[House Report 116-655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress   }                                    {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                    {       116-655

======================================================================



 
                   GSA LEASE TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

 December 16, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5047]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 5047) to require the Administrator 
of General Services to conduct an annual audit of properties 
leased to private parties, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose of Legislation...........................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Legislative History and Consideration............................     2
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     5
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     6
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     6
Preemption Clarification.........................................     6
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     6
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6
Minority Views...................................................     8

                         Purpose of Legislation

    The purpose of H.R. 5047 is to require the Administrator of 
General Services to conduct an annual audit of properties 
leased to private parties, and for other purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The General Services Administration (GSA), through its 
Public Buildings Service (PBS), is tasked with the acquisition 
and management of Federal real property. GSA currently owns and 
leases over 376.9 million square feet of space in 9,600 
buildings in the United States. GSA's typical leasing activity 
involves the acquisition of space from private entities. GSA is 
required to follow the processes and model lease provisions 
outlined in the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR).
    In some cases, GSA is authorized to lease underutilized 
space to private businesses and non-Federal entities--a 
practice known as outleasing. These properties can include 
retail shops, food service facilities, office space, warehouse 
space, rooftop space, and parking lots. Since outleasing 
involves the temporary disposal of space, rather than the 
acquisition of space, GSA is not required to follow the 
standard processes or to use model lease provisions contained 
in the GSAR. Further, there is no statutory requirement that 
GSA conduct financial audits of its outleased properties to 
ensure that all rents and revenues owed by a private tenant are 
received by the Federal government.
    H.R. 5047 would require GSA to conduct audits of Federal 
properties that have been leased to private parties. The audits 
would occur on an annual basis and would apply to outlease 
agreements in which the tenant leases at least 20 percent of a 
Federal building.

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 5047:
    On September 25, 2019, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held a hearing entitled, ``Landlord and Tenant: 
The Trump Administration's Oversight of the Trump International 
Hotel Lease.'' Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Mathews, Public 
Buildings Commissioner, U.S. General Services Administration; 
the Honorable Carol F. Ochoa, Inspector General, U.S. General 
Services Administration; Mr. Michael A. Foster, Legislative 
Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional Research 
Service; Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin 
Meese III, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage 
Foundation; Ms. Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy, 
Project on Government Oversight; Mr. Walter Shaub, Senior 
Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 
and Former Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Topics 
discussed included GSA outleasing practices and the Trump 
Organization's Old Post Office lease.

                 Legislative History and Consideration

    H.R. 5047 was introduced in the House on November 12, 2019, 
by Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Titus and referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee, H.R. 
5047 was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
    The Chair discharged the Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management from 
further consideration of H.R. 5047 on November 20, 2019.
    The Committee met in open session to consider H.R. 5047 on 
November 20, 2019 and ordered the measure to be reported to the 
House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment by a 
record vote of 33 yeas and 22 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 10).
    No amendments were offered during consideration of H.R. 
5047.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against.
    The Committee ordered H.R. 5047 to be reported to the House 
of Representatives by record vote of 33 yeas and 22 nays (Roll 
Call Vote No. 10). The vote was as follows:

                    One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 
                         Roll Call Vote No. 10

