[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22975-22976]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3069) to authorize the 
Administrator of General Services to provide for redevelopment of the 
Southeast Federal Center in the District of Columbia.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Page 5, line 11, strike out ``Capitol'' and insert 
     ``Capital''.
       Page 5, line 21, after ``trator'' insert, ``, in 
     consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission''.
       Page 7, line 1, strike out ``Environment and Public Works'' 
     and insert ``Governmental Affairs''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development 
Act of 2000 authorizes the administrator of GSA to enter into 
agreements with regard to that activity. The original legislation was 
reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 
March 23 of this year, passed the House on May 8. The Senate Committee 
on Government Affairs reported theirs and passed the Senate with 
amendments on October 11. Their amendments are technical in nature and 
have the support of both sides of the aisle.
  This action will simply concur with those amendments, clear the 
measure to be sent to the President. I support the measure and 
encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the sponsor of 
this bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows) for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the bill is here for the second time only 
because of technical amendments that occurred in the Senate. I wanted 
to come to the floor to express my deep appreciation, however, for the 
bipartisan leadership this bill has received, especially from the chair 
of our full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
as well as from our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and from our subcommittee chair, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Franks), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  The bill is unique. It is the first time that private development 
will occur on Federal land. In doing so, of course, we make use of land 
for which the government was receiving no revenue, and at no cost to 
the government. The bill represents an extraordinary breakthrough of 
bipartisan work. Precisely because it is unique, the bill typifies the 
out-of-the-box, nonstereotypic, nonbureaucratic thinking that is 
typical of the members of this subcommittee.
  It took extraordinary collaboration and cooperation for this bill to 
pass both Houses because we had to think of a way to get some use out 
of land that had been lying there, very valuable land, for decades, 
producing no revenue for the Federal Government, even though we are 
talking about 55 acres of prime land, and some of the most valuable 
land on the East Coast.
  I must say I am also grateful for the quality of leadership the bill 
received in the Senate, especially from Chairman Fred Thompson; from 
ranking member, Joseph Lieberman; from subcommittee chairman, George 
Voinovich; and from ranking member, Richard Durbin, the subcommittee 
chairman of the District Committee and the full committee chairman of 
the Government Affairs Committee.
  The magnitude of the waste in not developing these 55 acres for 
decades is incalculable. Now we have found a way not only to develop it 
but to develop it at no cost; to get productive use out of it with 
revenue for the Federal Government and some revenue may even go to 
District taxpayers for whatever private development occurs.
  The land had been a terribly large brownfield that had produced slums 
in everything it touched surrounding it, it is so huge. The reason that 
it had not been developed is because it turned out not to be, in 
today's economy, developable as a traditional government-owned site, 
and we had limited tools to make use of it. It took legislation. This 
legislation is applicable to this parcel alone. The land was too 
valuable to sell and indeed we do not sell Federal land. We have so 
little of it in the District of Columbia, we had to think of something 
to do with it.
  Working together, we have thought of something that is unique to do 
with it but in keeping with public-private partnerships of the type 
this Congress has long endorsed and with the reinventing government and 
public-private ideas of the administration. For that reason, I am 
virtually certain that the President will sign this bill.
  I wanted to express my profound appreciation, especially since I knew 
that the chairman and the ranking member, who are so central to this 
bill, would be on the floor today.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Shows) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) has already expressed, this is a very unique initiative we 
undertake here. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the Chair 
of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) have joined forces to craft an effective approach 
combining the best principles of private sector real estate practice 
with the benefits of public-private partnerships and have, in this 
fashion, generated bipartisan support with a notion that already has 
long-standing bipartisan support, that of public-private partnerships.
  The piece of property in question here is 55 acres of prime land 
along the Anacostia River, less than a mile from our Nation's Capitol. 
This property has

[[Page 22976]]

been undeveloped for the last 3 decades. The Office of Management and 
Budget has tried various schemes to figure out how to pay for its 
development. Meanwhile, the area surrounding it has deteriorated.
  The partnership that has finally been worked out here and, again, 
great tribute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), who really does dig in to the issues of the District and works 
with neighborhood groups and with the city council and the mayor and 
with several committees of the Congress concerned with the affairs of 
the District, has done a superb job in pulling the business community 
together with the District government, the Federal Government, to bring 
together a partnership that will combine a government real estate asset 
with private sector financial assets.
  In this case, the government indeed does have an asset in land but 
has limited financial resources to develop that asset. The private 
sector, on the other hand, is searching for sound investment 
opportunities. At the end of the term of this agreed-upon arrangement, 
the government will have an enhanced asset. The private sector will 
have had an opportunity to achieve some profit. Both will benefit. 
Several Federal agencies have authority to enter into some form of 
public-private partnerships. The Veterans Administration, for example, 
has enhanced leasing authority. The National Park Service can enter 
into public-private arrangements to construct facilities on park lands. 
This legislation extends to GSA, the agency that primarily has 
responsibility for overall Federal real estate management, the same 
type of authority to develop this Southeast Federal Center property.

                              {time}  1630

  The goal will be to enhance the Federal inventory, generate revenue 
from the use of the asset, revenue that will go into the Federal 
Buildings Fund. This approach is consistent with private sector 
practices. It encourages GSA to enter into private partnerships to 
bring this asset into the Federal Government portfolio as a producing 
facility, rather than one that simply drains revenue from the Federal 
Buildings Fund. But in the long run, the larger purpose, the larger 
benefit, I think, will be to the southeast community surrounding this 
piece of property.
  I hope that there will be some very significant Federal structures 
established in this piece of property. I am hoping that we will have at 
least one major anchor, Federal Government activity, that will serve as 
a magnet to attract other government, as well as private sector, 
activities to revitalize the whole surrounding neighborhood, create 
more jobs, enhance property values, and, in the process, generate 
revenue into the Federal Buildings Fund.
  This is a very innovative approach, a constructive approach. It is 
one that is long overdue, and one that benefits both the Federal 
Government and the private sector. I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that the House 
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 
3069.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendments were 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________