[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 19 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H490-H503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1734.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 534 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1734.

                              {time}  1903


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, 
selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of federal buildings 
and other civilian real property, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Woodall in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) and the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose of H.R. 1734 is to shrink the Federal real property 
footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling what we 
don't need and better utilizing what we keep. In fiscal year 2009 
alone, the Federal Government wasted more than $1.7 billion in 
operating underused properties. Unfortunately, under existing law, 
solving this problem is not easy--the process is too cumbersome and 
congested with red tape.
  The administration has tried but has realized it cannot achieve major 
savings without reform. As a result, H.R. 1734 includes a bipartisan 
solution to this problem--establishing a civilian BRAC-like process. 
However, unlike BRAC, the purpose of H.R. 1734 is to save money, and 
the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net 
savings. The administration believes there are several billion dollars 
worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly, and I agree 
with their assessment. Federal real property has been on GAO's high-
risk list for nearly a decade now, and our committee, which oversees 
public buildings, has seen the waste firsthand.
  The amended bill creates a nine-member commission that would review 
Federal properties and recommend specific actions to reduce the Federal 
building inventory and, more efficiently, house Federal employees. The 
commission could recommend property sales, consolidations, 
redevelopments, or other property actions. The bill does not apply to 
military bases, national parks and recreation areas, or a variety of 
other Federal properties. The administration would have 30 days to 
reject the recommendations or forward them to Congress for an up-or-
down vote. If approved, agencies would be required to implement them.
  In conclusion, let me say that both Republican and Democrat 
administrations have tried to work within the system to get rid of 
unneeded Federal property and have failed. Both parties know the 
process is broken and have proposed an independent BRAC-like commission 
to solve the problem. I believe this bill is a big step in the right 
direction, and I thank you for your consideration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment 
Act.
  Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose 
of and consolidate excess Federal property. I have worked diligently 
with the

[[Page H491]]

chairman for such a bill for most of this year. However, the bill 
before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to. 
Moreover, I have just learned that the President also opposes the bill, 
and apparently, it does not even reflect a compromise among 
Republicans.
  I opposed this bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, and it passed on a party-line vote. The bill before us today 
is essentially the same bill that I opposed at the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee markup. Shortly after that markup, the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I also serve, 
approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote, which I supported 
because it did not have the issues I have with the bill before us 
today.
  Why was the Transportation and Infrastructure bill rushed to the 
Rules Committee on Friday and quickly brought to the floor today?
  Why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the House 
with bipartisan support and that could stand a chance to pass in the 
Senate?

                              {time}  1910

  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill that I 
agreed to before us on the floor this evening? When I testified before 
the Rules Committee on Friday, I indicated that I would support the 
bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the 
homeless were included in the bill. These protections are not included 
in the bill.
  The Rules Committee reported out a bill with no self-executing 
amendments. Instead, they made several amendments--including mine--in 
order for full consideration. I could have done that all along. There 
are no assurances whatsoever that my amendments would be adopted on 
this floor. The only way to ensure that my amendments were included in 
the bill would have been for the Rules Committee to have adopted a rule 
that made my amendments self-executing and, therefore, a part of the 
bill before us today.
  I will not stand here today to support a bill I've consistently 
opposed at Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markups on a 
hope and prayer that my amendments would have been adopted on the 
floor. I will not offer, as amendments, provisions I had every reason 
to expect would have been a part of the bill reported out of the Rules 
Committee. To offer my amendments separately is to greatly risk their 
defeat while the bill before us, which I oppose, still passes. I will 
not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a 
divide among Republicans.
  The subcommittee that I serve on had two excellent hearings on the 
creation of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. I support the 
original bipartisan idea of assembling a Civilian Property Realignment 
Commission, but there are several portions of H.R. 1734 before us on 
the floor right now that do not reflect a revised bipartisan bill. I 
have consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill, 
and they were unacceptable at the full committee markup and then at 
Rules, where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this 
floor today.
  As subcommittee ranking member, I was not informed that if I wanted 
the changes in the bill, I would have to offer my amendments separately 
on the floor. Who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise?
  I have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill to 
eliminate the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, 
and the inclusion of a review of excess Federal property for homeless 
service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian 
Property Realignment Commission that would have been created by this 
bill.
  Curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment 
concerning homeless providers which mirrors the homelessness section of 
the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment 
the NEPA provision section of my amendment to which he and I agreed in 
order to reach a compromise.
  The bill, as it stands, severely limits the review of Federal 
property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public 
benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By 
bypassing McKinney-Vento in the disposal process, the bill 
unnecessarily reduces the pool of Federal properties available for 
transfer to homeless service providers. In these difficult times, 
extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would 
be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a 
huge downturn in charitable giving during the recent recession. The 
experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take 
only the smallest properties. And I had already agreed to shorten the 
time period for providers to claim properties.
  Secondly, the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the 
National Environmental Policy Act to some actions of the commission 
which I have always strongly opposed. Section 18(b) waives compliance 
with NEPA for the actions of the President, the commission, or any 
Federal agency when considering any of the commission's 
recommendations, except during the process of property disposal and 
during the process of relocating functions from a property being 
disposed of or realigned to another location.
  It is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any 
decision to close, relocate, or reconfigure a Federal facility in time 
for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions. 
The current language precludes a full review of the actions until after 
the decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has 
already been made. This problem could have easily been fixed by 
including language that required agencies to submit information about 
the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the 
agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if 
a property was disposed of, consolidated, or redeveloped. Therefore, I 
must oppose the bill before us, and I urge opposition until a 
bipartisan base bill reflecting the issues I have discussed is 
presented on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, just to quickly respond, let me first say 
thank you to the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have worked on 
this bill for a year. We agreed on language. We accepted the 
administration's language and worked with OMB on making sure that this 
was a bill that not only passed with bipartisan support but was 
something that the Senate would welcome and the President would sign. 
So it's been a good year. We've worked very well together, I think, on 
the issue up until this point.
  And I know that it became somewhat contentious in committee because 
we had several different properties listed in the bill to help pay for 
and make sure that this was a pay-as-you-go bill. We pulled those out 
in an effort to create bipartisanship and to make sure that those 
issues that the other side of the aisle wanted addressed were 
addressed, but we went a step further.
  As the ranking member of the committee asked for several different 
amendments, we agreed to those amendments. The environmental issue, we 
agreed to her amendment. Even though OMB had suggested that they didn't 
want lawsuits to apply, we went ahead and, in a sense of 
bipartisanship, wanted to agree to the ranking member's amendment on 
this. As well, the homeless, we agreed to a $2 million exemption to 
make sure the homeless were well taken care of. That was changed to $3 
million. We agreed to that. It was changed to $5 million. We agreed to 
that as well, even though I can't imagine the homeless wanting to 
utilize a $5 million piece of property--it seems somewhat excessive--
but in a true spirit of bipartisanship, we agreed.
  I keep my word. I will continue to support the ranking member's 
amendment on the floor today. As well, I have included it in my 
amendment. I stand by my word, and I hope others on this floor would do 
the same.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the former chairman of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  I do stand here as the former chairman of the Economic Development, 
Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee who served

[[Page H492]]

