specifically, I 
am concerned about the proposed expenditure of Federal funds to lease 
space for the Department of Transportation and the procedure being used 
in that process.
  In 1996, GSA came to Congress to receive authorization to secure a 
new lease for DOT. The current lease was to expire on March 31 of 2000. 
The prospectus GSA provided to Congress was very simple. It plainly 
stated that GSA ``proposes a replacement lease of 1,199,000 to 
1,320,000 rentable square feet of space and 145 official inside parking 
spaces for the Department of Transportation.''
  That was basically it.
  On November 6 of 1997, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, of which I was a member at that time, approved a resolution 
authorizing GSA to secure an operating lease for the headquarters. The 
resolution was just as simple as the prospectus. It was a one-page 
resolution authorizing GSA to enter into an operating lease not to 
exceed 20 years for approximately 1.1 million net usable square feet of 
space plus 145 official parking spaces at an estimated annual cost of 
$55 million plus escalations.
  Almost 2 years after GSA was given the go-ahead to procure the lease, 
the agency issued a 250-page solicitation for offers asking people to 
make proposals to secure this space for DOT. Buried in this SFO--
Solicitation for Offers--are a number of alarming statements used by 
GSA in making its decision which may have a profound impact on the cost 
and the quality of the building, and, more importantly, the expense 
that we as taxpayers will pay over the next few decades.
  It strikes me that GSA may well be deliberately ignoring their 1997 
mandate, or at least violating the spirit and intent of the 
congressional authorization. One only needs to review the 250-page SFO 
to determine that GSA has decided unilaterally to go far beyond what 
they were authorized to lease by Congress.
  Specifically, the requirement in the SFO that proposals are to 
provide a level of quality consistent with ``the highest quality 
commercial office buildings over 250,000 square feet in Washington, 
DC.''
  I don't believe a Federal office building has to be equal to the 
highest quality private office space in this city. Federal dollars are 
paying for the building--taxpayer dollars--and that requirement cannot 
be justified.
  Additionally, the congressional authorizing resolution said nothing 
about GSA securing a lease equal to the highest quality commercial 
building. They weren't given that commission.
  I am also concerned about what appears to be the lavish excesses 
included in the performance specifications. Just for example, the SFO 
explains that the passenger elevators--this is not a ceremonial 
building; this is an office building--are to be made of ``premium 
quality natural stone or terrazzo,'' and that the walls in each 
passenger elevator are to be ``a combination of premium quality 
architectural wood paneling, premium quality natural stone, and 
finished metal.''
  I think this shows a real sense of disconnect from the American 
people, even of arrogance. Most families in the United States work hard 
to achieve the American dream of building and owning a home but can't 
afford to place ``premium quality architectural wood paneling'' in 
their home. Why should their hard-earned tax dollars that are extracted 
from them be spent so that Government workers can ride up and down 
these elevators with ``premium quality natural stone'' floors?
  Additionally, I am concerned that other Government agencies will come 
to expect this same ``highest quality, best-in-class'' office space in 
Washington, DC, whether in a leased or renovated Government building. 
This could have a snowballing effect and create a procurement and 
budgetary drain on the country.
  I am also disturbed by GSA's clear statement that price and cost to 
the Government are significantly less important than the scoring on 
technical factors.
  In Alabama, families who are building a home first start with a 
budget. Once they begin to design a home, if they cannot afford a 
``premium quality natural stone or terrazzo'' floor for the dining 
room, they may be forced to settle for a less expensive alternative. 
For the majority of families in this country, price and cost are the 
determining factors in all their decisions when they are building a new 
home. Why should the Government think it should act differently?
  It is my belief that among the finalists who can clearly and credibly 
show that they meet the space and program requirements of the SFO, 
price and cost should clearly be the determining factor ultimately in 
making the lease award. To select a building on any other basis than 
best value seems, to me, quite unjustifiable.
  In the next few weeks, GSA will make their decision on the location 
of the Department of Transportation headquarters building. I will be 
sending a letter to Senator Bob Smith, the outstanding chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I thank Chairman 
Smith for taking a hard look at the U.N. building, too, in his role as 
the committee chairman. I will ask him and his committee to work with 
me to look into the procedures and standards that were passed by 
Congress in 1997 versus the solicitation for offer being used by GSA 
today for the Department of Transportation building.
  I am afraid that under the current system, GSA is working with vague 
guidelines from Congress, very vague guidelines. In fact, their 
language, as I noted earlier, was ``$55 million plus escalations.'' 
That is not a crack in the door. That is a wide-open door, big enough 
to drive a truck through. I think they are using these vague 
guidelines, and these guidelines allow them to be free to set their own 
standards, potentially allowing them to commit to a building of 
unjustifiable expense.
  I believe this Congress has a responsibility to our constituents to 
oversee and ensure all Government leases and all Government 
expenditures across the board, and that they are awarded to provide the 
Government the best quality. If we refuse to look at this, I believe we 
will have failed the taxpayers who will be paying for this bill. We 
will be potentially burdening them with an exorbitant price tag for 
simple office space beyond reason and justification.
  I believe if we allow GSA to proceed with their current plans, we 
will not have followed through on our requirements of oversight to 
ensure that these moneys for lease space are properly approved. We want 
good space for the employees at the Department of Transportation. I 
hear they are happy where

[[Page S10735]]

they are. They are not asking to go to a new building or have a new 
building. We need to be sure that we give them a new 15-year lease, 
wherever it is, and that it is comparable in price. We ought not to 
spend a whole bunch of money to get a fancy new building somewhere at 
much greater expense than what they have if they are happy where they 
are. This is not a building that is old; it is about 30 years old. We 
need to look at that. I will be writing the chairman. I think we need 
to talk more about that.

                          ____________________