The Government Accountability Office’s Assessment of the Federal Buildings Fund
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Access and permeability are great features of an international trade center, which the Reagan Building was designed to fulfill, but not a law enforcement and intelligence agency. An article in the Chicago Tribune published about the building in 1997 noted the very fact. It said, the Reagan Building, quote, will open the standoffish domain of the federal bureaucracy to the city and teach an important lesson to the post-Oklahoma City bombing era when the temptation is to turn all government buildings into impressive fortresses. But the FBI headquarters needs to be impregnable. Even the Reagan Building was not located between two major thoroughfares, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
It still would not meet the interagency security committee facility security level standards. The GSA says it will take at least 1.5 billion dollars to retrofit the building. But anyone familiar with the JSA knows that project. These always cost much more, and the architect of the capital setup would be cheaper to build the fourth building for the house than to relocate members while repairs are being made to Rayburn into the Madison Building. This ill-conceived effort to move the FBI into the Reagan Building is indicative of the dysfunction that exists at GSA.
Director Monroney, I'm gonna be asking you some questions, as I told you I would. And I imagine you share some of these concerns, which are reflected in this report. It should contribute to the management of our federal real estate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 13 seconds, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Tremendous timing today, ranking member, aware. Today, we welcome the testimony of Mister David Maroni, director of physical infrastructure at the United States Government Accountability Office. Mister Maroney, without objection, your full written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in mind, we've asked you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, and members of the subcommittee. I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Buildings Fund and the future of federal property. For more than 20 years, GEO has identified the management of federal property as a high-risk area in need of substantial transformation. The federal government simply has too much space, with much of it in poor condition. The federal buildings fund will play a key role in how effectively this problem is addressed.
As you know, the fund is GSA's sole source of money to manage the buildings under its control. Specifically, GSA collects rent from tenant agencies, deposits it into the building's fund, and uses that money to fund its real property work, subject to appropriations. For the past 15 years, there has been roughly $1,000,000,000 gap each year between the amount GSA has collected in rent and the amount Congress has authorized GSA to spend. That funding constraint has made it more challenging for GSA to pursue large projects, properly maintain its building, and dispose of unneeded properties. There are a variety of actions Congress and the GSA can take to address this funding issue.
For example, terminating unneeded leases and disposing of underused buildings, particularly those in need of large capital investments, would reduce the strain on the Federal Buildings Fund, and could free up money for GSA to properly maintain priority buildings that are being held for the long term. Congress could also consider alternative financing mechanisms for large projects and alternative budget structures. For example, Congress could modify the buildings fund to exclude certain major projects, and instead provide direct appropriations to tenant agencies for those projects. It could also appropriate funds specifically for the upfront cost of properties being prepared for disposal and for consolidating tenant agencies into better maintained and more cost effective spaces. All of these options come with trade-offs.
There is no silver bullet, but they're worth considering. That said, the fundamental issue goes beyond funding. The federal government simply has too big a footprint, and a lot of it is in bad shape. Spending large sums of money to preserve that existing footprint just doesn't make sense. Instead, Congress, GSA, and other agencies need to ensure current efforts to dispose of underused property lead to results, while also ensuring that priority buildings are well maintained for the long term.
This will take an upfront investment of money, but if executed in a sustained and well-planned way, the long-term cost savings could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more, and agencies could end up with better space to carry out their missions. Mister chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Appreciate the quick opening statement, but you covered a lot of issues there. I now recognize myself for the first question. And, you know, you brought up, Mister Maroney, that we talked about GSA's vast portfolio. It includes 285,000 buildings and structures with significant deferred maintenance problems.
It seems this problem just keeps getting worse. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Public Buildings Reform Board issued a report highlighting the real deferred maintenance cost of federal property to be somewhere in the area of $50,000,000,000. These liabilities represent real cost of the federal government to the taxpayer. In your opening statement, you talked about some of the things we can do, but why can't GSA get a handle on the deferred maintenance problem? And do you believe that $50,000,000,000 is the true cost of the deferred maintenance?
Speaker 3
Starting with the second question, first. $50,000,000,000, so we did work on this a few years ago. We found GSAs based on their financial reports to be about 6,000,000,000. Administrator Forest, a few weeks ago, testified it was $26,000,000,000 or more. Public buildings reform board has said 50,000,000,000.
Whatever the specific number, the trajectory is clear. There is a lot of deferred maintenance that is growing significantly. And then in terms of how it is to get a handle on that, there's a couple things driving that. One of these buildings simply haven't been maintained well over decades, over years. Some of that is funding. Some of that is how the process has worked out.
But there's also a significant factor that these buildings are old. The average age of a GSA building is over 50 years. And at that point, you're going to have issues. It's going to be more costly to maintain and repair them. So it's a hard problem to get around.
The key way to get around it right now is to identify those buildings that are both underused and have high liabilities, and prioritize those for disposal. Get them off your books. It's gonna cause too much to give them up to speed, especially if they're underused. There's no reason to keep them.
Speaker 3
So it's gonna depend on the specific property. There can be a market for some properties, particularly in their location. The building itself may not be especially valuable. In other situations, the building may be something that could be redeveloped by the private sector. It's gonna depend.
In some cases, it's not gonna be very valuable, but simply getting it off the books if it's not being used, if you have opportunities to consolidate, would still be worth it long term because the operation and maintenance cost for that building is gonna dwarf the cost of getting rid of it over time.
Speaker 1
In some areas, have properties that are probably worth more than the building. Correct?
Speaker 1
Yes. And so do we have the money for demolition to create the site for sale, or is that something that you're hoping to sell in the market and let the buyer then take on those costs?
Speaker 3
So, again, it would depend on the facts and circumstances. Generally, I think going to the market and seeing what you can get for the property, even if you're selling it as is, with the idea they would demolish it, would be simpler. There may be some situations where demolishing the building could make sense, but you're gonna have to have that upfront funding to demolish, remove the materials, do any remediation, then turn over to whoever buys the location. So generally speaking, it would be simpler if you can sell it on a market, even at a reduced price, to get it off the federal government's books.
Speaker 1
Now when you mention the federal funds, are you also talking about, like, the public service or part public parks that fall under interior? Is that part of the same umbrella?
Speaker 3
I'm speaking about the federal buildings fund specifically. Different agencies have some ability to operate and maintain their own space, but the same problem is consistent across agencies. The overall for the federal government when we did that deferred maintenance report, it had more than doubled the liability since 2017 to about $370,000,000,000. Now that includes the DOD. That is a big chunk of that number, but you can still see it is a large and wrong problem, not with GSA buildings, but across the board.