alongside the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia. For 
the years I was chairman, we worked very well together, and so it is a 
great disappointment that I come to the floor tonight when we thought 
we had an agreement. If fact, we did have an agreement. The chairman of 
the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee were willing to 
accept the gentlelady's amendment and put it in the bill. But yet here 
we are today turning this into a partisan bill, which as I said is very 
disappointing. She said she couldn't come to the floor just on hope. 
She had more than hope; she had the word of the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the word of the chairman of the full committee.
  So I am here tonight in strong support of the Civilian Property 
Realignment Act. There are immediate savings: a savings up to $1 
billion a year this year alone, and $15 billion over the next 10 years. 
It reduces the size of government. The commission was tasked with 
literally reducing the Federal footprint.
  And as we know, we have an example right down on Pennsylvania Avenue. 
The Old Post Office building is going to be put up for a long-term 
lease. We've got some of the premier hotel operators in the world that 
want to turn that into a first-rate premier hotel right on Pennsylvania 
Avenue. Whether it's the Waldorf Astoria or the Marriott or the Trump 
organization, they all want to take that and immediately turn it into a 
premier hotel. There will be construction jobs, jobs working in the 
hotel for the long term, so it's really unfortunate that this bill is 
going to be made partisan this evening.
  The bill establishes a real property commission, a nine person 
Civilian Property Realignment Commission that will serve to consolidate 
the footprint, maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings and 
facilities, reduce the reliance on costly leased space, sell or 
redevelop high-value assets that are underutilized--as we talked about, 
the old Post Office Building. It reduces the operating and maintenance 
costs of Federal civilian real properties through the realignment of 
other real properties. It reduces redundancy, overlap, and costs 
associated with field offices. It creates incentives for Federal 
agencies to achieve greater efficiency in the inventories of real 
property the Federal Government has. It facilitates and expedites the 
sale or disposal of unneeded civilian properties. And it assists 
Federal agencies in achieving the government's sustainability goals by 
reducing excess space, inventory, energy consumption, as well as by 
leveraging new technologies.
  As the former chair of this committee, I held hearings about the 
Federal courthouses. We have overbuilt Federal courthouses in many 
places in this country for years. For years we've done that. This is 
going to take a step in reducing what we've been doing and 
consolidating and doing things that are appropriate and proper to save 
the taxpayers' money.
  It takes the politics out of the process. It provides for expedited 
review and up-or-down consideration of the commission's 
recommendations, just like the BRAC process.
  Congress would have the opportunity to disapprove of the committee's 
recommendations en bloc only, not in piecemeal, which is ensuring that 
politics will be removed from this process.
  It provides for a one-time appropriation of $82 million to fully 
offset from the GSA's building and acquisition amount, after which 
proceeds from the sale will be used to repay the Treasury.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  It deals exclusively with public properties--military installations, 
properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and 
national parks are not subject to this jurisdiction.
  Again, I come to the floor tonight with deep disappointment in the 
ranking member, who for so many years has worked in a bipartisan way on 
this subcommittee. Text was available since December, so it's no 
surprise. The subcommittee chairman and full committee chairman agreed 
to accept her amendment in its entirety, and most importantly, and 
something that's lacking in Washington today and lacking in Congress, 
is people not keeping their word, and the chairman of the subcommittee 
is keeping his word, which is extremely important in this whole 
process.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1734, the Civilian 
Property Realignment Act.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I hope the gentleman is not implying that I do not keep my word, and 
let me be clear what my word was. I gave my word that I would support a 
bipartisan bill, not that I would support the opportunity to offer 
amendments on the floor.
  The gentleman knows quite well that the NEPA amendment is an 
amendment that his side generally does not support. Let me be plain. 
They generally don't support NEPA. The reason that the gentleman was 
willing to somehow come forward with what would appears to be a 
redundant amendment on homelessness--since mine already had 
homelessness in it--is because he wanted to separate himself from the 
NEPA amendment, and he knows full well that I would never support his 
bill without the NEPA provisions that I have spent months--months--
changing.
  This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until 
we went to the Rules Committee, when somebody made it clear, when 
somebody made it clear--and I don't know who it was--that this bill 
could be brought forward, the very bill I voted against, leaving it to 
this Member to take her chances that the other side of the aisle would 
support an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to 
support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise 
had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion 
support. I keep my word as well.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker, 
and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property 
Realignment Act.
  Although I support the efforts to improve the process used to dispose 
of Federal property, I believe in its current form this legislation 
inappropriately limits the access that service providers for the 
homeless have traditionally had to surplus Federal property.
  Current law requires that all Federal surplus properties be 
considered for use by entities that provide assistance for the 
homeless. This legislation would create a BRAC-like commission to 
dispose of unused Federal property, and would require a majority vote 
of this commission before any specific property could be considered for 
homeless assistance.
  This provision is misguided and should have been eliminated before 
this legislation reached the floor. I submitted to the Rules Committee 
a commonsense amendment that would have fixed this problem. My 
amendment would have ensured that section 501 of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act, which provides for the discounted conveyance 
of surplus Federal property to homeless assistance providers, would 
continue to apply to all properties approved for disposal by the 
commission established by H.R. 1734.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order. There is no 
evidence that the current process for reviewing properties for use by 
homeless assistance providers has slowed property disposals. Indeed, 
more than 14,000 properties have completed Title V reviews and remain 
on the government's books awaiting disposal.
  According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, the number 
of homeless children in America increased by more than 448,000 from 
2007 to 2010 due to the financial crisis. Approximately 1.6 million 
children--1 in 45 children--were homeless in 2010, a 38 percent 
increase over the level of child homelessness in 2007.
  With access to surplus Federal properties, homeless assistance 
providers can provide housing, support services, and employment 
assistance to help the homeless get back on their feet. We should not 
make careless alterations to the McKinney-Vento program.
  I understand the gentlelady from the District of Columbia plans to 
offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development to apply

[[Page H493]]

section 501 of McKinney-Vento to the extent practicable. If she does, I 
would support that.
  This is a step in the right direction, and I commend her efforts. But 
there should be no limitations on the size and value of the properties 
that should be subject to review for potential use by homeless 
assistance groups. For that reason, I cannot support this legislation 
so long as it contains provisions that would be harmful to the homeless 
and would reduce resources available to homeless assistance providers.
  I urge Members to oppose H.R. 1734.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate one more time, I support 
the gentlelady's amendment. I look forward to voting on it as long as 
she brings it up. We support the homeless in this bill. We agreed to it 
in Rules. We still support it today, and there will definitely be 
sufficient votes on this side of the aisle if she decides to bring it 
up. And you know what? If it doesn't pass, then vote against the bill. 
But if you believe in the homeless issue, then put your amendment up 
and let's have the votes on it.

                              {time}  1930

  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), also a former subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. It was a privilege for 2 years to be the ranking 
member of this subcommittee, and I will tell you that this subcommittee 
has never been a partisan subcommittee, and I commend Chairman Denham 
for keeping that tradition of focusing on the issues and working with 
both sides of the aisle to try to get good products without getting 
into this partisan melee. So I commend the chairman for continuing in 
that tradition. He's done so in a marvelous way.
  And here's another example: he sat down with the ranking member, and 
they worked out all these issues. The chairman actually went to the 
Rules Committee, testified in the Rules Committee in favor of making 
these amendments, the ranking member's amendments, so that they would 
be in order. Lo and behold, the Rules Committee did what both of them, 
in a bipartisan way, asked for. They allowed for those amendments to be 
in order.
  Now, I have the highest admiration and respect for the ranking 
member. I have worked very closely with her, but I'm a little bit, 
frankly, intrigued. So the ranking member now says, well, if her 
amendments that the chairman asked to be made in order, the amendments 
that he supported, that he continues to support, that he says that he 
supported, that he supported in the Rules Committee, she says if those 
amendments don't pass, well, then she would vote against the bill, so 
therefore she's not going to bring up the amendments. Excuse me?
  What usually happens is, heck, you bring up amendments even if the 
ranking member or the chairman doesn't agree with you. But if you have 
the agreement of the chairman of the committee, he's here again stating 
it, who's worked with you the entire process, the chairman of the 
committee helped you get those amendments made in order in the Rules 
Committee, they come to the floor made in order, here they are ready to 
discuss, and then you say, no, now I'm not going to put up the 
amendments because if they don't pass, now I'll vote against the bill.
  I agree with the chairman. Put the amendments up. If the amendments 
don't pass, even with the support of the chairman and the ranking 
member, then there's good reason for the ranking member to vote against 
it. But to withdraw an amendment when you have everybody's support, 
when you are pretty much guaranteed----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You're pretty much guaranteed as much as you are in 
this process that they're going to pass because you have the ranking 
member of one party and the chairman who has worked with the ranking 
member, they both agree, they're noncontroversial, they're ready to go, 
and, all of a sudden, the ranking member pulls them back and says, for 
some reason, I'm going to pull them back if they don't pass, I'm going 
to vote against the bill, well, bring them up. If they don't pass, vote 
against the bill. But we won't know in the democratic process if an 
amendment is going to pass even if the chairman and the ranking member 
agree with it until you bring it up.
  So I would respectfully suggest that the ranking member, whom I 
admire, just bring up the amendments. The chairman has supported them 
in the Rules Committee, and he's supporting them now. Bring them up. 
Let's hopefully work on getting the votes because he is working with 
you to try to get the votes. If they don't pass, vote against it. But 
the chances are they're going to pass. Let's let the democratic process 
go forward.
  And, again, I commend the chairman for keeping up the tradition of 
not bogging down in partisan politics. Mr. Chairman, you are to be 
commended for that. Thank you, sir.
  Ms. NORTON. I will take such time as I may require.
  I wish that the chairman--he and I have had a very cordial and an 
amicable relationship. I only wish that he could guarantee that my 
amendments would, in fact, pass. I'm afraid that, watching his caucus 
in operation for a full year when they could not even agree whether or 
not the United States Government should go into default, I can't blame 
him for not being able to guarantee they will pass. But let me say why 
taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith 
hoping they would pass, is not enough.
  If he, in fact, wanted to make sure that the amendment passed, then 
he, of course, would be on the amendment. Instead, he does something 
curious indeed. He looks at my amendment, dissects it, takes the part 
of the amendment that he regards as less controversial--and on his side 
of the aisle--both parts will be controversial, but the least 
controversial part--and he says, I take this part, it's exactly like 
the homeless part of the so-called Norton amendment, but the other part 
that I testified to in Rules Committee he is not identified with that 
amendment on this floor.
  Now, I ask Members, what would you think if the chairman had gone 
with you to Rules saying he supported the amendment, and then when we 
got to the floor was willing to stand up--sorry--went to the trouble of 
pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own? Why 
wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment?
  Worse, why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill 
so that I would not be put in this position? And this is important to 
understand. If I bring up my amendment separately and it goes down, 
what will be before the House is essentially the bill I voted against 
in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Do I look like a 
fool?
  I voted against the bill that is on the floor today. In all good 
faith, the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill with the 
changes that he and I agreed to will be the bill that, in fact, emerges 
here this evening. In fact, let me be even more blunt. What is more 
likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that I, in 
fact, opposed on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The 
only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to NEPA, is 
included in the bill would have been for this bill to come forward with 
what I agreed to in the bill already. For me to have to come to the 
floor to beg that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement 
to support it now get a vote, especially from a side of this Chamber 
which has consistently voted against sections like the section that is 
at issue here, is to defy--is not to understand how to put together a 
compromise.
  If you have a compromise and you come to the floor, you don't take 
out part of what the compromise was about, leaving the other part so 
that she can fend herself on the floor knowing full well that the 
chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are, based on past 
experience, are not very great.
  So the reason I oppose it is because I believe that perhaps, and I 
don't know if other amendments on the Democratic side would be accepted 
or not, but I believe that as it now stands, the bill will look 
essentially like the bill that I spent all year opposing because my 
major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill 
that will be the final bill voted on. And if I

[[Page H494]]

were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this 
provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the 
bill, then I don't think there's anybody on that side would guarantee 
that on their side my amendment with the NEPA provision would, in fact, 
pass.
  In that event, what I would be left with is the very bill that I have 
voted against for an entire year, and that is why I object to the way 
in which this bill has been handled.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, we're talking a lot around this issue. The 
gentlelady wants a guarantee. Let me give her a guarantee. She can 
bring her amendment up right now; we'll do it on a voice vote. It will 
be in the text of the bill within 30 minutes, and that is exactly what 
we will be voting on tomorrow.
  It's very simple. We have the votes. We want the amendment. We want 
the Democrat support and want this to be a bipartisan bill. So all she 
has to do is bring up the amendment right now, we'll voice vote it, and 
it will be part of the bill. So now really the question is, do you or 
don't you want the bill?
  Ms. NORTON. I want the bill you and I agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, and 
that was the bill that had NEPA in it and that had homeless in it.
  And let me ask you, why did you come forward with an amendment that 
only has the homeless in it, that is the exact mirror image of the 
homeless section of my bill, but you did not include the NEPA section?