On ordering H.R. 5047 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, without amendment.
Agreed to: 33 yeas and 22 nays.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Representative                  Yea    Nay               Representative              Yea    Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio, P    Chair......................     X          Mr. Graves of MO, P    Ranking Member            X
Ms. Norton...................................     X          Mr. Young............................
Ms. Johnson of TX............................     X          Mr. Crawford.........................            X
Mr. Larsen of WA.............................     X          Mr. Gibbs............................            X
Mrs. Napolitano..............................     X          Mr. Webster of FL....................
Mr. Lipinski.................................     X          Mr. Massie...........................            X
Mr. Cohen....................................     X          Mr. Meadows..........................            X
Mr. Sires....................................     X          Mr. Perry............................            X
Mr. Garamendi................................     X          Mr. Rodney Davis of IL...............            X
Mr. Johnson of GA............................     X          Mr. Woodall..........................
Mr. Carson of IN.............................                Mr. Katko............................
Ms. Titus....................................     X          Mr. Babin............................            X
Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of NY...............                Mr. Graves of LA.....................
Mr. Huffman..................................                Mr. Rouzer...........................            X
Ms. Brownley of CA...........................     X          Mr. Bost.............................            X
Ms. Wilson of FL.............................     X          Mr. Weber of TX......................            X
Mr. Payne....................................     X          Mr. LaMalfa..........................            X
Mr. Lowenthal................................     X          Mr. Westerman........................
Mr. DeSaulnier...............................     X          Mr. Smucker..........................            X
Ms. Plaskett.................................     X          Mr. Mitchell.........................            X
Mr. Lynch....................................     X          Mr. Mast.............................            X
Mr. Carbajal.................................     X          Mr. Gallagher........................
Mr. Brown of MD..............................     X          Mr. Palmer...........................            X
Mr. Espaillat................................     X          Mr. Fitzpatrick......................
Mr. Malinowski...............................     X          Miss Gonzalez-Colon of PR............            X
Mr. Stanton..................................     X          Mr. Balderson........................            X
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell..........................     X          Mr. Spano............................            X
Mrs. Fletcher................................     X          Mr. Stauber..........................            X
Mr. Allred...................................     X          Mrs. Miller..........................            X
Ms. Davids of KS.............................     X          Mr. Pence............................            X
Ms. Finkenauer...............................     X
Mr. Garcia of IL.............................     X
Mr. Delgado..................................     X
Mr. Pappas...................................
Ms. Craig....................................     X
Mr. Rouda....................................     X
Mr. Lamb.....................................     X
                                                                                                   -------------
                                                             Vote Total:                              33     22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5047 from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, December 19, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5047, the GSA 
Lease Transparency Act of 2019.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    H.R. 5047 would require the General Services Administration 
(GSA) to perform an audit of federal contracts with private 
entities that lease 20 percent or more of a federal building. 
In addition, all future leases with private entities would need 
to include provisions to permit GSA and its inspector general 
to audit those leases.
    Using information from GSA, CBO expects that around 5 to 10 
leases would be audited under H.R. 5047 and that GSA would hire 
accounting firms to conduct those audits. Based on the cost of 
similar audits, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 
cost about $1million over the 2020-2024 period. Any spending 
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to ensure 
the Federal government has received all rent and revenues in 
accordance with the provisions of GSA outleases.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision 
of H.R. 5047 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 5047 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    This section provides that this bill may be cited as the 
``GSA Lease Transparency Act of 2019''.

Sec. 2. Annual audit

    This section directs the Administrator of General Services 
to conduct an annually occurring audit of leases covered by the 
Act within 90 days of enactment. The section also states that 
the audit shall determine whether the Federal government has 
received all rent, revenues, and anything of value due in 
accordance with the provisions of each covered lease. The 
section defines ``covered leases'' as an active lease of space 
in a Federal building in which at least 20 percent of such 
building is leased to any entity pursuant to any provision of 
law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE

SUBTITLE I--FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     CHAPTER 5--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

     * * * * * * *
Sec.

                   SUBCHAPTER VII--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

     * * * * * * *
625. Annual audit of leases.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER VII--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 625. Annual audit of leases

  (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
Administrator of General Services shall complete an audit, in 
compliance with generally accepted government accounting 
standards, of covered leases.
  (b) Content of Audit.--The audit shall determine whether the 
Federal Government has received all rent, revenues, and 
anything of value due in accordance with the provisions of each 
covered lease.
  (c) Submission.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
completion of an audit, the Administrator of General Services 
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the 
audit and a report on such audit.
  (d) Additional Audit Requirement for Leases.--With respect to 
any covered lease that takes effect on or after the date of 
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall require that 
such a lease contains audit rights for the Administrator and 
the Inspector General of the General Services Administration.
  (e) Definition.--In this section, the following definition 
applies:
          (1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means 
        an active lease of space in a Federal building in which 
        at least 20 percent of such building is leased to any 
        entity pursuant to any provision of law, including--
                  (A) section 543;
                  (B) section 581;
                  (C) sections 306121 and 306122 of title 54, 
                United States Code; and
                  (D) Public Law 108-447 (108 Stat. 2809 et 
                seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Committee Republicans oppose H.R. 5047, the GSA 
Transparency Act of 2019, as ordered reported. The bill creates 
new responsibilities for the General Services Administration 
(GSA) outside its core expertise for not only its out-leased 
properties but for those of other agencies. H.R. 5047 burdens 
the GSA without any demonstration for the need, analysis of the 
potential impact on the costs to the taxpayer, nor 
consideration of long-standing bipartisan priorities that 
dictate unused or underused federal real estate assets.

