CPRA

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for his information and would ask him on the timing.

The conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the so-called ``doc fix,'' or to ensure the fact that doctors are compensated and will be available for Medicare patients. The conference committee, Mr. Leader, has met twice since December 23. We adopted a motion to instruct, overwhelmingly, through the House to make sure that they reported back by February 17.

I think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not do it by the 17th, then we're off for a week and we will be back the 27th, 28th, and 29th, come back the night of the 27th, and we'll be jammed at the end on Wednesday, the 29th. We only have 6 full days left before the February break. Now, that does not include our 6:30 start times.

House Democrats, Mr. Leader, stand ready to, frankly, I think, work through the weekend if that were necessary. But I'm very concerned that something that we all want to get done--and I've made the suggestion to my Democratic conferees, and they were equally amused as you are. I understand that.

I will tell you that I have great concerns that we're going to get to the 27th, 28th, and 29th and be in the same kind of confrontation and debacle that we found ourselves in in December. That's not good for your party. In my opinion, it's not good for our party. It's not good for the House and Senate; but it is certainly not good for the 160 million people who are going to be concerned about whether or not, in fact, their tax cut is going to continue, or the Medicare people who are going to be concerned about whether their doc is going to be available, or the unemployed who are going to be concerned.

Now, of course, for the unemployed, we had some very good news. You didn't mention it in your opening comments, but I'm sure you were as excited as I was about the 257,000 new private sector jobs that were created last month; showed real progress.

But I will tell you that I'm very concerned about the timing and would be delighted to hear the gentleman's thoughts on the success and the progress of the conference committee.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Of course we have long been a supporter of small business. We believe small business is the engine of our economy. We believe we need to grow entrepreneurs. We need to expand, frankly, small business and the middle class.

It was interesting what the gentleman referred to in response to my question. Yes, we understand that cutting the pay of average working Americans--who happen to be Federal employees, but they're average working Americans--is the way you want to pay for what we do. We, of course, want to pay for it with some of the wealthiest people in our country just contributing a little bit more as opposed to average working people who are struggling by. And, by the way, the sponsor of that piece of legislation to which you referred indicated he was having a tough time getting by supporting his family on the salary that he makes here in Congress.

Now, frankly, we offered, as you know, to have a vote on freezing Members of Congress' salary straight up--not hidden in another bill, but straight up--which I would have supported and my side would have supported overwhelmingly, I presume your side would have supported overwhelmingly. We, of course, didn't get that opportunity because, frankly, our priorities do, in fact, differ.

Average working people as opposed to the best off in America, that's the choice in this conference committee, apparently; because you want to pay for it with average working people taking a hit, and we want to pay for it by just asking just a little more from the wealthiest in America to help us through this tough patch that we're in.

Things are getting better. The gentleman--I haven't seen his release, but I will certainly look at his release. He says we ought to do better. I will tell the gentleman we're doing a lot better.

The gentleman knows that during the last 5 months of the Bush administration, we lost 3,192,000 jobs. The gentleman smiles because, oh, that's history. Well, it is history, and we ought to learn from it because we were following the economic policies the gentleman still continues to press upon the American people. We lost 3,192,000 jobs in 5 months. In the last 5 months, however, we have gained now over 1 million jobs. That's progress. In fact, over the last 22 months, we've gained over 3 million jobs so that we are making significant progress. Not enough. We dug a very, very deep hole and we're trying to get out of it, but the fact of the matter is losing 3 million jobs in 5 months and gaining 1 million jobs in 5 months is about a 4 million job difference.

So I tell my friend both in terms of who ought to pay for the investments that we have agreed we need to make. We don't want to raise taxes on these folks as the economy is still coming back, obviously showing great progress, but we don't want to pay for it with average working people having to pay the price.

I will tell my friend, I was disappointed that we didn't have a separate vote so that Members of Congress could vote straight up on their being frozen. And I will tell my friend that I will work with him, perhaps towards that end.

