[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 996-999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1734, CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT 
                                  ACT

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 537 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 537

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 112-11 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such further amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 
30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of 
this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  House Resolution 537 provides for a structured rule for consideration 
of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.
  The rule makes six amendments in order. Of these, five are Democrat-
sponsored amendments and one is a Republican-sponsored amendment. The 
only amendments not made in order were either because of a lack of 
germaneness and/or they were duplicative in nature or the subject of 
other amendments.
  H.R. 1734 has come to the floor under regular order. The applicable 
subcommittee held two hearings specifically on this bill and held an 
additional six hearings on the subject of Federal property 
consolidation. The subcommittee held a markup and subsequently passed 
the bill out by voice vote. The full committee also held a markup 
during which several amendments were considered before the bill was 
reported out of committee. Further, H.R. 1734 enjoys a bipartisan list 
of cosponsors.
  The Civilian Property Realignment Act enjoys bipartisan support 
because it tackles an inherently bipartisan issue: making government 
work more efficiently in order to better safeguard taxpayer dollars.
  The Federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive real property 
portfolio that includes 429,000 buildings and over 1 million total 
properties. In fact, the Federal Government is the largest owner and 
manager of real estate in our country.
  The Office of Management and Budget in 2007 estimated that the 
Federal

[[Page 997]]

Government is holding $18 billion in real property that it does not 
need. If we sold all excess Federal properties, the resulting proceeds 
could approach $15 billion, on top of the annual savings reaped from 
reduced maintenance and operating costs.
  These properties have been accumulated by the agencies over time and 
in many cases these agencies' missions have evolved over that period. 
As missions change, so agencies' needs also change. As a result, many 
properties that were once crucial have become less useful, or in some 
cases unneeded altogether.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 
2009--the most recent data available--the government held 10,327 
unneeded buildings and spent $134 million annually to maintain them. 
According to Office of Management and Budget testimony delivered before 
Congress, the Federal Government has approximately 55,000 properties 
classified as ``underutilized.'' It costs taxpayers nearly $1.7 billion 
annually to operate underutilized Federal buildings, according to the 
Government Accountability Office.
  H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission to make 
recommendations to Congress to better manage the inventory of Federal 
civilian real property. The commission, consisting of eight members 
appointed by the President, would report annually on its findings. 
Under the bill, within 6 months of enactment the commission would 
identify and recommend to the President and Congress the sale of at 
least five high-value Federal properties with an estimated fair market 
value of at least $500 million. Both the President and Congress would 
have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. 
The President could transmit recommendations from the commission, with 
or without his approval, to Congress, where an up-or-down vote would 
take place under an expedited procedure.
  H.R. 1734 is modeled after the base realignment and closure--BRAC--
process and would require an examination of Federal civilian real 
properties across government, used and unused, and make decisions based 
on the best return to the taxpayer. Military installations, properties 
deemed essential for reasons of national security, and national parks 
are not subject to the commission's jurisdiction.
  The cost-saving initiative would achieve a reduction in the size of 
the Federal Government real property inventory by selling or 
redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates 
of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus 
properties.
  Given the vast real estate holdings of the Federal Government, poor 
asset management and missed market opportunities cost the taxpayers 
significant sums of money. The Government Accountability Office has 
placed real property management on its list of ``high risk'' 
governmental activities, citing excess and underutilization of real 