                   OUT-LEASES AND THE OLD POST OFFICE

    Unfortunately, the Majority proposes these government-wide 
leasing changes based on a single, unique out-lease related to 
the redevelopment of the Old Post Office (OPO) in Washington, 
D.C., into the Trump International Hotel. This specific out-
lease was proposed and supported by Democratic Committee 
Members prior to the election of President Donald J. Trump. 
However, during a Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management hearing held on January 28, 
2020, Subcommittee Chair Dina Titus tried to revise history, 
saying ``. . . given the myriad of issues and concerns raised 
by the execution of this lease from the outset, I want us to 
make sure that the GSA and this Committee have a clear 
understanding of the process moving forward and that we are not 
going to be repeating the significant mistakes of the 
past.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Hearing on ``GSA Outleases and the Trump Old Post Office 
Hotel,'' Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
January 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It remains unclear as to why, if there were ``issues or 
concerns'' with the lease from the ``outset,'' the Democratic 
members failed to raise those concerns in 2013 when the 
Committee had 30 days\2\ to review GSA's report, detailing the 
material provisions of the lease.\3\ There is no record of any 
Member objecting to the lease at that time nor requesting GSA 
include lease provisions related to audits as proposed in H.R. 
5047. In fact, contrary to the statements of the Subcommittee 
Chair, Members of the Committee from both sides expressed 
support for the lease.\4\ At the time, GSA officials under the 
Obama Administration that oversaw the process stated that the 
proposal by the Trump Organization was ``a combination of the 
viability of the business plan, the quality of the commitment 
to preserving the asset and a sense that this was the best deal 
on the table for the American taxpayer.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Public Law 110-359, the Old Post Office Redevelopment Act of 
2008, provided a congressional review period consisting of a ``30-day 
period of continuous session of Congress following the date of the 
transmittal of the report . . .''.
    \3\``Report of Material Provisions of the Old Post Office 
Development Agreement Submitted Pursuant to Old Post Office Building 
Redevelopment Act of 2008,'' General Services Administration, June 
2013.
    \4\See, for example, Donald Trump Officially Breaks Ground on Old 
Post Office Hotel: The Project will Cost an Estimated $200 million over 
the next two years, Washingtonian, July 23, 2014.
    \5\A Trump Makeover for Washington's Old Post Office, The New York 
Times, May 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The idea for leasing the OPO, selection of the Trump 
Organization, and execution of the out-lease for redevelopment 
was driven and overseen by Democratic Members and by a 
Democratic Administration. Those involved had sufficient 
information and time to raise objections, questions, concerns--
yet they did not do so.

              COMMITTEE'S OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL REAL ESTATE

    Oversight of the GSA and its management of federal real 
estate is an important part of the Committee's role. And, 
oversight of the OPO redevelopment and other out-leases is 
appropriate. This Committee has had a long history of 
bipartisan work holding GSA and other federal agencies 
accountable for being good stewards of federal real estate 
assets. If there are questions or information needed about a 
particular project or facility for proper oversight, both sides 
have historically worked together to obtain that information 
and, when legislation is needed, worked on a bipartisan basis 
to draft and advance such legislation.
    In addition, when requesting information from GSA, the 
Committee has generally been sensitive to respecting business, 
propriety, and procurement sensitive information. The possible 
release of such information could not only lead to a chilling 
effect reducing competition and increasing costs to the 
taxpayer, but in the case of out-leases, such disclosures could 
harm the revenue and benefits to the federal government and 
American taxpayer. As such, demands for potentially sensitive 
information by the Committee--whether directly or through 
legislation--should be precise, deliberative, and on an as-
needed basis.
    Instead, this Congress, the Democratic Members have made 
sweeping document requests of the GSA related to the OPO and 
other projects producing more than 3,700 documents totaling 
more than 10,000 pages as of January 2020.\6\ Despite GSA's 
responses to document requests, the private investment of $200 
million to revitalize the historic OPO asset, and adherence to 
the rental payments that accrue to the benefit of the 
taxpayers, the Democratic Members have continued to insist that 
they need access to potentially proprietary and business 
sensitive information that, if released, could harm the 
financial interests of the taxpayer. The fact that GSA's offer 
to work with the Committee to accommodate the request to review 
more sensitive information was rejected by Democratic Members, 
raises questions as to the purpose for which the information is 
being requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Testimony of The Honorable Emily W. Murphy, Administrator, U.S. 
General Services Administration, Hearing on GSA Outleases and the Trump 
Old Post Office Hotel, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management, January 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF VACANT AND UNDERUSED FEDERAL PROPERTY