Now having said that, I am sure the gentleman has been in conversations with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). Is the gentleman expecting a relatively early report back from the conference committee, hopefully prior to the 18th of February when we might be voting on this?

I yield, certainly.

I thank the gentleman. And we all look forward to working together in a bipartisan way. We sure have found great difficulty doing it, however, because we have trouble having a meeting of the minds.

I will tell my friend that what I advocate over and over and over again is paying for what we buy. That's what I advocate. And if you don't want it, don't buy it.

You controlled this town for 8 years from an economic-policy standpoint. I know we were in charge of the Congress for the last 2 years. We couldn't pass anything over George Bush's veto. You and I both know that. So for 8 years, we didn't pay for what we bought; and we went from surplus to deficit. We went from a debt of $5.6 trillion to a debt of almost $11 trillion.

Have we added to the debt? Yes, we did. Why? Because we went into the deepest depression, starting in '07, that this country has been in in your lifetime and my lifetime; and I'm a lot older than you. So that's what I advocate: paying for what we buy and having the courage to make decisions on doing exactly that. And very frankly, on your side of the aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do you go to? You go to your Members, and you go to people who have some resources that they can contribute to an effort you think is very important.

I think America's efforts are very important. And I think those of us who have done better ought to pay a little more than those who are struggling, as the gentleman refers to. Yes, that's the difference. I believe it's the difference, and I will continue to advocate paying for what we buy. That's why I was for statutory PAYGO, which George Bush abandoned and which essentially is not being followed today, as I think all of us should do.

So I will tell my friend that I think we ought to do better. I agree with him. And we did do better. We did do better under policies that I supported. We grew 22 million jobs in the nineties. We lost jobs in the 2000s. We went backwards. And the stock market went up 216 percent in the nineties. Under George Bush, it went down 26 percent. Yes, I think we can do better, and we ought to do better. And we ought to do better by investing.

Let me talk a little bit about the bill that the Speaker's talked about, you've talked about, it's been in the news: infrastructure and jobs. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up a controversial highway bill--the gentleman says we want to work together. I agree with that. He and I try to do that. We don't always succeed, but we try to do it. They marked up the bill yesterday for 17 hours and finished around 3 a.m.

I don't know whether the gentleman knows this, but at the start of that debate, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, asked all the members of the Transportation Committee, when the bill was put on, to raise their hand if they had read the bill. You know how many people raised their hand--that's a rhetorical question because I think the gentleman probably hasn't inquired of this--none. On an 800-page bill, not one person raised their hand that they had read the bill. There was a lot of discussion about reading the bill.

There was, of course, as you know, a bipartisan ``no'' vote. One of the senior members voted against it. This is in stark contrast to the unanimous vote that occurred in the United States Senate on the bill.

The Committee on Natural Resources also completed a controversial markup on opening ANWR to drilling--as I understand it, you are going to put that in the infrastructure bill--with the clear knowledge that that is a very controversial item that will not pass the United States Senate. You may have the votes here. That is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last December.

If you are going to work on a bipartisan basis, we ought to understand that we are going to have to not try to push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable and won't pass and don't have the votes.

The reason that George Bush signed so many bills that we passed in the Congress in '07 and '08 was because we worked with the administration, and we worked with the Senate. The Senate and the House were controlled by Democrats; President Bush was in office. He signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. Why? Because we worked with him. We would urge you to do the same.

Is the gentleman planning to bring up the infrastructure bill to the floor

soon? And can he tell the Members if it will be considered under an open process? Furthermore, is the majority leader expecting there to be bipartisan cooperation on the infrastructure package so that we do not have to go up against another deadline? As the gentleman knows, on March 31 the highway authorization bill ends. We temporarily included it.