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. DENHAM. Reclaiming my time, I have a second amendment just in 
case, unfortunately, trust leaves this room. In the unfortunate case 
that somebody does not offer their amendment, I've got my own. But I am 
happy to withdraw my amendment and voice vote her amendment right here 
so it's in the bill and we have a bipartisan agreement.
  I'm not sure what the concern is. You want a guarantee? Here is a 
guarantee, let's do it, bipartisan. Let's get unanimous support out of 
this House and show the American people we can agree on cutting waste, 
we can agree on creating jobs, we can agree on selling some of the 
things we just don't need.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, if I may.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that if this language 
would have been in the bill, that there's no guarantee that somebody 
would have not done an amendment in the Rules Committee to take it out, 
so that there is no more different guarantee if it was in than if it 
was out? Is that not true?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary 
inquiry. That is a matter for debate.
  Mr. DENHAM. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman from California.
  I do stand in strong support of the Civilian Property Realignment 
Act, and I'll tell you why. I come from the private sector where 
sometimes assets become liabilities. An asset becomes a liability when 
it costs you so much to insure it, secure it, and maintain it that it 
no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed for.
  When you look at this, I look at this as almost--there's a TV show. I 
haven't seen it, but they tell me it's called ``Hoarders.'' This is 
where people hoard things that they have no use for, but it takes up 
all space in their house and it takes up their personal wealth.
  We are looking at a situation right now in this country where we have 
to reduce the size of government and reduce the cost. Why? Because it's 
the hardworking American taxpayer that foots the bill for all these 
properties that are being unused or underused. Wouldn't it just make 
sense to take them from the liability side and put it on the asset 
side? It no longer will cost the American taxpayers money to secure, 
insure, and maintain. It would go into the private sector. It would 
create jobs. These people would convert these into a use that makes 
more sense for today, and they would start paying taxes on it. This is 
a win-win situation for the American taxpayer.
  I would submit to you, if this were not a reelection year, we would 
not be going through gymnastics in this House of things that make 
absolutely no sense to the people who pay for them; that's the American 
taxpayer.
  After sitting here for 1 year and watching this ridiculous tennis 
match and trying to figure out if we really came to reduce the size of 
government, if we really came to reduce the debt that we have, if we 
really came to create jobs, if we really came for something that makes 
sense for America, why are we wasting America's time by debating issues 
that don't make sense for the people that pick up the tab, and that's 
the American taxpayer? It is not this House that pays for it. It is 
those homes around our district and in this country.
  I have gotten to the point where I cannot stand listening to this 
garbage that comes out of here. It does nothing but create animosity. 
It does nothing to fix the situation. We have absolutely reached way 
past the midnight hour.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's bill, the Civilian Property 
Realignment Act. Let's change these things from being liabilities into 
assets. Let's take the government's foot off the throat of the American 
taxpayers. Let's turn this country around and make it a useful 
situation.
  I thank the gentleman. Please stand strong. We need to get these 
issues done.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Well, I don't agree that we're past the midnight hour, 
but I agree that we're past the point of no return.
  The gentleman wanted to talk about cost. This bill costs $68 million, 
a great deal more than another bill that I do support, the Oversight 
and Government Reform bill. I serve on that committee as well. I was 
willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since I had 
worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill, 
but I don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly 
than the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I would have thought 
that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work 
that problem of two different bills out for themselves.
  My chief regret is to have spent a lot of time and effort and 
conversation that I believed was getting somewhere. Perhaps it was all 
a big misunderstanding. But if it were, if that's what it was, we 
certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. That 
concern remains.
  I don't have any further speakers. I regretfully cannot support the 
bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is the amazing thing about 
politics. You can have an agreement and support completely the other 
side's opinion and still have a disagreement only in this House.
  I support getting this country back in line with our fiscal 
responsibility. We have a $15 trillion debt, and we've got to do 
something about it. We have an opportunity to have a bipartisan 
agreement, one that the President is asking for, one he included in his 
State of the Union as something to get done. If he cannot get his own 
party, if he cannot get the Senate to come along with his ideas, how 
are we the obstructionists?
  We want to sell properties. We want to sell the noncontroversial 
properties. Fourteen thousand properties have been identified as 
excess, underutilized properties that we could be moving immediately. 
We could be creating billions of dollars to pay down our debt. We could 
be redeveloping so many of these historic buildings that are sitting 
empty, creating jobs, getting these properties back on the tax rolls. 
This is a bipartisan solution that I'm amazed at some of the rhetoric 
tonight.
  Again, if the ranking member wants a guarantee, we'll give her a 
guarantee tonight. Bring up the amendment. We will voice vote it right 
now and she will have a guarantee it's in the bill. But yet she doesn't 
want to do it. So I have a separate amendment. If we cannot get the 
other side of the aisle to present theirs, we will present ours.

[[Page H495]]

  Again, we've got to get rid of some of this waste, this additional 
expense--$1.9 billion we pay just in operating costs of these 
properties we don't use today, properties that are sitting vacant. If 
Republicans and Democrats can't agree that an empty building that's not 
being used, that has no reason to be used in the future, cannot be 
eliminated to reduce our debt, the real question is: What can we agree 
on? This is the most simple of deficit reduction plans. This is one the 
President has asked for multiple times.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the 
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of Rules Committee Print 112-11 is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1734

       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 ``Civilian Property 
     Realignment Act'' or ``CITA''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to consolidate the footprint of Federal buildings and 
     facilities;
       (2) to maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings 
     and facilities;
       (3) to reduce the reliance on leased space;
       (4) to sell or redevelop high value assets that are 
     underutilized to obtain the highest and best value for the 
     taxpayer and maximize the return to the taxpayer;
       (5) to reduce the operating and maintenance costs of 
     Federal civilian real properties through the realignment of 
     real properties by consolidating, colocating, and 
     reconfiguring space, and other operational efficiencies;
       (6) to reduce redundancy, overlap, and costs associated 
     with field offices;
       (7) to create incentives for Federal agencies to achieve 
     greater efficiency in their inventories of civilian real 
     property;
       (8) to facilitate and expedite the sale or disposal of 
     unneeded civilian properties; and
       (9) to assist Federal agencies in achieving the 
     Government's sustainability goals by reducing excess space, 
     inventory, and energy consumption, as well as by leveraging 
     new technologies.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, unless otherwise expressly stated, the 
     following definitions apply:
       (1) Federal civilian real property and civilian real 
     property.--
       (A) Property.--The terms ``Federal civilian real property'' 
     and ``civilian real property'' refer to Federal real property 
     assets, including public buildings as defined in section 3301 
     of title 40, United States Code, occupied and improved 
     grounds, leased space, or other physical structures under the 
     custody and control of Federal agency.
       (B) Further exclusions.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed as including any of the following types of 
     property:
       (i) A base, camp, post station, yard, center, homeport 
     facility for any ship, or any activity under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of Defense or Coast Guard.
       (ii) Properties that are excluded for reasons of national 
     security by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       (iii) Properties that are excepted from the definition of 
     ``property'' under section 102(9) of title 40, United States 
     Code.
       (iv) Indian and Native Alaskan properties including--
       (I) any property within the limits of any Indian 
     reservation to which the United States owns title for the 
     benefit of an Indian tribe; and
       (II) any property title which is held in trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 
     individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject 
     to restriction by the United States against alienation.
       (v) Properties operated and maintained by the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831, et seq.
       (vi) Postal properties owned by the United States Postal 
     Service.
       (vii) Properties used in connection with Federal programs 
     for agricultural, recreational, and conservation purposes, 
     including research in connection with the programs.
       (viii) Properties used in connection with river, harbor, 
     flood control, reclamation, or power projects.
       (ix) Properties located outside the United States operated 
     or maintained by the Department of State or the United States 
     Agency for International Development.
       (2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     executive department or independent establishment in the 
     executive branch of the Government, and a wholly owned 
     Government corporation.
       (3) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Civilian 
     Property Realignment Commission.
       (5) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Office of Management 
     and Budget.
       (6) Field office.--The term ``field office'' means any 
     Federal office that is not the Headquarters office location 
     for the Federal agency.

     SEC. 4. COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an independent 
     commission to be known as the Civilian Property Realignment 
     Commission, referred to in this Act as the ``Commission''.
       (b) Duties.--The Commission shall carry out the duties as 
     specified in this Act.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of a 
     Chairperson appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, and 8 members appointed by 
     the President.
       (2) Appointments.--In selecting individuals for 
     appointments to the Commission, the President shall consult 
     with--
       (A) the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning 
     the appointment of 2 members;
       (B) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the 
     appointment of 2 members;
       (C) the minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     concerning the appointment of 1 member; and
       (D) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the 
     appointment of 1 member.
       (3) Terms.--The term for each member of the Commission 
     shall be 6 years.
       (4) Vacancies.--Vacancies shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment.
       (5) Qualifications--In selecting. individuals for 
     appointment to the Commission, the President shall ensure the 
     Commission contains individuals with expertise representative 
     of the following:
       (A) Commercial real estate and redevelopment.
       (B) Government management or operations.
       (C) Community development, including transportation and 
     planning.
       (D) Historic preservation.

     SEC. 5. COMMISSION MEETINGS.