property, deteriorating and aging facilities, unreliable data, and 
overreliance on costly leasing.
  H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, seeks to reduce the 
Federal Government's footprint, increase efficiency, and ultimately 
enhance stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It isn't just 
about closing buildings. It's about looking at the taxpayers' assets 
and deciding whether or not they are being efficiently utilized. Given 
the realities of the current economy, this is the same type of belt-
tightening taking place all over our Nation right now. It's time for 
our government to start leading by example.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
both the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the structured rule. While the unemployment 
numbers are now at their lowest point in 3 years, the American people 
know that our economy is still teetering. That's why it's important for 
Democrats and Republicans to come together around commonsense 
proposals.
  This underlying bill, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, stemmed 
from President Obama's proposal in his FY 2012 budget, and I'm glad 
that Congress is beginning its deliberative process on this important 
issue.
  Currently, the Federal Government owns and manages over 1 million 
Federal buildings and structures--including many in my home State of 
Colorado--which costs over $20 billion a year annually to operate and 
maintain. This bill seeks to ensure our government is a better steward 
of taxpayer dollars by improved utilization and management of surplus 
properties and the elimination and monetization of unnecessary assets 
to reduce our deficit.
  Building on President Obama's proposal contained in his FY 2012 
budget, this bill sets up a process to consolidate, sell, or exchange 
Federal Government assets it no longer needs. Sounds like common sense, 
but it hasn't been done yet. As the President identified, an estimated 
14,000 buildings and structures are currently designated as excess 
properties. In essence, this legislation attempts to do with Federal 
Government property what the Department of Defense has successfully 
already done with its base closure and realignment program--BRAC--for 
military installations, an attempt to remove politics from the process 
so that effectively our Federal holdings can be streamlined and that 
money can be raised from properties that are no longer necessary for 
the operations of the Federal Government.
  To accomplish this goal, this legislation sets up an independent 
Civilian Property Realignment Commission, which would recommend which 
Federal properties should be consolidated, sold, exchanged or 
redeveloped. The commission's downsizing recommendations would be 
subject to approval by the President and then by Congress before they 
could be implemented en masse.
  The underlying legislation should be a strong bipartisan bill. 
Unfortunately, there are a number of last-minute considerations which 
are causing some contention between the two parties. And I understand 
that some language has been added, including contentious riders that 
were added without a hearing or a meeting of the Democratic side.
  The current language, therefore, includes some offensive provisions 
that will jeopardize support on my side of the aisle, including a 
measure that would change Federal law to eliminate the preference 
homeless shelters receive, as well as a provision that waives 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, part of 
the ongoing Republican agenda to gut environmental protections, but in 
this case, a policy waiver that has nothing to do with trying to manage 
our Federal property.
  The Federal public comment process needs to be in place when assets 
are transferred because they have important roles in communities. 
Whether it's urban, suburban, or rural, our comment process is a 
critical piece of ensuring that all stakeholders are taken into 
account. If there's a flaw with the NEPA comment process, or NEPA, fix 
it elsewhere, but not in the context of a bill that's supposed to 
streamline Federal Government holdings and allow us to sell off excess 
property.
  Another problem with this bill is that the new programs funded under 
this bill are not funded. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that this bill would cost $68 million over the next 5 years. 
Now, some on the other side might argue that $68 million isn't much 
money, but as a matter of principle it should have an offset. This 
violates the CutGo protocols and is an example of the majority spending 
money without saying where it's going to come from. So to be clear, 
this bill in its current form would increase our deficit by $68 
million. I think it would be relatively easy, in a bipartisan manner, 
to figure out where we can find $68 million elsewhere in the budget to 
offset this so it doesn't go directly to the deficit.
  In addition, the rule before us restricts the number of amendments to