And let me end with this before you answer your question, because Ray LaHood was a leader in this Congress. Ray LaHood was a leader on your side of the aisle. Ray LaHood and I served together for a long time. I don't know whether you've seen his quote, but I think it bears consideration by your side of the aisle of a Republican from middle America--Peoria, Illinois--who your minority leader, Bob Michel, had as his chief of staff.

Here is what he said about the infrastructure bill that was marked up: ``This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen, and it is also the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen.'' This is a direct quote from Ray LaHood, Republican, former Member of this House for many years, and former chief of staff to the minority leader Bob Michel. ``It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety; and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last 3 years. It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years in public service,'' Ray LaHood, Politico, February 3. That's today. He said it today, in realtime. This is real breaking news from the Transportation Secretary: the worst transportation bill he has seen in 35 years.

That does not, I tell my friend, bode well for bipartisan cooperation on a piece of legislation that nobody in the committee had read. So I'd ask my friend, do we expect to bring that bill up under those conditions in the near term?

I thank the gentleman.

Wonderful, wonderful logic. A Republican leader in this House is appointed to include bipartisan--and the Secretary of Transportation, who was a leader in this House, and the chief of staff of the minority leader of this House, says that the bill you have drafted, that your Members didn't read before they passed it out of committee--and the public, I'm sure, is glad that at least we're going to read it before we pass it. I hope that's the case. I've heard a lot of talk about reading the bills. Nobody read it before they passed it out of committee. And the Republican Secretary of Transportation, former chief of staff of the minority leader, says, my friend, it's the most partisan bill he has ever seen in 35 years.

And then you say, well, I know we passed the most partisan bill in 35 years, but, gee, the administration won't work with us. You don't accept that premise. I understand that. But it's ironic that you say the administration won't work with you.

You and I both know Ray LaHood happens to be one of the more bipartisan people with whom you and I have served. I've worked frequently with Congressman LaHood when he represented Peoria, as a Republican in the House of Representatives. He and I worked together on a lot of issues. Why? Because he wanted to get things done. He wasn't just simply interested in making political points.

Now, you bring up ANWR in terms of pay-for. I'm for paying this. You didn't hear me say anything about offshore drilling, this and that. I did about ANWR because you and I both know, in a bipartisan way, many of your Members have voted against opening up ANWR, and we have, as the gentleman knows, millions of acres, millions of acres currently available for drilling in Alaska right now as we speak.

So we want to have a bipartisan--but putting an 800-page bill on the table, no chance to read it, passing it in a 17-hour marathon session, and then having clearly no--having not worked at all with Ray LaHood, and if you're telling me that Ray LaHood won't work with Republicans, I simply do not accept that premise. I think that's a disservice to Ray LaHood if that's what you are saying. He is the Secretary of Transportation. And there is no doubt in my mind, none, zero, that if Mr. Mica wants to work with Ray LaHood on a bipartisan bill, Ray LaHood will be here as many hours, days, and weeks as Mr. Mica needs him here, and I think you would, hopefully, agree with that proposition.

Ray LaHood is a Republican, but he is a bipartisan American who wants to get things done for our country and create those jobs of which you speak, which all of us want to do.

We have a jobs bill, by the way, that you have not brought to the floor. What's one of the aspects of that jobs bill? Infrastructure, investing in infrastructure. That bill has languished for 5 months now, not brought to the floor by the majority leader, who has the authority to bring it to the floor, and I've, of course, been urging him to do so.

Now, if he'd like to comment--I have another point, but if he wants to comment on what I have said, I yield.

The gentleman knows that a number of those proposals had bipartisan support in this House, I think have bipartisan support over in the Senate. But they need to be paid for, and that's where the contention comes, as the gentleman knows.

Let me ask you, on another subject, if I might, the STOCK Act.

Yet, before I do that, I appreciate the gentleman's observation with respect to those bills that the President has suggested we do that we have done.

The individual bills. You're right.

We could make some progress if, frankly, the majority leader could get 60 votes to enact the legislation and transact business on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, as the gentleman very well knows, the majority leader, Harry Reid, has had very great difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of the House of the United States Senate. I think that's unfortunate.