       (a) Open Meetings.--Each meeting of the Commission, other 
     than meetings in which classified information is to be 
     discussed, shall be open to the public. Any open meeting 
     shall be announced in the Federal Register and the Federal 
     website established by the Commission at least 14 calendar 
     days in advance of a meeting. For all public meetings, the 
     Commission shall release an agenda and a listing of materials 
     relevant to the topics to be discussed.
       (b) Quorum and Meetings.--Seven Commission members shall 
     constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business 
     and 3 or more Commission members shall constitute a meeting 
     of the Commission.
       (c) Transparency of Information.--All the proceedings, 
     information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be 
     open, upon request, to the Chairperson and the ranking 
     minority party member, and their respective subcommittee 
     Chairperson and ranking minority party member, of--
       (1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (2) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate;
       (4) the Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the 
     Senate; and
       (5) the committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
       (d) Government Accountability Office.--All proceedings, 
     information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be 
     open, upon request, to the Comptroller General of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 6. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

       (a) Compensation.--
       (1) Rate of pay for members.--Each member, other than the 
     Chairperson, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (2) Rate of pay for chairperson.--Chairperson shall be paid 
     for each day referred to in paragraph (1) at a rate equal to 
     the daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic 
     pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5314, of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Travel.--Members shall receive travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with 
     sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

       (a) Appointment.--The Commission shall appoint an Executive 
     Director and may disregard the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service.
       (b) Rate of Pay for Director.--The Executive Director shall 
     be paid at the rate of basic pay payable or level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 8. STAFF.

       (a) Additional Personnel.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, may 
     appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel.
       (b) Detail Employees From Other Agencies.--Upon request of 
     the Executive Director, the head of any Federal agency may 
     detail any of the personnel of that agency to the Commission 
     to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 
     this Act.
       (c) Qualifications.--Appointments shall be made with 
     consideration of a balance of expertise consistent with the 
     qualifications of representatives described in section 
     4(c)(5).

[[Page H496]]

     SEC. 9. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission, to the extent 
     practicable and subject to appropriations made by law, shall 
     use existing contracts entered into by the Administrator for 
     services necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission.
       (b) Space.--The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Commission, shall identify suitable excess space within the 
     Federal space inventory to house the operations of the 
     Commission.
       (c) Personal Property.--The Commission shall use personal 
     property already in the custody and control of the 
     Administrator.
       (d) Use of Small Businesses.--In exercising its authorities 
     under this section and section 12, the Commission shall use, 
     to the greatest extent practicable, small businesses as 
     defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632).

     SEC. 10. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall cease operations and terminate 6 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 11. DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Submissions of Agency Information and 
     Recommendations.--Not, later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and 120 days after the beginning of 
     each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal agency 
     shall submit to the Administrator and the Director of OMB the 
     following:
       (1) Current data.--Current, data of all Federal civilian 
     real properties owned, leased, or controlled by the 
     respective agency, including all relevant information 
     prescribed by the Administrator and the Director of OMB, 
     including data related to the age and condition of the 
     property, operating costs, history of capital expenditures, 
     sustainability metrics, number of Federal employees and 
     functions housed in the respective property, and square 
     footage (including gross, rentable, and usable).
       (2) Agency recommendations.--Recommendations which shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Federal civilian properties that can be sold for 
     proceeds and otherwise disposed of, reported as excess, 
     declared surplus, or otherwise no longer meeting the needs of 
     the agency, excluding leasebacks or other such exchange 
     agreements where the property continues to be used by the 
     agency.
       (B) Federal civilian properties that can he transferred, 
     exchanged, consolidated, co-located, reconfigured, or 
     redeveloped, so as to reduce the civilian real property 
     inventory, reduce the operating costs of the Government, and 
     create the highest value and return for the taxpayer.
       (C) Operational efficiencies that the Government can 
     realize in its operation and maintenance of Federal civilian 
     real properties.
       (b) Standards and Criteria.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date specified in subsection (a), the Director of OMB, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, shall review agency 
     recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     develop consistent standards and criteria. against which 
     agency recommendations will be reviewed. The Director of OMB 
     and the Administrator shall develop recommendations to time 
     Commission based on those standards and criteria. In 
     developing the standards and criteria, the Director of OMB, 
     in consultation with the Administrator, shall incorporate the 
     following:
       (1) The extent to which the Federal building or facility 
     could be sold (including property that is no longer meeting 
     the needs of the Federal Government), redeveloped, or 
     otherwise used to produce the highest and best value and 
     return for the taxpayer.
       (2) The extent to which the operating and maintenance costs 
     are reduced through consolidating, co-locating, and 
     reconfiguring space, and through realizing other operational 
     efficiencies.
       (3) The extent to which the utilization rate is being 
     maximized and is consistent with non-governmental industry 
     standards for the given function or operation.
       (4) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, 
     including the number of years, beginning with the date of 
     completion of the proposed recommendation.
       (5) The extent to which reliance on leasing for long-term 
     space needs is reduced.
       (6) The extent to which a Federal building or facility 
     aligns with the current mission of the Federal agency.
       (7) The extent to which there are opportunities to 
     consolidate similar operations across multiple agencies or 
     within agencies.
       (8) The economic impact on existing communities in the 
     vicinity of the Federal building or facility.
       (9) The extent to which energy consumption is reduced.
       (c) Special Rule for Utilization Rates.--Standards 
     developed by the Director of OMB must incorporate and apply 
     clear standard utilization rates consistent throughout each 
     category of space and with non-government space utilization 
     rates. To the extent the space utilization rates of a given 
     agency fall below the utilization rates to be applied under 
     this subsection, the Director may recommend realignment, co-
     location, consolidation, or other type of action to improve 
     space utilization.
       (d) Submission to the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The standards, criteria, and 
     recommendations developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be 
     submitted to the Commission with all supporting information, 
     data, analyses, and documentation.
       (2) Publication.--The standards, criteria, and 
     recommendations shall be published in the Federal Register 
     and transmitted to the committees designated in section 5(c) 
     and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
       (3) Access to information.--The Commission shall also have 
     access to all information pertaining to the recommendations, 
     including supporting information, data, analyses, and 
     documentation submitted pursuant to subsection (a). Upon 
     request, Federal agencies shall provide, the Commission any 
     additional information pertaining to its properties.

     SEC. 12. COMMISSION DUTIES.

       (a) Identification of Property Reduction Opportunities.--
     The Commission shall identify opportunities for the 
     Government to reduce significantly its inventory of civilian 
     real property and reduce costs to the Government.
       (b) Identification of High Value Assets.--
       (1) Identification of certain properties.--Not later than 
     180 days after Commission members are appointed pursuant to 
     section 4, the Commission shall identify not less than 5 
     Federal properties that are not on the list of surplus or 
     excess as of such date with a total fair market value of not 
     less than $500,000,000 and transmit the list to the President 
     and Congress as Commission recommendations and subject to the 
     approval process described in sections 13 and 14.
       (2) Information and data.--In order to meet the goal 
     established under paragraph (1), Federal agencies shall 
     provide, upon receipt, any and all information and data 
     regarding its properties to the Commission. The Commission 
     shall notify the committees listed under section 5(c) of any 
     failure by any agency to comply with a request of the 
     Commission.
       (c) Analysis of Inventory.--The Commission shall perform an 
     independent analysis of the inventory of Federal civilian 
     real property and the recommendations submitted pursuant to 
     section 11. The Commission shall not be bound or limited by 
     the recommendations submitted pursuant to section 11. If, in 
     the opinion of the Commission, an agency fails to provide 
     needed information, data, or adequate recommendations that 
     meet the standards and criteria, the Commission shall develop 
     such recommendations as it considers appropriate based on 
     existing data contained in the Federal Real Property Profile 
     or other relevant information.
       (d) Receipt of Information and Proposals.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision or law, the Commission may receive and 
     consider proposals, information, and other data submitted by 
     State and local officials and the private sector. Such 
     information shall be made publicly available.
       (e) Accounting System.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall identify 
     or develop and implement a system of accounting to be used to 
     independently evaluate the costs of and returns on the 
     recommendations. Such accounting system shall be applied in 
     developing the Commission's recommendations and determining 
     the highest return to the taxpayer. In applying the 
     accounting system, the Commission shall set a standard 
     performance period.
       (f) Public Hearing.--The Commission shall conduct public 
     hearings. All testimony before the Commission at a public 
     hearing under this paragraph shall be presented under oath.
       (g) Reporting of Information and Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the receipt 
     of recommendations pursuant to section 11, and annually 
     thereafter, the Commission shall transmit to the President, 
     and publicly post on a Federal website maintained by the 
     Commission a report containing the Commission's findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations for the consolidation, 
     exchange, co-location, reconfiguration, lease reductions, 
     sale, and redevelopment of Federal civilian real properties 
     and for other operational efficiencies that can be realized 
     in the Government's operation and maintenance or such 
     properties.
       (2) Recommendations for sale or disposal of property.--To 
     the extent the Commission recommendations include the sale or 
     disposal of real property, these properties may be reported 
     as excess, declared surplus, or determined as no longer 
     meeting the needs of the Federal Government, excluding 
     leasebacks or other such exchange agreements where the 
     property continues to be used by the Federal Government.
       (3) Consensus in majority.--The Commission shall seek to 
     develop consensus recommendations, but if a consensus cannot 
     be obtained, the Commission may include in its report 
     recommendations that are supported by a majority of the 
     Commission.
       (h) Federal Website.--The Commission shall establish and 
     maintain a Federal website for the purposes of making 
     relevant information publicly available.
       (i) Review by GAO.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall transmit to the Congress and to the Commission a 
     report containing a detailed analysis of the recommendations 
     and selection process.

     SEC. 13. REVIEW BY THE PRESIDENT.

       (a) Review of Recommendations.--Upon receipt of the 
     Commission's recommendations, the President shall conduct a 
     review of such recommendations.
       (b) Report to Commission and Congress.--Not later than 30 
     days after receipt of the Commission's recommendations, the 
     President shall transmit to the Commission and Congress a 
     report that sets forth the President's approval or 
     disapproval of the Commission's recommendations.
       (c) Approval or Disapproval.--If the President--
       (1) approves of the Commission's recommendations, the 
     President shall transmit a copy of the recommendations to 
     Congress, together with a certification of such approval;
       (2) disapproves of the Commission's recommendations, in 
     whole or in part, the President shall also transmit to the 
     Commission and Congress the reasons for such disapproval. The 
     Commission shall then transmit to the President,

[[Page H497]]

     not later than 30 days following the disapproval, a revised 
     list of recommendations;
       (3) approves all of the revised recommendations of the 
     Commission, the President shall transmit a copy or such 
     revised recommendations to Congress, together with a 
     certification of such approval; or
       (4) does not transmit to the Congress an approval and 
     certification described in paragraphs (1)or (3) within 30 
     days of receipt of the Commission's recommendations or 
     revised recommendations, as the case may be, the process 
     shall terminate until the following year.