    In 2003, the General Accountability Office (GAO) placed 
real property management on its list of ``high risk'' 
government activities where it remains today. The key reasons 
the GAO identified federal real property as high risk are:
     excess and underutilized real property,
     deteriorating and aging facilities,
     unreliable property data, and
     the over reliance on costly leasing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See High Risk Series: Federal Real Property, U.S. General 
Accountability Office, GAO-03-122, January 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As GAO noted in its 2019 High Risk report, ``. . . federal 
agencies continue to face long-standing challenges, including: 
(1) effectively disposing of excess and underutilized property, 
(2) relying too heavily on leasing, (3) collecting reliable 
real property data for decision making, and (4) protecting 
federal facilities.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\GAO-19-157SP High-Risk Series, p. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even prior to 2003, the Federal Government grappled with 
the issue of empty and unused federal space and how best to 
dispose of or reuse the space. In 1966, for example, the 
National Historic Preservation Act included Sec. 111 which 
allowed and encouraged federal agencies to out-lease unused or 
underused historic federal buildings.\9\ The goal was to ensure 
the preservation of historic buildings by attracting private 
investment, save taxpayer dollars on ongoing maintenance costs, 
and create an attractive asset in the communities where the 
historic building is located.\10\ In 1976, Congress enacted the 
Cooperative Use Act, which provided GSA with the authority to 
lease out space in certain areas of federal buildings to 
attract retail, cultural and other activity.\11\ Congress 
subsequently expanded GSA's authority to enter into out leases, 
first for more targeted projects, such as to redevelop the 
Southeast Federal Center in Washington, D.C., and then expanded 
such authority across GSA facilities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\16 U.S.C. 470h-3.
    \10\See, for example, In a Spirit of Stewardship, A Report on 
Federal Historic Property Management, Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, 2015. See also Report to Accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post 
Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008, Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, Rpt. 110-724.
    \11\ Public Law 94-541.
    \12\See, Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 
2000, Public Law 106-407; see also H. R. 2573, the Public Private 
Partnership Act of 2003, 108th Congress. The core authorities proposed 
by this legislation were ultimately enacted into law in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. H, 
Title IV, Sec.  412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In more recent history, Congress has continued to work on a 
bipartisan basis to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted on 
vacant space. For example, in 2013, the Obama Administration 
issued guidance to ``Freeze the Footprint'' for federal real 
estate.\13\ This was followed with the issuance of policy to 
``Reduce the Footprint.''\14\ The purposes of these policies 
were to ``freeze the Federal Government's real estate footprint 
and restrict the growth of excess or underutilized 
properties.''\15\ These policies along with the corresponding 
National Strategy for Real Property were intended ``to increase 
efficient real property use, control costs, and reduce real 
property holdings.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2013-02, Office of 
Management and Budget, March 14, 2013.
    \14\Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2015+01, March 25, 2015.
    \15\Letter Accompanying the National Strategy for Real Property, 
Dave Mader, Controller, Office of Management and Budget, March 25, 
2015.
    \16\National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property, 2015-
2020, Spring 2015, Office of Management and Budget; Letter Accompanying 
the National Strategy for Real Property, Dave Mader, Controller, Office 
of Management and Budget, March 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, despite these Executive Branch efforts over the 
decades to provide GSA and other federal agencies with 
expansive authority to dispose of, redevelop, or out lease 
space, it has required this Committee's involved to spur 
progress, given the reluctance of federal agencies to dispose 
of or redevelop vacant or underused properties. The Committee 
has acted legislatively and through oversight to push GSA to 
redevelop key assets, revitalize them, and turn them from 
assets losing taxpayer dollars to ones that benefit the 
taxpayer.
    For example, in 2011, both the Obama Administration and 
Republican Members of the Committee proposed significant 
reforms to reduce vacant and underutilized properties.\17\ 
These efforts culminated in the passage of the Federal Assets 
Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) of 2016 which, among other 
things, created the Public Buildings Reform Board to look 
across government and identify unused or underused federal real 
estate to sell, redevelop, or out-lease to reduce waste, lower 
costs, and bring in revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See draft bill transmitted to the Honorable John Boehner, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives by Jacob J. Lew, Director, 
Office of Management and Budget, May 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OPO in Washington, D.C.,--the current location of the 
Trump International Hotel--is a historic building. Yet this 
historic building was never designed for more modern and 
efficient office space.\18\ As a result, the annual operating 
loss for GSA and the taxpayer was $6.1 million.\19\ For more 
than a decade, GSA attempted to revitalize this building by 
out-leasing ground level space for retail and expanding retail 
space through construction of an adjacent pavilion.\20\ All 
attempts failed.\21\ As a result, in 2008, D.C. Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced legislation directing GSA to 
redevelop the OPO.\22\ This legislation was passed by the 
Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by President 
Obama.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See, Historic Buildings, Old Post Office, Washington, DC, 
General Services Administration: https://www.gsa.gov/historic-
buildings/old-post-office-washington-dc.
    \19\Report to Accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building 
Redevelopment Act of 2008, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Rpt. 110-724.
    \20\See Id.
    \21\See Report to accompany H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building 
Redevelopment Act of 2008, Rpt. 110-724.
    \22\H.R. 5001, Old Post Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008, 
110th Congress.
    \23\Public Law 110-359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite passage of this legislation, it was not until the 
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management began holding oversight hearings focused 
on vacant and underutilized federal assets that meaningful 
actions were taken to redevelop the OPO and other assets.\24\ 
Other buildings out-leased and redeveloped as a result of 
Committee action or oversight include the David W. Dyer Federal 
Building and U.S. Courthouse (Miami, FL) and the Spring Street 
Courthouse (Los Angeles, CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\For example, Subcommittee Hearing on ``One Year Later: Still 
Sitting on Our Assets,'' February 9, 2012 at the OPO Annex; 
Subcommittee Hearing on ``Sitting on Our Assets: The Georgetown Heating 
Plant,'' on June 19, 2012 at the Georgetown Heating Plant; Subcommittee 
Hearing on ``Sitting on Our Assets: The Vacant Federal Courthouse in 
Miami,'' on August 6, 2012 at the David W. Dyer Federal Building and 
U.S. Courthouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2011, GSA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 
OPO and in 2012 the Trump Organization was selected as the 
preferred developer, as noted by GSA during a Subcommittee on 
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
Management hearing on February 9, 2012, held in the then-vacant 
Annex of the OPO.\25\ And, as required in the Old Post Office 
Building Redevelopment Act of 2008, in June of 2013, GSA 
submitted to the Committee a Report of Material Provisions of 
the OPO Development Agreement for a 30 congressional day\26\ 
review period and conducted briefings for the Committee prior 
to finalizing the agreement with the Trump Organization.\27\ 
And, as previously noted, no objections or questions were 
raised at that time about audit requirements in the lease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, ``One Year Later: Still Sitting on Our Assets,'' 
February 9, 2012, Hrg Report 112-72, p. 6.
    \26\See footnote 2 supra.
    \27\``Report of Material Provisions of the Old Post Office 
Development Agreement Submitted Pursuant to Old Post Office Building 
Redevelopment Act of 2008,'' General Services Administration, June 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    DEVASTATING IMPACT OF H.R. 5047