Speaker 1
But if I heard you correctly in your opening statement, you said that perhaps placing the responsibility upon, say, the courts to maintain their own facilities would be a good idea or a better use of dollars? Is that a or a year?
Speaker 3
We don't have a position on the judiciary proposal to manage its own buildings. I would say I can understand the judiciary's frustration. There are, at times, been issues with maintaining buildings, not just judiciary, across the board with agencies. I would say some things I would think about if I was congress is, would we be duplicating costs by having the judiciary run its own space? Does the judiciary have the expertise?
How much would it cost to have that expertise brought in to manage what is a nationwide portfolio? And then last, I would look at the impact potentially on the federal buildings fund itself. The judiciary is a big portion of that. And if you took that revenue away, you might lose some of the economies of scale that GSA provides. So those are, I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer there, but those are definitely things I think through on that proposal.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I'm getting down on my time, but that's what I was wondering. It's gotta be cost effective when you have the leverage to be able to do this on a greater scale versus independent agencies or departments and taking over the funding of their own buildings, because then.
Speaker 3
That's sort of the thinking behind GSA, right, is that you are consolidating. Now there are agencies that do manage their own property. That does happen, but GSA is there, has the expertise, and it's doing things on a nationwide level, so it has economy.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Again, thank you very much for being here. You're familiar with this report?
Speaker 2
GSA is not consistently addressing deficient security fixtures at GSA-controlled facilities.
Speaker 2
As you heard from my opening statement, I'm very concerned about the proposals regarding the federal bureau investigation. You're familiar with the state of that building, I take it?
Speaker 2
It's decrepit. Right. Now let me ask you a question with respect to GSA's, focus on security. Much of this I don't know about this rep, yeah. Much of this report is redacted.
Is redacted just so you don't really know what's happening. It's a good report, a pretty long report, about 30 pages, but most of it's redacted. The security concerns were the reason Robert Mueller came in to me after the Murrah Building in 1995 was destroyed by a single person and a stepman. And I've talked to most members of the committee about this. And this report says that GSA is really not looking at the security concerns, essentially sufficiently.
Let's put it sufficiently. In your experience, would the Reagan Building be difficult to make secure, consistent with federal standards.
Speaker 3
It would certainly require a large investment of funds. It was built to be a public facing open building, so you would have to invest a substantial amount of money to make it secure.
Speaker 2
Can you cite any instances of retrofitting, which is proposed, any building to meet level five projection? Do we have any experience with that?
Speaker 3
I'm not aware of any. I can come back to your record for sure, but I'm not aware of any.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Do you have any accounting on how much it typically costs to get to the prospectus stage of a project?
Speaker 3
In terms of the cost or the time? Yeah. So the time is 19 to 24 months, generally, from when a prospectus is submitted to get to the end. The cost depends on the project. It's anything above 4,000,000, basically, that has to go through that process.
$44,000,000 has to go through the process.
Speaker 2
And we have I'm hopeful that we will ask before they move forward to give us an estimate of what the cost will be and how they will reach, if in fact they can reach, the security five levels. Do you think that's a rational thing to do?
Speaker 2
With respect to the staffing responsibilities and managing the portfolio that you deal with. The reduction often moves faster than the efforts to sell buildings or reduce lease space. I agree with you. And by the way, one of the prime sites in Washington is the FBI building on Pennsylvania Avenue. So there will be an offsetting income from the sale of that.
And the chairman mentioned the property itself, not the building, because the building's gone. But the property itself is a very valuable property, which would be an asset for the federal government. And in your testimony, you said selling those would make sense.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I'm gonna stop with that. I may want to ask some other questions in the second round, but I'll stop now.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking member for holding this hearing. Mister Ramani, it's good to see you again, and thank you so much for being here to answer our questions. And I think we had a good conversation about the federal portfolio last year. Look forward to building on that here today.
And, when you look at what the GIO identified since 2003 as a high risk, of course, with retaining underused space and the cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars a year, the significant solution is to get rid of as many underutilized assets as possible. But I'm hearing some pushback from agencies that are saying, you know, they're continuing to have to pay leases on these underutilized spaces, even if they don't have staff there, but they're running into some barriers. And in your testimony, you highlight GSA reporting that some of the uncertain funding has resulted in missed opportunities to eliminate leases. So can you explain how funding is directly tied to the ability to terminate leases?
Speaker 3
Yeah. So, first, anytime you terminate a lease, you have to relocate the folks who are in that space to a new location. There are moving costs. You have to return the space in a certain condition, so there's a cost to do that as well. And depending on the term of the lease, if you're in the soft term, which is after a certain number of years, you are able to terminate the lease under certain conditions, but more easily.
If it's in the firm term, which is typically the first several years of a lease, that is much more challenging and can incur additional costs. So just terminating a lease requires having a plan for what you're going to do with the staff who are there.
Speaker 5
What are the shortest term leases that we're signing versus, I mean, is it as simple as a couple of months all the way up to twenty years? What are the length of these.
Speaker 3
So normal lease is about ten years. You have some that are shorter. You might have some that are longer. The longer you're getting, the trickier it might be in terms of funding. At that point, you should be asking, should we be in our own space if you're going for significant long points of time.
Speaker 5
So do early lease termination costs play into the recommendations here in terms of how it's been recommended for GSA to run the cost comparisons of terminating leases compared to, like, you were talking about just paying out the full lease term. Right. Whether it's ten or twenty, or however long.
Speaker 3
That should be part of your analysis. Do we gain from terminating this lease or not? And do we have a plan for where we're gonna put those staff? And when you compare the costs, does it pencil out as a net benefit or not?
Speaker 5
How much is that actually happening right now in terms of running these numbers? I mean, is that an active process? I mean, can you get us numbers on how often this is happening?
Speaker 3
So I do believe that is part of the normal process that GSA is to follow. I do not know right now how to the extent that process is being followed, but that's the norm is they do try and pencil out the benefits versus the costs.
Speaker 5
Okay. Can you share maybe some of GAO's other recommendations to specifically address the barriers to terminating leases for some of these spaces, outside of that regular, I guess, you'd say, list checklist that you're kinda going through right now.
Speaker 3
Right. So what you need to do is for your portfolio overall, for whatever agency you're speaking about, you need to understand what are my needs, what are my space needs, and what space do I have now, and is it meeting that need, or do I have too much? And then going through this, you have to have some strategy. Going through and looking at, okay. I have too much space in, you know, Dubuque.