     SEC. 14. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Joint Resolution of Approval.--If a House of Congress 
     has not taken a vote on final passage of a joint resolution 
     as described in subsection (c) within 45days after the 
     President's transmission to that House of the approved 
     recommendations pursuant to section 13, then such vote shall 
     be taken on the next day of session following the expiration 
     of the 45-day period.
       (b) Computation of Time Period.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the days on which either House of Congress is not in 
     session because of adjournment of more than three days shall 
     be excluded in the computation of the period of time.
       (c) Terms of the Resolution.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution--
       (1 ) which does not have a preamble;
       (2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as 
     follows: ``That Congress approves the recommendations of the 
     Civilian Property Realignment Commission as submitted by the 
     President on ___ and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal agencies shall implement and carry out all 
     of the Commission's recommendations pursuant to section 15 of 
     the Civilian Property Realignment Act'', the blank space 
     being filled in with the appropriate date;
       (3) the title of which is as follows: ``Joint resolution 
     approving the recommendations of the Civilian Property 
     Realignment Commission''; and
       (4) which is introduced pursuant to subsection (d).
       (d) Introduction.--After a House of Congress receives the 
     President's transmission of approved recommendations pursuant 
     to section 13, the majority leader of that House (or a 
     (designee) shall introduce (by request, if appropriate) a, 
     joint resolution described in subsection (c)--
       (1) in the case of the House of Representatives, within 
     three legislative days; and
       (2) in the case of the Senate, within three session days.
       (e) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of 
     Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred shall 
     report it to the House without amendment not later than the 
     tenth legislative day after the date of its introduction. If 
     a committee fails to report the joint resolution within that 
     period, it shall be in order to move that the House discharge 
     the committee from further consideration of the joint 
     resolution. Such a motion shall be in order only at a time 
     designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within 
     three legislative days after the day on which the proponent, 
     announces his intention to offer the motion. Notice may not 
     he given on an anticipatory basis. Such a motion shall not be 
     in order after the House has disposed of a motion to 
     discharge a joint resolution. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except twenty minutes of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If 
     such a motion is adopted, the House shall proceed immediately 
     to consider the joint resolution in accordance with paragraph 
     (3). A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is 
     disposed of shall not be in order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee 
     authorized to consider a ,joint resolution reports it to the 
     House or has been discharged (other than by motion) from its 
     consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to 
     consider the joint resolution in the House. Such a motion 
     shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in 
     the legislative schedule within three legislative days after 
     the day on which the proponent announces his intention to 
     otter the motion. Notice may not be given on an anticipatory 
     basis. Such a motion shall not be in order after the House 
     has disposed of a motion to proceed with respect to that 
     transmittal of recommendations. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote 
     by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against a joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on a joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     five hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate on 
     the joint resolution. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       (4) Post sine die.--If the House has adopted a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment sine die at the end of a 
     Congress, a motion to discharge under paragraph (1) or a 
     motion to proceed under subparagraph (2) shall be in order as 
     applicable.
       (f) Consideration in the Senate.--
       (g) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to 
     strike a provision from, a joint resolution considered under 
     this section shall be in order in either the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives.
       (h) Consideration by Other House.--
       (1) In general.--If, before the passage by one House of a 
     joint resolution of that House described in subsection (c), 
     that House received from the other House a, joint resolution 
     described in subsection (e), then the following procedures 
     shall apply:
       (A) No Committee referral.--The joint resolution or the 
     other House shall not be referred to a committee and may not 
     be considered in the House receiving it except in the case of 
     final passage as provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Joint resolution procedure.--With respect to a joint 
     resolution described in subsection (c) of the House receiving 
     the joint resolution the procedure in that House shall be the 
     same as if no joint resolution had been received from the 
     other House, but the vote on final passage shall be on the 
     joint resolution of the other House.
       (2) No Consideration.--Upon disposition of the joint 
     resolution received from the other House, it shall no longer 
     be in order to consider the joint resolution that originated 
     in the receiving House.
       (3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to the 
     House of Representatives if the joint resolution received 
     from the Senate is a revenue measure.
       (i) Rules of the Senate and House--This section is enacted 
     by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part or the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in 
     this section, and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other ride of that 
     House.

     SEC. 15. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Carrying Out Recommendations.--Upon the enactment of a 
     joint resolution described in section 14(c), Federal agencies 
     shall immediately begin preparation to carry out the 
     Commission's recommendations and shall initiate all 
     activities no later than 2 years after the date on which the 
     President transmits the recommendations to Congress. Federal 
     agencies shall complete all recommended actions no later than 
     the end of the 6-year period beginning on the date on which 
     the President transmits the Commission's recommendations to 
     Congress. All actions shall be economically beneficial and be 
     cost neutral or otherwise favorable to the Government. For 
     actions that will take longer than the 6-year period due to 
     extenuating circumstances, each Federal agency shall notify 
     the President and Congress as soon as the extenuating 
     circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to 
     complete the relevant action.
       (b) Actions of Federal Agencies.--In taking actions related 
     to any Federal building or facility under this Act, Federal 
     agencies may, pursuant to subsection (c), take all such 
     necessary and proper actions, including--
       (1) acquiring land, constructing replacement facilities, 
     performing such other activities, and conducting advance 
     planning and design as may be required to transfer functions 
     from a Federal asset or property to another Federal civilian 
     property; and
       (2) reimbursing other Federal agencies for actions 
     performed at the request of the Commission.
       (c) Necessary and Proper Actions.--When acting on a 
     recommendation of the Commission, a Federal agency shall 
     continue to act within their existing legal authorities, 
     whether such authority has been delegated by the 
     Administrator, or must work in partnership with the 
     Administrator to carry out such actions. The Administrator 
     may take such necessary and proper actions, including the 
     sale, conveyance, or exchange or civilian real property, as 
     required to implement the Commission recommendations in the 
     time period required under subsection (a).
       (d) Discretion of Administrator Regarding Transactions.--
     For any transaction identified, recommended, or commenced as 
     a result of this Act, any otherwise required legal priority 
     given to, or requirement to enter into, a transaction to 
     convey a Federal civilian real property for less than fair 
     market value, for no consideration at all, or in a 
     transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market 
     participants, shall be at the discretion of the 
     Administrator.

     SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized a one-time 
     appropriation to carry out this Act in the following amounts:
       (1) $20,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the 
     Commission.
       (2) $62,000,000 to be deposited into the Asset Proceeds and 
     Space Management Fund for activities related to the 
     implementation of the Commission recommendations.
       (b) Federal Buildings Fund.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Federal Buildings Fund established 
     under section 592 of title 40, United States Code, for 
     construction and acquisition activities $0 for fiscal year 
     2012.

     SEC. 17. FUNDING.

       (a) Creation of Salaries and Expenses Account.--
       (1) Establishment of account.--There is hereby established 
     on the books of the Treasury an account to be known as the 
     ``Civilian Property Realignment Commission--Salaries and 
     Expenses'' account.
       (2) Necessary payments.--There shall be deposited into the 
     account such amounts, as are provided in appropriations Acts, 
     for those necessary payments for salaries and expenses to 
     accomplish the administrative needs of the Commission.

[[Page H498]]

       (b) Creation of Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund.--
     There is hereby established within the Federal Buildings Fund 
     established under section 592 of title 40, United States 
     Code, an account to be known as the ``Civilian Property 
     Realignment Commission--Asset Proceeds and Space Management 
     Fund'' which shall be used solely for the purposes of 
     carrying out actions pursuant to the Commission 
     recommendations approved under section 14. Notwithstanding 
     section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, the following 
     amounts shall be deposited into the account and made 
     available for obligation or expenditure only as provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts for the purposes specified:
       (1) Such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts, to 
     remain available until expended, for the consolidation, co-
     location, exchange, redevelopment, re-configuration of space, 
     disposal, and other actions recommended by the Commission for 
     Federal agencies.
       (2) Amounts received from the sale of any civilian real 
     property action taken pursuant to a recommendation or the 
     Commission under section 15. As provided in appropriations 
     Acts, such proceeds may be made available to cover necessary 
     costs associated with implementing the recommendations 
     pursuant to section 15, including costs associated with--
       (A) sales transactions;
       (B) acquiring land, construction, constructing replacement 
     facilities, conducting advance planning and design as may be 
     required to transfer functions from a Federal asset or 
     property to another Federal civilian property;
       (C) co-location, redevelopment, disposal, and 
     reconfiguration of space; and
       (D) other actions recommended by the Commission for Federal 
     agencies.
       (c) Additional Requirement for Budget Contents.--The 
     President's budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall include an estimate of 
     proceeds that are the result of the Commission's 
     recommendations and the obligations and expenditures needed 
     to support such recommendations.

     SEC. 18. DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTIES.