But let me move on because the gentleman went from an infrastructure bill, which, as Secretary LaHood said, was the most partisan bill he's seen in 35 years, and shifted to the jobs, on which we agree. The fact of the matter is that I want to talk about another piece of legislation that the Senate has worked on. We have a bill here. We've asked that it be taken from the floor, from the desk and put on the floor, and that's the STOCK Act. The gentleman has expressed support for the STOCK Act. I'm hopeful that we can pass a House bill and then go to conference with the Senate on a bill in the near future.

Would the gentleman comment on that.

I thank the gentleman for his response, and he says the earliest day possible. I tell my friend that Tim Walz of Minnesota has had a bill, as the gentleman probably knows, of the STOCK Act--also, Louise Slaughter, ranking member of the Rules Committee, has worked on for literally a decade or more--so we have legislation which is available to take, frankly, from the desk, pass that, and go immediately to conference with the Senate.

The gentleman indicates he wants to change the Senate bill. I think that that may be appropriate; but if he does, we're going to have to go to conference in any event. So my suggestion is you take Tim Walz's bill, act on that, a House bill, and we go to conference on that bill. That seems to me that's the most expeditious way to accomplish what the gentleman says he wants to accomplish in a very quick fashion.

I think Tim Walz of Minnesota would be happy to hear that and available to work towards that end, along with Louise Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us, hopefully, agree with what the leader has just said. We clearly want to make sure the American public has confidence and trust in the actions we take in that they are not driven by personal interests but by public interests, by a concern for the welfare of the people we represent in our country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I understand this legislation, it is to establish a commission that deals with the civilian property realignment for this Nation. Some 340 million-plus square feet, I understand, is within the jurisdiction of the General Services Administration.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member on many issues dealing with property around the Nation. Thank her for that leadership.

My amendment is a simple amendment that expresses that the commission, or other appropriate Federal agencies, should conduct a public-information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available contracts under this particular commission and report to Congress.

Just this morning, before I flew to Washington, I had a room full of small, minority, and women-owned businesses clamoring to understand how to interact with the Federal Government. In fact, one particular women- owned business stood up and said that they had been certified for however long and never could get any information on how to access opportunities that could be utilized by their small business to create jobs.

This amendment is a sense of Congress that provides a public awareness campaign that would help to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community is reached. It is imperative that these businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for obtaining a Government contract is clear, which is why it is extremely important that the commission, along with other appropriate Federal agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.

I further believe there should be accountability as to which firms are receiving these lucrative contracts, and a system of monitoring. Everyone has said on the floor of the House--bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats--we are for small businesses. So am I. I want them thriving, growing, surviving, and getting the information to do business with this huge Federal Government.

This amendment, which is a sense of Congress, I believe gives them an opportunity to play on an equal playing field.

We know what will happen with a commission: that those who have always known how to access the system will be at the front of the line. Let's give these small companies an opportunity to also achieve their dreams and aspiration for the American Dream.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to debate H.R. 1734, the ``Civilian Property Realignment Act.'' I offered an amendment to this measure which acknowledges the challenges faced by small, minority, and women-owned businesses that participate in the government contracting process. However, I have several reservations about this bill. The failure to include language that would require an environmental impact analysis of these properties does not make sense.

The original bill waived Title V of the of the McKinney-Vento Act, which provides for the free transfer of surplus federal properties to homeless providers, as well as, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Homeless providers have claimed less than 1 percent of the thousands of properties available to them because of the size of the properties. I was led to believe that an agreement had been reached to ensure that a provision that applied the McKinney-Vento requirements to properties of a certain size and value would be in this bill, it is unclear whether that will be the case.

In addition, the bill contains a second poisonous pill, as it waives the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires a thorough public examination of the environmental impacts of a project or property transfer, to avoid an unintended adverse effect on a surrounding community and a harmful precedent of waiving appropriate environmental review on major infrastructure projects.