[[Page 998]]

be considered and limits debate. During the Rules Committee last week, 
Democrats asked for an open rule so that all Members could offer 
amendments. A majority on that committee rejected an open process in 
favor of this restrictive rule.

                              {time}  1730

  The ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Representative 
Cummings, offered an amendment to ensure provisions of the Homeless 
Assistance Act would continue to apply. This was a germane amendment 
that would be allowed on the floor if this were an open rule, and yet 
it is blocked by this restrictive process.
  That's one example of an amendment that was actually brought to the 
Rules Committee and dismissed by the majority. But what if this debate 
inspires a Member to offer other practical, commonsense amendments, 
including offset ideas to ensure that this doesn't increase our 
deficit?
  Under this process before us, that Member's amendment will not be 
allowed, no matter how good or how bipartisan or how universal the 
support is for that amendment. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1734. This has 
been a bipartisan bill all the way through. It's something we've worked 
on for well over a year now, including having the President, OMB and 
the administration working directly with us on this bill. It is 
something that is important for the American taxpayer.
  We have enough partisan divide here. To be able to find something 
that cuts waste, something that brings in revenue without raising 
taxes, and just a more efficient way of doing business is something 
that both Republicans and Democrats should agree on.
  But certainly politics enters into many different situations. As of 
Friday, we had a bipartisan agreement. I was willing to accept all of 
the various amendments, including the amendment to NEPA, including the 
homeless amendment.
  We've accepted the amendments on several different occasions. First, 
it was a $2 million exemption for homeless to be able to grab a $2 
million piece of property. Then it was renegotiated to $3 million, and 
then five million. Why the homeless would need a $5 million piece of 
property is beyond me. But in the sense of bipartisanship, we were 
willing to agree to that.
  So that amendment is still on the floor today. We still accept that 
amendment. We stand by our word. But the other side has decided to 
interject politics into this, and we will see how that works out in the 
future.
  But the last issue I wanted to just touch on was clarifying an 
important point about the savings of this bill. This will generate 
significant savings, but I just wanted to touch on how CBO scores those 
savings.
  First, the bill authorizes $20 million for the commission itself, 
just to set up a commission, and $62 million to fund relocation or 
cleanup costs that may be needed if one of these properties actually 
has some occupants in them. This $82 million is subject to 
appropriations and requires Congress to approve a future appropriation.
  Second, within the first 180 days the bill requires the commission to 
recommend at least five properties worth a minimum of $500 million for 
sale.
  When CBO scored this provision in the reported version of the bill, 
CBO said it would save at least $160 million in the first 5 years. This 
requirement to sell at least $500 million in property is still in the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. However, since the bill was modified to require the 
approval of Congress before it can be implemented, CBO now says the 
savings will be scored on the future approval resolution, and not in 
this bill before us today. The savings that will be generated by this 
commission still exist. This will be scored at a later date.
  Only in Washington, DC can you get rid of properties, get rid of the 
cost of maintaining these properties, have billions of dollars in 
revenue, actually create jobs in the redevelopment and sale of the 
properties and still be able to argue against the savings.
  Mr. POLIS. I would inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any 
remaining speakers.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, we have no other presenters. We are ready 
to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I will yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that significant issues still remain with the 
Civilian Property Realignment Act in its current form. The gentleman 
discussed the potential savings from this bill.
  To be clear, this is a transfer of items that are already in the 
asset column of the Federal Government. It's not the creation of new 
value or new money out of nothing. It simply turns assets into cash.
  We need cash. We have a large deficit to cover. It makes sense to 
sell excess properties, but this money doesn't come from nowhere. Once 
those properties are sold, those will no longer be on the ledgers of 
the Federal Government.
  Now, it does save significant operating capital and maintenance of 
these unnecessary properties; but, again, I think common sense would 
indicate that if the commission costs $20 million to set up, with the 
various people involved with this process, we should specify where that 
money is coming from in the bill. And I think that there would be a way 
to do that on a bipartisan basis.
  Given all the concerns that remain with this bill regarding how it's 
paid for, the homeless situation, and the NEPA, the environmental 
review protections, we should be engaging in an open process, not one 
that limits and shuts down debate.
  The American people are frustrated that this Congress refuses to 
consider bipartisan-supported balanced bills that would stimulate job 
growth in our country and restore fiscal responsibility.
  We can only reignite the American Dream and reinvigorate our economy 
by strengthening the middle class and encouraging innovation. President 
Obama has introduced a package to spur small business growth and start-
ups, which includes many of the proposals previously offered by Members 
on both sides of the aisle with bipartisan support. And yet, to the 
dismay on many on my side of the aisle, this Congress has yet to 
consider these measures that will strengthen the middle class and help 
small business grow.
  I do applaud the majority for beginning to take up the process that 
President Obama has put forth in his fiscal year 2012 budget of selling 
off excess Federal property. There just remain a few I's to dot and a 
few T's to cross to ensure that this important piece of legislation can 
garner the support of the bipartisan majority in this body.
  There remains much work to be done on the large issues, including 
enacting a comprehensive jobs plan, extending the payroll tax cuts and 
unemployment insurance, ensuring seniors have access to their doctors 
under Medicare, comprehensive tax reform, and putting our fiscal house 
in order by passing a bold and balanced plan to reduce the deficit.
  Selling off excess Federal assets and making sure that the Federal 
Government doesn't own or have to maintain or operate more than we need 
to is a small, but critical, piece of the overall equation. This 
Congress has the opportunity to get it right through a deliberative 
process.
  But because the majority has restricted debate on the underlying 
bill, I cannot support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The cost of real property to the Federal Government--costs are 
significant, and most agencies do not have the incentives to minimize 
those costs. Properties sit vacant and woefully underutilized, not only 
costing taxpayers billions of dollars, but often are eyesores

[[Page 999]]

in the local communities, and steal property away from the ad valorem 
revenues of local communities.
  Even so, despite the current budget climate, many agencies continue 
to seek more space than is necessary, reducing efficiency and 
increasing cost. Better management of Federal property presents an 
opportunity to reduce expenditures and increase revenues.
  H.R. 1734 is a bipartisan measure. It seeks to address a problem that 
has become a hallmark of our bloated, inefficient Federal bureaucracy. 
H.R. 1734 is intended to bring an independent process outside the 
bureaucratic red tape to the management of real property owned by the 
Federal Government. It will reduce waste, increase efficiency of the 
Federal Government, and produce significant savings for the taxpayer.
  With deficits over $1 trillion in the Federal Government, we simply 
can't afford to sit on money-losing properties and empty Federal 
buildings any longer. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor 
of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________