       (a) Environmental Considerations.--
       (1) Applicability of other Law.--Public Law 91-190, as 
     amended, shall not apply to activities under section 11 of 
     this Act.
       (2) Civil Action.--A civil action for judicial review, with 
     respect to any requirement of Public Law 91-190, as amended, 
     to the extent such public law is applicable to the actions 
     under section 15 of this Act, of any act or failure to act by 
     a Federal agency during the closing, realigning, or 
     relocating of functions under this Act, may not be brought 
     more than 60 days after the date of such act or failure to 
     act.
       (3) Transfer of real property.--
       (A) In General.--When implementing the recommended actions 
     pursuant to section 15 for properties that have been 
     identified in the Commission's recommendations and in 
     compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), 
     Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by 
     deed real property with any person.
       (B) Additional Terms.--The head of the disposing agency may 
     require any additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head 
     of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States. Such additional terms and 
     conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or 
     obligations of the Federal agencies under CERCLA section 
     120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements 
     CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and CERCLA section 
     120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
       (4) Information disclosure.--As part, of an agreement 
     pursuant to this Act, the agency shall disclose to the person 
     to whom the property or facilities will be transferred any 
     information of the Federal agency regarding the environmental 
     restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance 
     activities described in this Act that relate to the property 
     or facilities. The agency shall provide such information 
     before entering into the agreement.
       (b) Construciton of Certain Acts.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

     SEC. 19. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.

       Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) a statement of how the proposed project is consistent 
     with section 11(b) of the Civilian Property Realignment 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 20. LIMITATION OF CERTAIN LEASING AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Limitation of certain leasing authorities.--Chapter 33 
     of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``Sec. 3317. LIMITATION ON LEASING AUTHORITY OF OTHER 
                   AGENCIES

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no executive agency may lease space for the purposes of 
     a public building as defined under section 3301, except as 
     provided under section 585, and the provisions in this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Public Building.--For the purposes of this section, 
     the term `public building' shall include leased space.
       ``(c) Further Exclusions.--This section shall not apply 
     to--
       ``(1) properties that are excluded for reasons of national 
     security by the President; and
       ``(2) properties of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as creating new authority for executive agencies to 
     enter into leases or limit the authority of the 
     Administration under section 3314.''.
       (b) Small Businesses.--When using commercial leasing 
     services, the Administrator shall adhere to the requirements 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. et seq.).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end:

``3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies.''.

     SEC. 21. IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW BY GAO.

       Upon transmittal of the Commission's recommendations from 
     the President to the Congress under section 13, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States at least annually 
     shall monitor, review the implementation activities of 
     Federal agencies pursuant to section 15, and report to 
     Congress any findings and recommendations.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in House Report 112-385. Each such further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  The Chair understands amendment No. 1 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112-385.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the amendment 
before mine is not being brought up?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk?
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, after line 15, insert the following:
       (e) McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Review.--Upon 
     the enactment of a joint resolution described in section 
     14(c) and for not more than 90 days after such enactment, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall apply 
     section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11411) to the extent practicable, to any buildings 
     identified for disposal in the approved recommendations that 
     are not more than 25,000 square feet or valued at less than 
     $5,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects what was agreed to 
by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on the homeless issue. 
The amendment ensures that there is a reasonable review of properties 
for use by the homeless.
  Under current law, the review process is covered by the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This amendment applies that law in a 
streamlined way to the civilian property realignment process created in 
H.R. 1734.

                              {time}  1950

  The streamlined review process would set a clear timeframe and apply 
to the types of properties normally used for the homeless, those less 
than 25,000 square feet or not more than $5 million in value.
  Over the 25 years since McKinney-Vento was enacted, 82 properties 
have been conveyed for homeless use. In 25 years, just 82 properties 
have been conveyed, and we want to continue to extend that, seeing as 
there may be other opportunities.
  Typically, these are small properties used for shelters and similar 
types of assistance. The larger properties tend to be warehouses for 
food banks. Given this, the amendment provides two triggers, one based 
on size, and another on value to ensure properties that may be 
appropriate are considered for homeless use.
  This is a reasonable compromise to this issue. I worked closely with 
the ranking member of our subcommittee, and on Friday we had agreed to 
this solution. Despite reversing her decision, I'll move forward on the 
agreed-upon language.

[[Page H499]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 112-385.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, line 15, insert after ``the Administrator.'' the 
     following: ``The Administrator may also exclude property from 
     any such transaction that the Administrator has determined is 
     suitable for assignment to the Secretary of the Interior for 
     transfer to a State, a political subdivision or 
     instrumentality of a State, or a municipality for use as a 
     public park or recreation area under section 550(e) of title 
     40, United States Code. In making such determination, the 
     Administrator may consider the appraised value of the 
     property and the highest and best use.''

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Both the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Oversight and 
Government Reform committees have marked up legislation to save money 
through the disposal of Federal property. We've identified bipartisan 
common ground on the subject in the past. I hope we can continue to do 
so with this bill.
  In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Members and the 
staff have worked on a bipartisan basis to report legislation 
expediting the disposal of real Federal property. The bill we reported 
unanimously included, by voice vote, my amendment to protect the 
ability of local governments to work with the Federal Government on 
real property disposal. The amendment before us today includes 
identical language to protect local planning prerogatives and to ensure 
that Federal decisions take cognizance of local circumstances. I 
reiterate, an amendment that had Republican support on the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee.
  I introduced this amendment because I have direct experience with 
successful real property disposal in my northern Virginia district. My 
predecessor, Republican Tom Davis of Virginia, worked with me and my 
colleagues in local government and with the GSA to sell the former 
Lorton prison site, which was under Federal control, to Fairfax County, 
Virginia.
  The land transfer saved the Federal Government the cost of 
maintaining over 330 structures on the property and many historic 
buildings. In collaboration with the community, we created a new park 
with cultural and recreational attractions, and the project set off a 
development boom in the southern part of our community.
  In short, this land transfer was a win/win for the Federal 
Government, for the local government. Both benefited from the sale, and 
local residents who lacked adequate park land, and a win for the 
private sector which capitalized on residential and commercial 
redevelopment opportunities as a result.
  Other communities across America ought to also be able to work with 
the Federal Government on mutually beneficial land disposal processes 
like those that turned Lorton prison into a vibrant new community in my 
county.
  Mr. Denham and the T&I Committee have judiciously included 
stipulations that the BRAC-type commission for property disposal 
include individuals with historic preservation and community 
development expertise, and I appreciate that. However, these 
individuals cannot possibly know about the individual local 
circumstances in communities all across America.
  For that expertise, we must return to the conservative principle that 
local people, not the Federal Government, know the most about their own 
local circumstances. To that end, my simple amendment would protect the 
ability of local governments to work with GSA to dispose of real 
property which would be suitable for park land.
  This amendment would not interfere with the author's objective of 
liquidating high-value Federal buildings, nor would it compromise the 
BRAC-type commission. It simply would give local governments and local 
taxpayers a voice in the disposal of property in their back yards, if 
that property is suitable for park land.
  As we learned in Oversight and Government Reform hearings on this 
topic, my amendment would save the Federal Government money because it 
would eliminate Federal maintenance expenses; and we know that 
maintenance costs represent the largest and most achievable cost-
savings opportunity in real-property disposal.
  In summary, this amendment is based on local success we realized 
working with Congress, both Tom Davis and Jim Moran, to preserve park 
land and save money for the Federal Government. Similar language was 
adopted unanimously in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
recently when we marked up similar legislation to H.R. 1734. It would 
protect local governments' and local citizens' roles in the land-
disposal process, based on the conservative principle the Federal 
Government doesn't always know best.
  I appreciate the time the T&I Committee staff took to try to work 
with us on this amendment. I also appreciate the support for this 
language from Democratic and Republican members of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee during our markup, and I urge our 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 1734 is drafted to ensure there is a streamlined process to sell 
or redevelop high-value assets.
  H.R. 1734 preserves our parks and open spaces by explicitly exempting 
them from the process outlined in the bill. Despite this, the amendment 
by the gentleman from Virginia would give the General Services 
Administration extraordinary authority to take valuable properties off 
the table and set them aside. This amendment would give GSA veto 
authority over the President, over Congress by allowing GSA to remove 
properties after recommendations are approved.
  The legislation includes opportunities for State and local 
governments to receive properties in the process, and the commission 
will include expertise in community development. Those considerations 
would be included in the recommendations submitted to the President and 
Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I heard the eloquent cry for bipartisanship from the gentleman from 
California just a few minutes ago. Here's an amendment that passed 
unanimously, without objection on the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee. It, by no means, grants the kind of authority just described 
to GSA. It is a simple protection for local governments to get in the 
process.
  I regret very much that the fix is in, that we're not going to have 
bipartisan amendments adopted tonight to this bill, and little wonder 
then that your bill will have no support on this side of the aisle.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 112-385.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.

[[Page H500]]

  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 35, after line 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 22. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Civilian Property Realignment Commission, should 
     take steps to provide assistance to small, minority, and 
     woman-owned businesses seeking to be awarded contracts to 
     redevelop federal property;
       (2) the Civilian Property Realignment Commission and other 
     appropriate Federal officials should conduct a public 
     information campaign to advise small, minority, and women-
     owned business firms with respect to contracts for the sale 
     or redevelopment of Federal property; and
       (3) firms that are awarded contracts pertaining to the 
     redevelopment of Federal property should, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, seek to award subcontracts for such 
     contracts to small, minority, and women-owned business firms.
       (b) Progress Reports.--Every 6 months, the Civilian 
     Property Realignment Commission shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress and the President, a 
     report regarding contracting. Each such report shall 
     indicate, as of the date of the submission of such report, 
     the size of all business firms awarded contracts by the 
     Commission and the size of all business firms awarded 
     subcontracts under such contracts

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As I understand this legislation, it is to establish a commission 
that deals with the civilian property realignment for this Nation. Some 
340 million-plus square feet, I understand, is within the jurisdiction 
of the General Services Administration.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member on many 
issues dealing with property around the Nation. Thank her for that 
leadership.
  My amendment is a simple amendment that expresses that the 
commission, or other appropriate Federal agencies, should conduct a 
public-information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned 
businesses of the available contracts under this particular commission 
and report to Congress.