Many of these properties are decades old. These buildings may contain asbestos among other issues that may have a direct impact on those who renovate them, as well as, the surrounding communities in which they are located. Allowing those communities to express their concerns through a public comment period is reasonable. In addition, ensuring that the federal government does all that it can to remediate its own property prior to transfer or renovation is an example to all other sectors of the importance of adhering to environmental safety standards. If these concerns can be addressed this bill serves as a reasonable vehicle to help combat the deficit. If these concerns cannot be address this bill may be fatally flawed.

Would require federal agencies to compile environmental information about all property being considered for action and provide for a limited review of property by homeless service providers.

President Obama, first proposed this bipartisan measure in his budget last year as a means to decrease unnecessary government spending and reduce the deficit. It is my hope that the issues that have been raised can be addressed before we must vote on this measure.

H.R. 1734 establishes the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to better manage federal buildings and facilities. This measure would give the Commission broad new authorities to consolidate, dispose of, or sell some government properties. In addition, the Commission is required to sell at least five facilities that have a combined estimated fair market value of at least $500 million.

I believe that if this legislation passes that the newly formed Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) should take steps to educate and assist small, women, and minority-owned businesses when awarding contracts related to the sale or redevelopment of federal property. However the bill does not address concerns raised related to the impact on the homeless and it removes a provision that requires an environmental impact study before the transfer of any federal land. These studies are a tool to determine the land, air, and water quality of the property being transferred and the intended use of said property. I believe that it is not in the best interest of the government or local communities to remove this vital safety feature.

H.R. 1734 is similar to the Department of Defense Base Realignment Commission (BRAC) law, which allows the federal government to make the best use of surplus and underused properties under the jurisdiction of various federal agencies, and to dispose of properties the government does not need to help with debt reduction.

It is important to remember that the federal government owns a significant amount of property. The role of the CPRC is to present an accurate view of how that property is currently utilized and consolidate certain activities. For example, currently 30 different agencies have 30 different leasing methods; the CPRC would streamline the process by taking over leasing authority.

The General Services Administration (GSA) one of the largest real estate organizations in the world, with an inventory consisting of 8,920 assets with over 342 million square feet of rentable space across all 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia. They serve approximately 1 million Federal employees at 59 different agencies. The GSA has a portfolio which consists primarily of office buildings, courthouses, laboratories, border stations, and warehouses.

GSA's current inventory consists of 8,932 assets totaling 387,841,174 gross square feet

(gsf) nationwide. When these assets are separated between leased and owned, the portfolio consists of 1,884 owned assets totaling 218,983,699 gsf and 7,048 leased assets representing 168,857,475 gsf. The annual operating costs for FY2005 were $1.5 billion, $800 million for government owned and $650 million for leased locations. The replacement value of the owned inventory is $37.2 billion.

They have reduced the percentage of underutilized and non-performing assets from 42 percent to 26 percent;

Reduced vacant space from 9.2 percent to 6.8 percent, significantly below the 2005 industry average rate of 12.5 percent; and,

Reported excess 204 assets and demolished 50 buildings and, as a result, eliminated 3.1 million rentable square feet of vacant space and achieved a cost avoidance of $400 million in capital reinvestment needs.

As of October 1, 2002, federal agencies reported a total of 927 vacant and underutilized real properties--including facilities and land--located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico in 294 cities.

The Veteran's Administration (VA) reported the most properties-577;

General Service Administration (GSA) reported 236 properties, and United States Postal Service (USPS) reported 114 properties.

Most of these properties--807 of 927--were facilities that represented about 32.1 million square feet and ranged from office buildings to hospitals to post offices.

Although VA reported the highest number of facilities, GSA facilities made up more than half of this square footage. The remaining 120 properties were vacant lands reported only by VA and USPS, most of which were 10 acres or less.