And, I can consolidate these two leases into a single location and save money, and it's worth it because the cost of moving is less than that. But you really need to look at it at a strategic level, plan it out, and make sure you have that funding to carry through your plans with both the lease side and any owned space.
Speaker 5
Okay. I'll have some more questions on security, but I don't want to dive into that. So we'll get into that in round two. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Speaker 6
Mister chairman. Appreciate it. And, mister Maroney, thank you for being here for the second year in a row at a public hearing. I hope everyone that has oversight under this committee follows your lead and is here for public hearings every year. Appreciate that.
I'm sure you know that GSA has marked the historic William J. Cohen Federal Building as a candidate for accelerated disposal, making it available for sale and vulnerable to demolition. This building has been referred to by New Deal art historians as the Sistine Chapel of New Deal art. It's listed in the National Historic Register of Historic Places and has one of the most significant collections of New Deal era public art in the United States. Because so much of this artwork is integrated into the architecture of the building, there's significant concerns that improper redevelopment or demolition could result in the permanent loss of a major piece of American cultural history.
So, I guess the question I have is what actions can the GAO take and what have they recommended Congress take to ensure that all federally owned assets, including artwork integrated into buildings like the Cohen Building, are adequately inventoried, protected, and considered before any sale or disposal happens.
Speaker 3
So we haven't done direct work on that topic, but what I can say is, GSA does have as part of historic preservation screening, they are supposed to identify art. That's part of that, and they can include requirements in property sales that require the protection and preservation of the art. Now I can't say the process that's being followed right now, but I can say that it is the standard. I would say just in general, real property data overall is typically flawed. And it wouldn't surprise me if art is as flawed, because it actually can be moved.
So it's actually trickier. A summit least art can be moved, and so it's trickier to keep track of. So it is a concern. What's the data? Do we know what's where and how we're preserving it?
Speaker 6
Yeah. And this building in particular, I think it's integrated into the building, much of it. And I know that last April, Doge forced most of the GSA's fine art historic preservation staff on administrative leave. Do you know if any of those folks are back to do some of the work?
Speaker 3
I don't know if they're back, but that would also be a concern. Need the staff obviously to track it.
Speaker 6
If you could get back to us on some of that, I would really appreciate it because I know there's a lot of concern who would like to preserve what's in that building. This question wasn't something my staff gave me, so I'm gonna apologize in front as I ask this. But do you have oversight at all over the White House? I mean, I think loosely you do the GAO. My question specifically is around the ballroom.
I know that it's funded, allegedly by private donations, but I believe the ongoing costs of maintenance and security would still be our costs. Is that correct?
Speaker 6
Would this be under a GAO that could do a paper on this to get back to us on the other costs?
Speaker 6
That'd be appreciated. Just because if there are a lot of costs that maybe aren't anticipated because it's a ballroom now instead of the swing of the capital, certainly would be important for us to know, because I could see different security and maintenance concerns with that. So then the last question I had is around the HUD Building, which is being relocated to Virginia. I know there are some concerns around the law where it, I think the Hudd act of 1968 said that the department had to be at the seat of government, which, according to US code, says the seat of government should be exercised in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere. And that this, by being relocated to Virginia, there's a question of whether this follows the law and how it's being paid for and whether there's any risk of appropriate funds perhaps being misused or congress not being properly informed.
Can you give me any background on this? So what I can say is we.
Speaker 3
Have just started up work in the past month on a request from Senate Appropriations to look at the HUD headquarters relocation, including some of those legal issues you meant. So we don't have answers on that yet, but it is something we're taking a look at. In terms of the process followed, there are processes for relocations, so we'll be able to have information on that soon.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Cook Pokan. Chair now recognize Mr. Edwards for any questions he may have.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for being with us. This is a very interesting topic that most of us here in congress have an interest in. Can you tell me where we begin? I think we certainly agree on the problem.
Is there some prioritized list that we go to work on after this hearing? Or where do we start? Give us a little bit of perspective.
Speaker 3
So GSA has, over the past several years, developed a list of core assets, what they consider to be the keyholds, the properties you would want to maintain. They've also identified and have started to post properties for accelerated disposal, ones that they've determined are either underused, have high deferred maintenance liabilities, or both. So GSA has done some of the accounting. I'm not sure if they've done it across the entire portfolio, but there is some sense of the properties that have the highest, there's certainly they certainly know which properties have the highest deferred maintenance liabilities. And under the Use It Act, which was passed last year, we should have, in a few days, utilization data for all federal leased and owned space, which will give a sense of how they're being used.
Speaker 4
I appreciate that you brought up the use it or lose it act and the full act. I'm the guy that wrote those and got those incorporated. I'm, one of my next questions was where are those reports? It sounds like, they're on their way.
Speaker 3
That is a good question. Our understanding is they're supposed to come on March 31. We are waiting for them as well.
Speaker 4
Who has the authority to make decisions to divest of real estate assets that are underused?
Speaker 3
So the agency itself that has the property first makes the determination of we don't need this. And then depending on some agencies have the authority to begin that process on their own. But generally speaking, they'll go to GSA and say we don't need this property, and then GSA takes over with the actual disposal.
Speaker 4
So my math tells me there are about 440 or so agencies. So what I think I hear you saying is it's up to about 440 agencies, bureaucracies, to make the decision whether or not to divest of the property that they're holding offices in right now.
Speaker 3
And that has, to a certain extent, been the case until recently under the Use It Act, that there are requirements for OMB and GSA if agency space is under 60% utilized, to take steps to reduce the space. And so I would say, in the past, that would have been more true. I think now GSA and OMV have a larger role in helping to identify properties to remove and under the use it act, call for action for them to be disposed of. So it's a little, you still have the individual agencies defining their requirements and what they need, but I think GSA and OMB have a larger role now in looking from above at not just GSA-owned space, but federal real property in general.
Speaker 4
Is there a strategy to move agencies outside of DC? I'm not talking about Virginia or Maryland. I'm talking about Ohio, Nebraska, North Carolina, where maybe labor markets are a bit easier to recruit from and where real estate costs are far less than they are right here in DC.
Speaker 3
So I know there have been efforts in the past. USDA, in particular, comes to mind, a couple of the sub agencies there, but there have been other relocations as well. In terms of real property, I think it's an important consideration when you consider relocations. It's not the main one. The main one would be getting where does it make sense to have the people do the work depending on what the work they're doing.