                              {time}  2000

  Just this morning, before I flew to Washington, I had a room full of 
small, minority, and women-owned businesses clamoring to understand how 
to interact with the Federal Government. In fact, one particular women-
owned business stood up and said that they had been certified for 
however long and never could get any information on how to access 
opportunities that could be utilized by their small business to create 
jobs.
  This amendment is a sense of Congress that provides a public 
awareness campaign that would help to ensure that a broad swath of the 
small business community is reached. It is imperative that these 
businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also 
imperative that the process for obtaining a Government contract is 
clear, which is why it is extremely important that the commission, 
along with other appropriate Federal agencies, implement an awareness 
campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.
  I further believe there should be accountability as to which firms 
are receiving these lucrative contracts, and a system of monitoring. 
Everyone has said on the floor of the House--bipartisan, Republicans 
and Democrats--we are for small businesses. So am I. I want them 
thriving, growing, surviving, and getting the information to do 
business with this huge Federal Government.
  This amendment, which is a sense of Congress, I believe gives them an 
opportunity to play on an equal playing field.
  We know what will happen with a commission: that those who have 
always known how to access the system will be at the front of the line. 
Let's give these small companies an opportunity to also achieve their 
dreams and aspiration for the American Dream.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to debate H.R. 1734, the ``Civilian Property 
Realignment Act.'' I offered an amendment to this measure which 
acknowledges the challenges faced by small, minority, and women-owned 
businesses that participate in the government contracting process. 
However, I have several reservations about this bill. The failure to 
include language that would require an environmental impact analysis of 
these properties does not make sense.
  The original bill waived Title V of the of the McKinney-Vento Act, 
which provides for the free transfer of surplus federal properties to 
homeless providers, as well as, the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). Homeless providers have claimed less than 1 percent of the 
thousands of properties available to them because of the size of the 
properties. I was led to believe that an agreement had been reached to 
ensure that a provision that applied the McKinney-Vento requirements to 
properties of a certain size and value would be in this bill, it is 
unclear whether that will be the case.
  In addition, the bill contains a second poisonous pill, as it waives 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires a thorough 
public examination of the environmental impacts of a project or 
property transfer, to avoid an unintended adverse effect on a 
surrounding community and a harmful precedent of waiving appropriate 
environmental review on major infrastructure projects.
  Many of these properties are decades old. These buildings may contain 
asbestos among other issues that may have a direct impact on those who 
renovate them, as well as, the surrounding communities in which they 
are located. Allowing those communities to express their concerns 
through a public comment period is reasonable. In addition, ensuring 
that the federal government does all that it can to remediate its own 
property prior to transfer or renovation is an example to all other 
sectors of the importance of adhering to environmental safety 
standards. If these concerns can be addressed this bill serves as a 
reasonable vehicle to help combat the deficit. If these concerns cannot 
be address this bill may be fatally flawed.
  Would require federal agencies to compile environmental information 
about all property being considered for action and provide for a 
limited review of property by homeless service providers.
  President Obama, first proposed this bipartisan measure in his budget 
last year as a means to decrease unnecessary government spending and 
reduce the deficit. It is my hope that the issues that have been raised 
can be addressed before we must vote on this measure.
  H.R. 1734 establishes the Civilian Property Realignment Commission 
(CPRC) to better manage federal buildings and facilities. This measure 
would give the Commission broad new authorities to consolidate, dispose 
of, or sell some government properties. In addition, the Commission is 
required to sell at least five facilities that have a combined 
estimated fair market value of at least $500 million.
  I believe that if this legislation passes that the newly formed 
Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) should take steps to 
educate and assist small, women, and minority-owned businesses when 
awarding contracts related to the sale or redevelopment of federal 
property. However the bill does not address concerns raised related to 
the impact on the homeless and it removes a provision that requires an 
environmental impact study before the transfer of any federal land. 
These studies are a tool to determine the land, air, and water quality 
of the property being transferred and the intended use of said 
property. I believe that it is not in the best interest of the 
government or local communities to remove this vital safety feature.
  H.R. 1734 is similar to the Department of Defense Base Realignment 
Commission (BRAC) law, which allows the federal government to make the 
best use of surplus and underused properties under the jurisdiction of 
various federal agencies, and to dispose of properties the government 
does not need to help with debt reduction.
  It is important to remember that the federal government owns a 
significant amount of property. The role of the CPRC is to present an 
accurate view of how that property is currently utilized and 
consolidate certain activities. For example, currently 30 different 
agencies have 30 different leasing methods; the CPRC would streamline 
the process by taking over leasing authority.
  The General Services Administration (GSA) one of the largest real 
estate organizations in the world, with an inventory consisting of 
8,920 assets with over 342 million square feet of rentable space across 
all 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia. They 
serve approximately 1 million Federal employees at 59 different 
agencies. The GSA has a portfolio which consists primarily of office 
buildings, courthouses, laboratories, border stations, and warehouses.
  GSA's current inventory consists of 8,932 assets totaling 387,841,174 
gross square feet

[[Page H501]]

(gsf) nationwide. When these assets are separated between leased and 
owned, the portfolio consists of 1,884 owned assets totaling 
218,983,699 gsf and 7,048 leased assets representing 168,857,475 gsf. 
The annual operating costs for FY2005 were $1.5 billion, $800 million 
for government owned and $650 million for leased locations. The 
replacement value of the owned inventory is $37.2 billion.
  They have reduced the percentage of underutilized and non-performing 
assets from 42 percent to 26 percent;
  Reduced vacant space from 9.2 percent to 6.8 percent, significantly 
below the 2005 industry average rate of 12.5 percent; and,
  Reported excess 204 assets and demolished 50 buildings and, as a 
result, eliminated 3.1 million rentable square feet of vacant space and 
achieved a cost avoidance of $400 million in capital reinvestment 
needs.
  As of October 1, 2002, federal agencies reported a total of 927 
vacant and underutilized real properties--including facilities and 
land--located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico in 294 
cities.
  The Veteran's Administration (VA) reported the most properties-577;
  General Service Administration (GSA) reported 236 properties, and 
United States Postal Service (USPS) reported 114 properties.
  Most of these properties--807 of 927--were facilities that 
represented about 32.1 million square feet and ranged from office 
buildings to hospitals to post offices.
  Although VA reported the highest number of facilities, GSA facilities 
made up more than half of this square footage. The remaining 120 
properties were vacant lands reported only by VA and USPS, most of 
which were 10 acres or less.
  One-third or 125 of GSA's underutilized and unutilized assets have 
been reported excess and accepted for disposal. These assets account 
for almost 9 million gross square feet (gsf) and $10.9 million in 
operating expenses that will be eliminated upon completion of the 
disposal action. Another 18 underutilized assets with approximately 1 
million gross square feet (gsf) and $1.5 million in operating costs are 
projected for disposal in the next five years pending customer 
relocation.
  There were 89 leased facilities that were determined to be 
underutilized with operating costs totaling $6.2 million in FY2005. GSA 
eliminates vacant leased space by backfilling space with other 
customers, terminating the lease or vacant portion thereof or buying 
out the remaining lease term whenever possible. At the end of FY2005, 
GSA's leased vacancy rate was at a record low level (below 1.5%).
  With an aging inventory it is imperative that we reinvest in our 
federal facilities to maintain a quality workplace for our federal 
agencies. At any given time a significant portion of our vacant space 
is under renovation.
  As of September 30, 2005, GSA had 21 assets vacated for major 
renovations accounting for almost 9 million gross square feet and $39.6 
million in operating expenses. As the current projects are completed, 
the space will be backfilled and these assets will once again become 
utilized.
  At the same time, new projects will begin in different assets keeping 
the amount of assets that are underutilized due to major renovations 
fairly constant.
  The Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) will review all 
federal properties and leases utilized for civilian use to determine an 
accurate number of properties that are either vacant or underutilized.
  The independent Commission (CPRC), operating under the GSA, will 
transform how federal real estate is managed. The purpose of the 
Commission will be to convert real estate inefficiencies into 
reductions in the Federal deficit. By facilitating and expediting the 
sale and disposal of unneeded properties; reducing our reliance on 
costly leased space; and sell or redevelop high value assets that are 
underutilized.
  I firmly believe this Commission should consider the impact of their 
decisions on the small business community. Specifically, small, 
minority, and women-owned businesses which face many challenges when 
trying to learn about the existence of government contracts for which 
they can apply, as well as, maneuvering through the complex government 
contracting process.
  As the decisions of the Commission will impact local communities, 
revitalize neighborhoods, decrease government spending, and reduce the 
deficit. The Commission should recognize the important role that small 
businesses play in our economy.
  My amendment simply expresses that the Commission or other 
appropriate federal agency should conduct a public information campaign 
to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available 
contracts.
  In order to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community 
is reached it is imperative that these businesses are aware of the 
existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for 
attaining a government contract is clear; which is why it is extremely 
important that the Commission, along with all other appropriate federal 
agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority, 
and women-owned businesses.
  The only way to ensure a diverse representation of businesses is 
through targeted awareness campaigns followed by a clear process, along 
with adequate support.
  Further, I believe there should be accountability as to which firms 
are receiving these lucrative contracts. The Commission should report 
to Congress and the President every 6 months. This report should 
include the amount of contracts awarded to business firms. The report 
should also include small, minority, and women-owned businesses, as 
well as, subcontracts awarded to these businesses.
  Few would argue with the premise that small business is the backbone 
of our economy and the heartbeat of our nation. The small business 
owner reflects a valued principle in our nation's heritage. The belief 
that an individual or a group of individuals can come together to build 
a business from the ground up then employ their neighbors.


                             SMALL BUSINESS

  In government contracting it is important to ensure that everyone has 
equal access to this valued American dream. Every small business should 
have a fair chance to have an equal opportunity to attain a government 
contract that will impact their communities.
  Ninety-nine percent of all independent companies and businesses in 
the United States are considered small businesses.
  Small businesses are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds 
of the new jobs over the last 15 years. Enabling small businesses to 
gain access to these contracts would result in job growth in areas that 
were previously underutilized by the federal government.
  Small businesses have always been a source of dynamism for the 
American economy.
  In 2009, there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States. 
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) these small 
enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers.
  Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 
20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 
workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By 
contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more 
employees.