    H.R. 5047 would have the potential of stifling the 
bipartisan work of the Committee to encourage the redevelopment 
and reuse of vacant or underused federal real estate assets. 
With the potential of requiring GSA to disclose propriety or 
business sensitive information, potential private sector 
partners may be reluctant to participate in such projects. 
Without evidence indicating that such requirements are 
necessary, enacting such legislation would not be prudent and 
could negatively impact the benefits to the taxpayer of leasing 
government property. H.R. 5047 could also potentially turn away 
GSA resources from managing these complex out-leases--which is 
GSA's statutory purpose--to becoming the federal government's 
auditor of such leases.
    We are disappointed that broad, government-wide legislation 
such as H.R. 5047 is based on a single case rather than on a 
thorough review of its broader impact and need. The 
implications of H.R. 5047 go beyond a single project and 
undermine the precedent that led to the successful 
redevelopment of the OPO and other federal buildings. A review 
of all large out-leases covered by this legislation ought to 
occur prior to crafting and considering such widespread reforms 
so that the implications are fully understood. For these 
reason, Committee Republicans must oppose this legislation but 
look forward to returning to our traditional bipartisan work to 
redeveloping underutilized property for the benefit of the 
taxpayer.

                                   Sam Graves,
                                           Ranking Member.

                                  [all]