But there certainly could be potential real property savings depending on where in the country you moved. It would be a consideration. I just don't think it would be the largest driver of a relocation.
Speaker 4
Does your inventory of underutilized properties include properties outside of the District of Columbia?
Speaker 3
It will now. So that was the problem. When we looked at this in 2023, first off, there wasn't good utilization data anywhere. We had to limit our study to headquarters buildings because at least in DC, we could get some data there. But once you got outside of it, very limited information.
Under the USE OF Act, now all federally owned and leased space, whether in DC or in Alaska, has to be monitored for utilization, reported publicly, and then GSA, OMB, and the agencies need to take action based on those numbers.
Speaker 1
You, Mister Edwards. Chair now recognizes Mister Ivy for his five minutes of question.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for being here today. I wanted to follow-up a little bit on the courthouse piece, the judiciary piece, and get some guidance from you on that. I'm guessing sale of courthouses wouldn't be an available option in the same way that, say, the FBI building might be. Given that, what sorts of strategies are there to try to catch up with?
I'm looking at 8,300,000,000.0 repair backlog apparently for the courts. What's the strategy for addressing that? And just out of curiosity, what are some of the courthouses that are in the absolute worst condition?
Speaker 3
So first off, there is some potential for sales. They have sold some courthouses, it obviously requires building a new courthouse. So you're making a major capital investment to get to that place. For the others that are in not ideal state of repair, the process is targeting prioritizing. Right?
There are more courthouses that need repairs than there is money to fund them. And so it's prioritizing which are in the worst shape. And then for those that are in the absolute worst shape, considering does this location still meet our needs? Can we get appropriated funding and other alternatives to manage this space? In terms of specific courthouses that are particularly in poor condition, I don't have those at the top of my head, but we can get you some examples.
Speaker 7
Alright. And one quick question along those lines, and this is just from my memory. But I recall, I don't know, I think it was like ABC, probably 20 years ago, did a series of reports on, I'll call them boondoggle courthouses that was sort of pointing out that there were very, you know, extravagant expenditures to build some of these courthouses, and some of them really are extremely impressive structures. How did we have a scenario where we have courthouses run down into the ground, where people are getting trapped on elevators, and, you know, you've got mold and Legionnaires' disease. And at the same time, you're building, you know, courthouses that are, you know, architectural masterpieces, I suppose, but very expensive.
Speaker 3
So a lot of it comes down to age and the needs of that courthouse. Older court, there are a lot of older courthouses that, one, sometimes don't meet space needs anymore. The court has grown in those locations, but the building hasn't expanded. And they're old, and either they haven't been properly maintained over time or they're just at the end of their useful lives, in which case it does make sense to consider building a new location. Now in terms of the quality of the newer facilities, facilities are going to be nicer.
There is a design guide that the judiciary uses in coordination with the GSA to say what can and cannot be included in those spaces, which is an important tool. We've done some recent work on that and suggested some changes to make it more cost effective. But generally speaking, the newer courthouses are gonna be nicer because you'll be starting fresh as opposed to these other courthouses that either through age or not enough maintenance over time have degraded.
Speaker 7
Alright. And then I guess there are some agencies and departments where GSA plays a role in helping with the property management piece, and there are others where you don't. Which category does DHS fall in?
Speaker 3
They can be involved in leases. I'm not sure if DHS has independent leasing authority or not, which would mean they could lease their own space, but I believe they are involved in DHS leases to a degree.
Speaker 7
Yeah. If you could get back to me on that. We've got a facility where there's at least rumors that ICE wants to rent a facility in Hyattsville, in my district. I'd be curious as whether I should be coming to you or going to DHS about that. And then with respect to some of the facilities, the detention facilities that they built, and that, you know, Alcatraz comes to mind.
I don't know if that's in your purview or not. But the question I had there was there are reports that, you know, CECL was not the competition in contracting yet was not followed in construction of those facilities. And so you have, in some instances, allegedly, really high expenditures for what looks to me like tents and fences, relatively inexpensive materials that were built. Is that under GSA purview or no?
Speaker 3
So I don't know if it is or not. It's not under our GO's purview. GSA may be involved, but DHS does have some independent leasing authority. Like, for instance, the ICE Center, as you mentioned, I believe there, ICE has the authority to lease those locations. GSA has been helping them find locations, but I don't believe they've been the ones actually doing the leases themselves.
I'm not as familiar with Alligator Alley and what they might have done with that process.
Speaker 7
Fair enough. But in the general procurement process for construction and new facilities, CICA is the standard that is followed. Is that a fair statement?
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. And I'll recognize Mister Alfred for his five minutes' questions.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Chairman Joyce and Ranking Member Hoyer. The federal government owns and manages a massive real estate portfolio, hundreds of millions of square feet of space across the nation, yet we still struggle to answer some very basic questions about what we own, where it is, how it's being used, and that's a problem. GEO has kept federal real property on its high-risk list for more than two decades, pointing to persistent issues with rate, waste, utilization, and poor data management. At the same time, we're facing a growing deferred maintenance backlog that could be as high as $50,000,000,000, while many federal buildings sit partially empty or. We cannot manage what we cannot measure, and one of the core challenges here is the lack of unified, reliable, and accessible inventory of federal property. Instead, the federal government operates more than 100 separate real property systems across agencies, creating fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency.
I think that's unacceptable for the taxpayers. Tools like the Federal Real Property Profile have the potential to bring transparency and accountability to the system, but only if the data is complete, accessible, and usable. That includes making sure it's geo-enabled, integrated across agencies, and capable of giving members of Congress and the public a clear picture of federal assets in their communities. This is not just about data. It's about making smarter decisions, disposing of unused property, reducing maintenance costs, and making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently.
Thank you for being here. It's been a year since we spoke. What has changed in the last year? Can you give us an update? What have been some of the accomplishments, in one year's time?
Speaker 3
So I'd say the progress of the use is act. We still have to see the data and how good it is, but actually getting some indication, some indicators of how owned and leased space across the country is being used, is an important first step to then deciding what is worth holding on to, what should be consolidated and gotten rid of. So that's progress. There have been some property disposals, including just this past week, the regional office building in Southwest being disposed of. So there is progress there.
And I'd say, there's still more to be done, because at the end of the day, these are not easy things to do. They take money and time. But the key is for the momentum that has been building for the past several years to right-size the real property footprint that has carried through to results. My main concern is that the action continues because it's easy to get in a situation where there are delays, where time passes on, and properties are not actually disposed of, they're held onto. So I think there's been good progress the past several years.