                        MILITARY MUSEUM OF TEXAS

  As a Senior Member on the House Homeland Security Committee, I have 
been one of the foremost proponents of finding ways to transform 
federal property from vacant space into property that can serve the 
community.
  I introduced legislation that was signed into law that allowed the 
Military Museum of Texas to purchase land from the GSA. I realize the 
negative impact underutilized and vacant properties have on local 
communities. To be frank, if a property is not properly tended to it 
becomes blight upon the community and a needless expense for taxpayers.
  The land upon which the Military Museum of Texas is located, 8611 
Wallisville Road, Houston, Texas, was property of the General Services 
Administration. A bill I introduced last Congress, H.R. 6510, directed 
the General Services Administration (GSA) to convey at market value all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to over three 
acres of property located at 8611 Wallisville Road, in Houston, Texas 
to the Military Museum of Texas.
  The conveyance was based upon an independent appraisal and any other 
costs associated will be paid for by the Military Museum.
  The passage of H.R. 6510, allowed the Military Museum of Texas to 
remain at its current location in Houston, Texas and purchase the 3.6 
acres from the General Services Administration that was previously 
vacant. In order for the GSA to sell this piece of land which was not 
being utilized required an Act of Congress.
  With the establishment of the Civilian Realignment Commission it is 
my belief that more opportunities to revitalize communities, like the 
one afforded the Military Museum of Texas, can be found. These 
opportunities will benefit both businesses and the communities within 
which they are located.
  The Military Museum of Texas was formed to create, maintain and 
operate an institution to honor and perpetuate the memories of all men 
and women who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States of 
America. The President of the Military Museum of Texas, Ed Farris, a 
former Marine sergeant, and a 22-year veteran of the Houston Police 
Department's motorcycle patrol and bomb squad, worked tirelessly to 
preserve the memories of the men and women of the armed forces.
  The Military Museum is a pillar in the community, and a benefit to 
schools, veterans and military related groups. It provides educational 
programs, live reenactments from military personnel as well as 
interactive exhibits. Furthermore, the Military Museum provides 
internships in military history and preservation, and

[[Page H502]]

a research database available for education and historical institutions 
and the public. Instead of land being left vacant it can now be used by 
the community.
  Clearly there are many vital and important provisions in this bill; 
however, I still have grave reservations about the repeal of an 
environmental impact study before the transference of any federal land.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, let me just say that the 
evidence of how important this language is is by way of a group in 
Texas that was able to secure by legislation--with the gentlelady from 
the District of Columbia's excellent assistance--a military museum that 
was held by the General Services Administration. This group of veterans 
is making it a productive site and a productive part of our local 
community that evidences what we can secure with this language.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be 
offered.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Carnahan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 112-385.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:

     SEC. 22. CONSIDERATION OF LIFE-CYCLE COST REQUIRED.

       Section 3305 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Consideration of Life-cycle Cost Required.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Administrator shall ensure that the 
     life-cycle cost of a public building is considered in the 
     construction or lease of a public building described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Federal buildings subject to requirement.--A public 
     building is subject to the requirement under paragraph (1) 
     if--
       ``(A) construction or lease of the building begins after 
     the date of the enactment of the Civilian Property 
     Realignment Act;
       ``(B) the estimated construction costs of the building 
     exceed $1,000,000;
       ``(C) in the case of a lease, the square footage of the 
     property is more than 25,000 square feet; and
       ``(D) Federal funding comprises more than 50 percent of the 
     funding for the estimated construction or lease costs of the 
     building.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Life-cycle cost.--The term `life-cycle cost' means 
     the sum of the following costs, as estimated for the lifetime 
     of a building:
       ``(i) Investment costs.
       ``(ii) Capital costs.
       ``(iii) Installation costs.
       ``(iv) Energy costs.
       ``(v) Operating costs.
       ``(vi) Maintenance costs.
       ``(vii) Replacement costs.
       ``(B) Lifetime of a building.--The term `lifetime of a 
     building' means, with respect to a building, the greater of--
       ``(i) the period of time during which the building is 
     projected to be utilized; or
       ``(ii) 50 years.''.

     SEC. 23. LONG-TERM SAVINGS THROUGH LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS.

       Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 19, is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) with respect to any prospectus for the construction, 
     alteration, or acquisition of any building or space to be 
     leased, a statement by the Administrator describing the use 
     of life-cycle cost analysis and any increased design, 
     construction, or acquisition costs identified by such 
     analysis that are offset by lower long-term costs.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I also want to add my voice to encouraging our chairman and ranking 
member to continue to work together to find that common ground. I know 
they have worked on this, but there obviously is more work to be done, 
and I want to encourage that. It is the only way we are going to get 
things done in this House.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
the committee and on this bill. I also want to thank the bipartisan 
High-Performance Building Caucus that I've worked with over the last 
several years that has helped bring focus on more efficient management 
and technology for our built environment.
  The amendment that I offer here tonight will ensure that the Federal 
Government makes better decisions in the construction or leasing of 
Federal facilities, decisions that save taxpayer dollars. The U.S. 
Federal Government manages a large inventory of approximately 429,000 
buildings, with a total square footage of 3.34 billion worldwide.
  As we know, buildings are resource intensive, accounting for 40 
percent of primary energy use in the U.S., 12 percent of water 
consumption, and 60 percent of nonindustrial waste. Federal facilities 
account for 0.4 percent of the Nation's energy usage. With such a large 
energy footprint and related costs, it is only common sense that the 
Federal Government fully understand both the short- and long-term cost 
of the construction and lease for a facility.
  My amendment ensures that future construction and leased projects 
reflect the best use of Federal dollars and the greatest value for 
taxpayers. My amendment does this by requiring the use of life-cycle 
cost analysis in the design or lease of a Federal building where the 
project is receiving at least 50 percent Federal funding. Life-cycle 
cost analysis is the most accurate method for assessing the total cost 
of facility ownership. It takes into account all costs of acquiring, 
owning, and disposing of a building or building system. It is a whole 
picture assessment of a project instead of only looking at the 
immediate upfront costs.
  This would provide valuable insight into the real long-term costs of 
a facility and encourage the construction or lease of the facilities 
that provide the best results for the lowest overall cost.
  The process of life-cycle analysis makes for sound fiscal policy and 
increases transparency and accountability while allowing our building 
planners to account for the full long-term costs of projects.
  Life-cycle budgeting ensures that we make the best decisions and get 
the most value when it comes to our infrastructure. We know that it can 
be marginally more expensive to construct an energy efficient facility, 
but over the long term, the same facility saves money in energy and 
water costs that actually make the building a better investment.
  My amendment will ensure that Federal agencies have a complete 
picture and understand ongoing budgetary obligations when considering 
construction or leasing of a facility. Agencies should use this tool to 
consider the total cost of ownership of their buildings, including 
long-term operating life-cycle costs.
  This amendment requires Federal agencies to use life-cycle cost 
analysis of the overall spending on design, construction, operation, 
and maintenance to reflect the best use of agency funds.
  I thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this issue, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition even though I'm not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for his work on this amendment. Just as we saw the other 
Democratic amendment pass through on a voice vote, I assume we're going 
to see this one pass through on a voice vote as well, making both 
amendments actually language in the bill.
  That could've been done a couple of other times tonight. We want to 
make sure we have got a bipartisan bill, that both parties can agree 
that we want to get rid of waste, that we want to get rid of properties 
we just don't need, and that we actually run a more efficient 
government.

[[Page H503]]

  But specifically on this amendment, again I'd like to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri for his work on this. This amendment would 
ensure that the General Services Administration accounts for the total 
cost in the design or lease of a building.
  Very often GSA makes decisions that bind the taxpayer to significant 
financial obligations when procuring space. And unfortunately, 
currently GSA's analyses do not take into account the total life-cycle 
cost of the taxpayer investment. This amendment would correct this. I 
support the adoption of this amendment as I've supported other 
adoptions tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DENHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of Mr. Carnahan's amendment, and he ran out of 
time. First of all, I see a lot of comity and collegiality on the floor 
tonight. I've known the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for a 
very long time. Mr. Carnahan said something that struck my conscience, 
and that is that we are able to master this legislative process that 
allows us to negotiate to the moment that we might get this on the 
floor, which I understand may be tomorrow.
  I would encourage whatever it is possible to do, Mr. Denham. I've 
gotten to know you--whatever is possible for a bill as important as 
this. You mentioned the possibility of language, reconciliation. I 
cannot speak for the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, and I 
don't intend to do so. But I do know her as a person who keeps her 
word, who loves this Capitol, which she represents, and has a deep and 
abiding concern about the homeless and obviously this issue of the use 
of property.

                              {time}  2010

  I only entreat you to see what is possible as you have debated on the 
floor this evening for Mr. Carnahan and my amendment. I would encourage 
that there be further discussions if you and the gentlelady can secure 
that opportunity. I think both would be able to hopefully have 
dialogue, but I do want to have on record my high esteem and respect 
for her leadership on these issues. You are very kind to have yielded 
to me.
  Mr. DENHAM. In reclaiming my time, I support the amendment, and look 
forward to bipartisan support on the bill tomorrow morning. This is 
something that taxpayers need. This is something that will help us to 
reduce our debt in a way in which Republicans and Democrats can come 
together and work on something on a bipartisan level and actually give 
something back to the President that he is asking for.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  The ranking member has asked to speak for the remaining time, so I 
would yield that 1 minute to our ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I support the Carnahan amendment, and I just want to indicate what 
the agreement was with the chairman.
  In the base bill, we would have a bill that Democrats and Republicans 
would support. What we have here is a bill that somehow Republicans are 
divided on and that Democrats are expected to somehow carry over the 
finish line. If, in fact, this bill had come as a base bill, I think 
you would have had Democrats in larger numbers supporting this bill. 
Whatever Republicans wanted to do with the fact that the base bill did 
not always conform exactly to what they would have wanted would have 
been made up for on our side.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Amodei) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1734) to 
decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, 
and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian 
real property, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________