It's important to sustain that, and move forward with the new data.
Speaker 8
What challenge is it trying to predict in the person labor force at these buildings?
Speaker 3
Yeah. So it depends on the size and the location of the building. In sort of these big headquarters buildings in DC, using badging data has become, is relatively straightforward in most cases to track attendance and also for purposes of utilization using that information to figure out. Once you get into the field, into smaller spaces, again, you're talking an office building in a downtown, that's relatively straightforward. Again, badging, but smaller spaces can be challenging.
But GSA has identified a number of ways you can do that, from everything from computer logins to surveys to check-ins. Just, again, the point is not for the data to be perfect. The point is to get a sense of where these buildings generally are in terms of the utilization, and then you can drill down for the ones that are at a low number and figure out what's going on here, should we get rid of this space.
Speaker 8
I noticed one of the challenges in this report is that agencies don't want to share the space. Why is that?
Speaker 3
Cultural reticence is thrown out acceptable, but it is a mindset in some cases where this is my space. This defines the agents I am. Other agencies do. Other aid like, for instance, at GO, Army Corps of Engineers headquarters is at GO Building. Agencies can share space.
Some agencies can share space. It's just a change in mindset.
Speaker 8
One of the agencies I'm particularly concerned with is the USDA. I know they're moving some of their offices to Kansas City. They're looking at property. I think I've already made some contracts on leases in Kansas City proper. I talked with the undersecretary about that when we were in Saint Louis at the USDA building there.
USDA Building, one of the buildings is up for sale here in Washington, DC. How is that sale going?
Speaker 3
So I don't know how the sale is going. We don't have the current information. I know it is up for sale, and that will be a major property based on its location for GSA to market. I don't know the current status.
Speaker 8
Is it reasonable to think that that building is dilapidated as it is, with windows rotting out, that it would be torn down or revitalized for some other purpose?
Speaker 9
5 minutes. Thank you. I was interested in the South Building of the USDA also. I kinda wanna get your thoughts on the government's decision to sell it rather than retain it. Is it possible that you can get the reasonable asking price considering the overdue maintenance and the condition that it's in?
Does GSA typically take into account the unique and desirable location? Like, in this case, it's proximity to the National Mall and other federal buildings. Do they take that into consideration when deciding to permanently relinquish holdings? They and if, for example, the next administration decides to bring USDA workers back to the region, how would selling the property impact future efforts to provide space for those that may come back?
Speaker 3
Well, if you do relocate staff back to DC, obviously, if you don't have the building anymore, that's going to be a challenge. You're gonna have to find another solution somewhere in the area, whether owned or leased. But it is a large workforce. So if you made the move back, it would take an investment of funds and some time.
Speaker 9
Obviously, maintaining a building that is not occupied, not getting full use, is expensive. So I understand the balancing that has to take place. However, when we are relocating workers, it would seem to me that we ought to consider renovating and utilizing space that we have rather than building new space if it's at all possible. And, of course, that's an excellent location. It's a very prominent location, and it's historic.
And, of course, the Department of Agriculture, I think, is the oldest federal agency that we have, and its position on them all probably should be maintained. So I'm sad to see the disposition of the South Building. Unfortunately, the main building is still going to be there, but, I'm just wondering whether or not, we're being penny wise and pound foolish with all of the selling, the sales of, all of these federal properties.
Speaker 3
So you need to have a plan. It has to be disposing of properties in a timely manner is important, and it's been a problem for a long time that disposals take forever. But you still have to balance it with appropriate planning. What's our strategy for this agency? What do they need?
And what is the condition of the facility we have versus other space we could either build or more likely lease? And that really should go on across all the agencies for all their portfolios, including the USDA.
Speaker 9
K. So how are you going to be able to deal with the deferred maintenance that has been in effect for such a long time? Because I know there are many more properties than just the ones that are up for sale. All of them seem to be suffering from deferred maintenance. How are you going to address that, in the near term?
So it's a.
Speaker 3
Big problem. In the near term, there may not be a perfect solution. I'd say in the near term, it's about prioritizing GSA using facility condition assessments of the buildings they control to identify what are the highest priority items, which are the buildings in the worst state of repair that we intend to keep, and investing the money in there. For facilities where the liability is so high, particularly those where they're already underused, taking penciling it out and say, does it make sense for us to hold this building, or should we dispose of it, getting it down the pipeline? The other actions you can take are you can Congress could provide more funding, I don't think at the end of the day, funding is going to fundamentally solve this problem.
We have a lot of old, aging buildings that have large liabilities. So some of it can be improved. Annual maintenance can be improved in these buildings with more funding, but the fundamental dynamic of older, underutilized buildings is still there.
Speaker 9
Sometimes the tenants don't get the best value for that dollar. Mhmm. I can speak to that personally. I had a congressional office that was located in a GSA controlled building, one of the federal courthouses, and it was not very well maintained. And, of course, we found it much more economical and beneficial to locate to private.
Speaker 3
property. One, that's an example of the calculus that agencies should be making, just like your office did. Is it to our benefit to be in this location or not? In terms of, is the property being maintained sufficiently? I think it points to the problem of, there is only so many resources to go around.
These buildings are old and aging, and you can prioritize maintenance to improve certain facilities. And certainly for the assets you plan to hold for the long term, those are the facilities to invest in and to consolidate in. Other properties, they've passed their useful lives. It would be more efficient to either go into other own states, consolidate into other federally owned space, or to lease in those conditions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Obviously, with the interest that's been shown, we wanna continue on and go to a second round. I wanna talk about something that you had brought up before, I believe, to Miss Henson's question. And do we have, when you said there were different variations of five to ten and twenty year lease, do we do that in a way that it's a lease to own or a turnkey operation?
Speaker 3
So there have been some examples of that where there is a lease owned. Like, for instance, the Department of Transportation headquarters building. Yes. That started out as a leased facility, then, the federal government exercises option to buy. So it's now a federally owned property.
So it does happen. It's not all the time.
Speaker 1
It's not something you look for. They're trying to turn over our inventory, sell off the other things, and get new buildings.
Speaker 3
I mean, you could, that could be one of the tools in your toolbox. It's not the only tool in your toolbox, but one could be, so the advantage potentially of a lease to own option would be that space might have been better maintained because your lease payment, your rent payment, is covering the operations. Maintenance is being maintained by a private sector company that there are contract requirements for. So when you're buying it, you have been renting it, so you have a very good sense of the product you're getting. And it might have been better maintained than, say, an owned federal facility.
The downside is you've made all those lease payments over the years, and so it may not pencil out depending on when you get to it. You also have to have the funding to actually purchase it at that point, and it can be a big cost. So there are trade-offs.
Speaker 1
Mhmm. Speaking of trade offs, now do you do an assessment of the, you're basically triaging old buildings. So do you do an assessment of whether it's worth the dollars to fix the old building, or you trying to move around maintenance dollars to, say, keep those that you can in habitable or the best condition and start to write off those ones that are beyond repair?
Speaker 3
Or so GSA certainly does. GSA certainly does. With limited funds, they do those kinds of condition assessments for the buildings. They look at how those are being used, which properties are long term holds that you would want to invest the most resources in, and which properties are not long term holds, properties you're probably gonna dispose of. You'd still need to do, there's still a, you can't just leave a building by itself.
You still have to maintain it, to use it to make it operational, but you're probably not gonna do major renovations if you're planning to get rid of the building.
Speaker 1
And you were talking about the consolidation of putting two agencies in one building. Some don't like it. I know everybody's involved in the turf work. The theory has to be, who cares? You know, it's our taxpayer money, and these people need to understand consolidation and fix the problems that we have, instead of having a half-used building just because of egos.
So in that light, has there been an assessment done on, you know, space necessary and consolidation?
Speaker 3
So they're under the use it act for all the headquarters locations in the National Capital Region. GSA and OMB are supposed to provide a report in days, that is identifying plans for those buildings in terms of what are some consolidation opportunities, what are buildings we would hold as a federal government. And I think that's important because there are reasons why agencies might need their own space. If they have a special national security mission, specific functions where you need your own space. But if you're doing general office work, you can have your own floor.
Right? You can have your own designated space where it's still your agency, but you're in the building. And quite frankly, once you get outside the National Capital Region, this is how federal buildings operate. You don't have, generally speaking, single-tenant federal office buildings in downtowns across the country. You have EPAs there and OPMs there, and whatever other agencies you can think of are in the same building, just these delineated offices.
Speaker 1
I love that concept because I don't think they all have to be consolidated here. With my time on Interior, we moved Bureau of Land Management out to Grand Junction, Colorado, because all the people out West who used the BLM the most were flying into DC for no valid reason other than coming to DC because they didn't want to give up their space here, even though they serve people majority, 90 some percent of their work is out West. Unfortunately, last administration then, you know, went gave up that lease and moved them back here when it was over. But I've always been a fan of the idea that we're going to take these back. The Department of Agriculture doesn't necessarily need to be in DC.
The different agencies that could move outside and be a boom to other areas of our country and make it a better facility by doing that, because as brought up before too, some of the costs are gonna be less expensive to be in Washington DC. But, let's get back to yours. Got one last one I try to squeeze in here. You talk about some of these buildings that need to be torn down. What can we do to help you?
And what problems are you seeing out there? Is it a zoning issue? Is it a local issue that you're having a problem with trying to do the destruction to get the property necessary for resale?
Speaker 3
Well, so it would depend on GSA's evaluation of individual properties. So in general, they are not demolishing at least large-scale buildings. You might have smaller, you know, very small structures that they're demolishing. There could be some locations where they determine that’s worthwhile. I think the challenges they would run into are cost, right, having the funding.
It takes upfront funding to do that. So having the money to demolish it. There would certainly be environmental concerns. Environment they have to go through an environmental remediation process potentially, historic preservation depending on the quality of the building. So there are some hurdles there that you go through as part of that process.
Generally speaking, GSA is not demolishing these larger buildings. They are putting them for sale, and then it's a matter of what's the price that the market will take it on without demolishing it, for that location. And, also, penciling out, does it make more sense for the federal government just to sell it at a lower price than to spend the money to demolish and then sell?
Speaker 1
Where do those funds go? They go back to you for the maintenance, or do they go back to the treasury?
Speaker 3
So if a property is sold? Yes. So the proceeds, let me say that, for it depends on the location. Generally, funds go back to the treasury, but some agencies have retained authority to retain the funds. I'm not sure in GSA's case if they go back to the federal building fund or not.
Do we know? We can follow up on that one.
Speaker 1
No worries. Thank you. I apologize for going over. Now recognize Mr. Hoyer for his questions.
Speaker 2
No apologies necessary. The chairman ought to have the opportunity to do that. Let me ask you a question. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of federal employees work outside the Washington DC area. Can you tell me the percentage of space that the federal government owns that is outside the Washington DC area as opposed to in?
Speaker 3
So I know when we did our review of the 24 CFO Act Agency headquarters, which is not all the space in DC, but it was north of 20,000,000 square feet. And then overall, for GSA alone, GSA has north of 350,000,000 square feet. And then the federal government beyond that has even more.
Speaker 2
Let me make sure I understand. 20,000,000 in the Washington Metropolitan.
Speaker 3
For the 24 CFO Act agency headquarters. Quarters. So that's a lower number than is the reality, because you have other headquarters here beyond that. What do you estimate?
Speaker 3
Well, it's 360,000,000 overall for GSA, owned and leased. Then you have 20,000,000 or so that is in the DC area for just those 24 headquarters agencies. There's gonna be more space because it's more than just the headquarters in DC. That number is low. But if you're just looking at that math, and then that 360 is just the GSA.
So you're not talking about all the other agencies that have real property that they own and control. So you are looking at a large infrastructure outside of the national capital.
Speaker 2
Me a ballpark, but an educated estimate. Are we talking seven, eight, to one?
Speaker 3
Let me get back to you. I won't want to give you a wrong number, but it's a significant difference. There'd be a lot outside of DC, especially if you're considering the DOD and other structures. That just is gonna be significant.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Mister chairman, I would like to, at this time, ask that this report be included in the record. The GSA is not consistently addressing deficient security fixtures of the GSA control. And I'd like to include two articles as well, with reference to the underlying report. Absolutely.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've done that. The use it act, is that what you're referring to? The use it act?
Speaker 3
Yes. Exactly. It was part of the Water Resources and Development Act last.
Speaker 2
Year. Who signed that bill? President Biden. President Biden signed that bill.
Speaker 2
And I think we all voted for the bill. It was pretty unanimous, I think. It.
Speaker 2
It's a smart thing to do. Again, I reiterate, mister chairman, as you know, I've said in terms of numbers, employees, I represent 77,000. But I tell them as well. I tell the unions. I tell them, what I want is the right size, not a more or less, but the right size.
So do you have any, which is a related issue, recommendation on what you started your testimony with? Because I know I spent a lot of time talking to the former director of GSA under President Biden about some funding mechanism which will assure both the ability to construct needed buildings and to maintain buildings. Every government at every level and every household in America defers maintenance until the roof goes, and then they have to pay more. And that's what we do. It's just everybody does it, because why?
It doesn't have a today effect. And so you said, well, we'll do that next year. And I would like you to submit to the committee your opinion on what the best you mentioned in your testimony, the best way to prepare ourselves to fund and implement maintenance and building in the most efficient way possible. And, let me say, I'm a strong supporter of the use of it. And I frankly, I went to some buildings which had very small numbers of people in it, I thought to myself, you know, what's going on here?
And, we ought to make sure that we have space available and some swing space available, but not so much that it's not utilized, and it's just gathering dust. So I'm a strong supporter of that, and look forward to getting your recommendations on how best to do that.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. Now recognize Miss Henson.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned I wanted to kinda follow-up on some security questions, and specific to you too, and I'm also looking forward to seeing what comes out of these use it reports and seeing where we can find government agencies that collaborate. To our ranking member's point, make sure we're utilizing all of that space effectively. It's about, obviously, getting these people back into the office, making sure they're working collaboratively as we discussed in our hearing yesterday, and making sure that we have the proper, utilized space in our federal buildings. But so when we're talking about not just using both federal agencies but potentially private sector partnerships as well, for some of that space and local entities.
Have you considered, at GAO, some of the potential security concerns with maybe some of those proposals, costs with the shared property, if we do engage with the private sector or some of those other local entities?
Speaker 3
So as a consideration, you would definitely have to work it out as part of the agreement, being very clear in your contract who's responsible for what, including security and ensuring you have an appropriate level of security.
Speaker 3
So this is something GSA would take into account as they're going through those arrangements.
Speaker 5
Are there certain agencies that you think would be better suited for those kinds of public-private partnerships in terms of the space, or do you think it applies universally?
Speaker 3
Don't think it applies universally. I think it depends on the mission of the specific agency and the sub-agencies you're talking about. And even within, for instance, DOD, which obviously has a national security mission, there may be aspects within its offices that could share space and others where you definitely wouldn't want.
Speaker 5
It does the interest of protecting national security. Obviously, we need to be very careful about who we're partnering with and who could potentially access that leased space. And I certainly agree there. We have to do everything we can to make sure, again, it applies to the right agencies. From your testimony, it seems, though, that this is something, you know, in terms of the proposals for potentially sharing space with the private sector that GAO has been considering for more than a decade, I think since 2014. So, have you heard from GSA on why they have not more aggressively pursued this?
Do you think it goes back to what you said earlier, I think, in response to Mr. Alford's question of, well, this is a turf battle. Right? And these agencies want to protect their own turf. Where do you think that lies?
Speaker 3
I don't think it's a turf battle when it comes to GSA. They have tried some of these alternative financing mechanisms in the past. There are some limited examples. I think it's a challenge. Figuring out the funding piece, figuring out the scorekeeping piece of this. Mhmm.
Can be a challenge, too. So I think these are still mechanisms worth exploring, GSA should. But it's gonna depend again on the facts and circumstances, and find the right private sector partner in the right location. So it's one of those things they should have their ears open to. I suspect they do have their ears open to it, but it's not gonna work in every situation.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Miss Henson. Now recognize Mister Ivy for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious based on some of the questions and answers from a moment ago. So I know in the private sector, after the move towards remote work, there were a lot of private sector companies that decided to stay on that track. And they brought a lot of people back to work, but some, you know, 25 to 35% of their employees frequently work remotely. And I know one of the reasons they did that was because they could reduce the size of the office space that they needed.
And so from a private sector standpoint, they thought that they could get savings from remote work. Now I don't wanna get into a debate about, you know, what's more efficient or not. You know, I think, generally speaking, I pick Microsoft over the federal government, but we'll set that aside for the moment. But is that something that's calculated in? Because my recollection was that there were some buildings that were federal buildings that were being built moving towards moving away from the concept of every employee has an office of his or her own to shared office space or, what was it called?
A hotel? Mhmm. Hotel. Yeah. Where's the status of that now and how the federal government is making these decisions?
Speaker 3
So it's always a consideration of how you do desk sharing, hoteling, that is an important tool to get to the utilization rates required under the use of that act, especially for staff who, even if they're coming in every day, some people's jobs are not in that building every day. And so you don't need to have that one person if they're in one day a week because they're on site four days. You don't need to have them have their own office. You can share it across, folks. So those still make sense now.
They make more sense when you have a higher level of telework, because then you have a larger opportunity to do that type of desk sharing. But it still makes sense today, even with a return to office framework, because, again, many workers are not in that location every day based on their jobs. Even if they're in office, their office might be a construction site, a testing site, things like that.
Speaker 7
Well, I just thinking it through, and, you know, I I'm not even sure what my final position on this would be. But it does occur to me that there's a fluctuation right now in you have sort of political considerations or policy judgments, not to be judgmental about it, but about whether people should be back in the office or not. But then you make relatively long-term decisions that are not susceptible to this policy choice about how many offices you're gonna have per individual employee. And so how do you balance that out? That's why you get paid the big bucks.
Speaker 3
Right. It is challenging for GSA to do that. For any agency that has real property to do that, you're making decisions based on the policy you have at the time you're making the decision. It's one of the reasons to consider, particularly leasing in some situations where you have uncertainty. Leasing for at least the short term can make sense if you're not sure what your requirements are going to be long term.
If you have a longer sense of this is the way we're going long term, we need this space on a more permanent basis, then owning tends to make more sense. So it is a challenge. It is a challenge, especially if you're talking about potentially moving back and forth to what your space needs are. But either way, whether you're talking about a more telework model or a more in-office model, you should still be looking at things like desk sharing, like how much space we use and how much extra are in some of these buildings that can account for both full in-office or a telework model, just, you know, working through the system. So it's a challenge.
Speaker 7
Alright. And then, new topic. Previous comments were along the lines of, if you move things out of Washington, DC or the DC area to other parts of the country. It costs less, and so it's easier to put people there in the standard of living, as that's not automatically true. In fact, I think with respect to the agriculture discussions, with respect to the Agriculture Research Center, one of the findings was that, actually, it's more expensive to move people to some of the sites that they'd chosen than it is to leave them in Prince George's County, which has a less expensive standard, from the standpoint of rent and the like, than DC and other parts of the DC area.
So I hope that'll be part of the consideration as those evaluations are done.
Speaker 3
And there are multiple costs. But, yeah, I mean, real property is one cost. You also have to build in the cost of moving, relocating, because there's a cost to that as well. So you really for even it's, again, facts and circumstances. You have to pencil out the project.
And then even, I would say, more important than real property, it is a significant cost, is a concern, but it's looking at the macro picture of labor cost, looking at mission impacts. Those are all considerations that are gonna depend on the individual relocation.
Speaker 7
Yeah. And a transfer of employees as well would be another big one. I think the last time Ag did one of these, like, half of the staff didn't move to the new sites because of the challenges of, you know, having to relocate and the like. But I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, though, especially, sir, for coming in and testifying for two years in a row. We appreciate it.
Speaker 1
Certainly do. And the distinguished ranking member might have a question left, and he wanted to address it.
Speaker 2
This is not, I understand, directly in your peer review because you deal with the infrastructure. But I think we really do need good information on what do we call it? Working at home. That's not the phrase. Teleworking.
Télétravail. Yeah. What GAO some branch of GAO Oletelis, what was the productivity impact of doing that? Because a lot of private sector does it because it's more productive, they save on the cost of, you know, headquarters or office space. And I don't know whether GAO has done such a study, but we hear a lot of debate about it, and there's a lot of difference of opinion on how effective it is.
Mhmm. And the average supervisor, if he doesn't see the person, believes that somehow they're not working as productively. That may or may not be so. I don't know. But I would ask you to see if somebody in your shop has whether they've done a study of that and whether they can give an answer.
Speaker 3
So I can answer that we have. Not my group specifically, but Jayo has taken a look at telework productivity both, I believe, in the private sector and in federal agencies. I'm happy to connect them with your staff and provide the relevant information.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. And, director Maroni, you have been a treasure of bad news for us. I'm sorry. And certainly appreciate that. And, as ranking member Hoyer had brought up, this is a wonderful hearing, be able to have this kind of interchange with you.
So, is it before we clock out here, wanted to give you an opportunity. Is there something you would ask Congress for that could help you do this job better?
Speaker 3
So I think a few things that Congress could do that would help the momentum here. One, provide strong oversight of the implementation of the used act. Do we get the reporting? What's the quality of the reported data from the executive branch? And then is there a follow through?
The act requires after a two-year period for any buildings that are under any space that's under 60% utilization for OMB GSA to work with the agency to reduce that space, making sure that actually happens. So that's one. Oversight of the use of act implementation. Another would be for Congress to take a look at the prospectus threshold. That's a particular issue with GSA.
Right now, it's about $4,000,000. That captures a number of repair projects that are not new buildings, not huge. When you're talking about a huge building that you have to, say, replace elevators in, you're gonna pass 4,000,000. And the prospectus process provides important oversight, but it can also add time to the project, ultimately adding costs. So just taking a look at that, it's obviously a policy choice because there's a balance here between the flexibility you give the agencies and the oversight.
Mhmm. But something at least to consider that might smooth the works. I'd say considering how to designate funding in some way for optimization efforts where you are both providing funding specifically to get properties ready for disposal so you can move those quicker, have that funding ready, but also ensuring that funding is going to those priority properties that you're going to hold so that those properties don't degrade over time. And then we're not talking five years from now about those holes being in bad shape. Those are important things.
They're challenging things, but I think those are areas where Congress could definitely provide some value. And, I guess the last one I would highlight, I don't think it makes as significant of a difference, taking a look at a congress authorizing companies in particular at the disposal process itself, the steps involved, which are important steps, involving environmental remediation, stroke preservation, considering if state and local agencies could use the building. I'm not saying those are bad steps, but they do at some time. It's not the main reason my disposals are slow, but it is a reason. And taking a look, do those make sense in all cases?
Are there some flexibilities that could be potentially given there, at least in specific circumstances? Again, it's a policy choice. I can't tell you what way to go there, but at least it's worth taking a look at.
Speaker 1
They're great. All those are great suggestions, and, hopefully, we can get around to following through on them and make both of our jobs easier. One, you just I don't wanna keep going, but you just brought up something about so what you're saying is that, say, we have building x. We should tie the maintenance funds for building x to that building, versus giving them into a central pot?
Speaker 3
Well, you could still keep it through the federal billing fund and just say we're appropriating at a higher level based on what GSA's estimates of what it costs for that billing to be. I mean, I think a key distinction here, just theoretical. Yeah. When you're leasing space, the rental payment includes operating and maintaining the space. So you're just paying a single fee, just like if you're renting an apartment.
Right? You're not taking care of the maintenance of that space. So that's built in. With owned space, with federally owned space, that's not as built-in. Theoretically, the federal buildings fund is there to provide that operation maintenance cost for GSA-owned buildings, and other agencies get appropriations from their subcommittees to do that.
But it's easier there for that to be deprioritized, and that's where you can get into this problem of building age. It's reality. And to your point, mister ranking member, it's also something not all deferred maintenance is created the same. Some things, it's fine to defer, and other things, you're creating a big and potentially expensive problem for yourself down the road. Being able to create some mechanism where when you build a new property or you're just retaining a whole property going forward, better ensuring that the needed operations and maintenance funds for that building for that year go to that building.
You're keeping up with it consistently over time, as opposed to, you know, some years maybe there's enough, other years there's not. And so things get put off, and it gets worse over time.
Speaker 2
You, chairman. Just there, Mike. The figure I have, and you may know, is they're spending $250,000,000 per year on maintenance of the FBI bill alone. And that's not for it, it just maintains it from getting worse. It doesn't make it better.
Speaker 3
Right. Operational maintenance, long term, is gonna be way more expensive than actually the cost of building that facility. If you're talking about a building you're holding for 30, 40 years, the amount you spend on operation and maintenance is just gonna dwarf it over time, which is why it's important to maintain it. It's expensive, but if you don't, then that bill gets worse. And more importantly, you lose the value of the asset.
Both of you are gonna dispose of it, for the mission, which is ultimately what this is all for. Right? We don't have billings. We have buildings to serve the mission of the agencies and the American taxpayer. And so that's why it matters.
Speaker 1
And with that, I know all good things must come to an end, and I'd like to thank you, Mr. Maroni, for being here today. There may be some members who would like to submit additional questions, and then please, for the record, submit any questions to the subcommittee within the next seven days. And the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.