One-third or 125 of GSA's underutilized and unutilized assets have been reported excess and accepted for disposal. These assets account for almost 9 million gross square feet (gsf) and $10.9 million in operating expenses that will be eliminated upon completion of the disposal action. Another 18 underutilized assets with approximately 1 million gross square feet (gsf) and $1.5 million in operating costs are projected for disposal in the next five years pending customer relocation.

There were 89 leased facilities that were determined to be underutilized with operating costs totaling $6.2 million in FY2005. GSA eliminates vacant leased space by backfilling space with other customers, terminating the lease or vacant portion thereof or buying out the remaining lease term whenever possible. At the end of FY2005, GSA's leased vacancy rate was at a record low level (below 1.5%).

With an aging inventory it is imperative that we reinvest in our federal facilities to maintain a quality workplace for our federal agencies. At any given time a significant portion of our vacant space is under renovation.

As of September 30, 2005, GSA had 21 assets vacated for major renovations accounting for almost 9 million gross square feet and $39.6 million in operating expenses. As the current projects are completed, the space will be backfilled and these assets will once again become utilized.

At the same time, new projects will begin in different assets keeping the amount of assets that are underutilized due to major renovations fairly constant.

The Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) will review all federal properties and leases utilized for civilian use to determine an accurate number of properties that are either vacant or underutilized.

The independent Commission (CPRC), operating under the GSA, will transform how federal real estate is managed. The purpose of the Commission will be to convert real estate inefficiencies into reductions in the Federal deficit. By facilitating and expediting the sale and disposal of unneeded properties; reducing our reliance on costly leased space; and sell or redevelop high value assets that are underutilized.

I firmly believe this Commission should consider the impact of their decisions on the small business community. Specifically, small, minority, and women-owned businesses which face many challenges when trying to learn about the existence of government contracts for which they can apply, as well as, maneuvering through the complex government contracting process.

As the decisions of the Commission will impact local communities, revitalize neighborhoods, decrease government spending, and reduce the deficit. The Commission should recognize the important role that small businesses play in our economy.

My amendment simply expresses that the Commission or other appropriate federal agency should conduct a public information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available contracts.

In order to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community is reached it is imperative that these businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for attaining a government contract is clear; which is why it is extremely important that the Commission, along with all other appropriate federal agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.

The only way to ensure a diverse representation of businesses is through targeted awareness campaigns followed by a clear process, along with adequate support.

Further, I believe there should be accountability as to which firms are receiving these lucrative contracts. The Commission should report to Congress and the President every 6 months. This report should include the amount of contracts awarded to business firms. The report should also include small, minority, and women-owned businesses, as well as, subcontracts awarded to these businesses.

Few would argue with the premise that small business is the backbone of our economy and the heartbeat of our nation. The small business owner reflects a valued principle in our nation's heritage. The belief that an individual or a group of individuals can come together to build a business from the ground up then employ their neighbors.

Mr. Chair, let me just say that the evidence of how important this language is is by way of a group in Texas that was able to secure by legislation--with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia's excellent assistance--a military museum that was held by the General Services Administration. This group of veterans is making it a productive site and a productive part of our local community that evidences what we can secure with this language.

Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of Mr. Carnahan's amendment, and he ran out of time. First of all, I see a lot of comity and collegiality on the floor tonight. I've known the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for a very long time. Mr. Carnahan said something that struck my conscience, and that is that we are able to master this legislative process that allows us to negotiate to the moment that we might get this on the floor, which I understand may be tomorrow.

I would encourage whatever it is possible to do, Mr. Denham. I've gotten to know you--whatever is possible for a bill as important as this. You mentioned the possibility of language, reconciliation. I cannot speak for the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, and I don't intend to do so. But I do know her as a person who keeps her word, who loves this Capitol, which she represents, and has a deep and abiding concern about the homeless and obviously this issue of the use of property.

I only entreat you to see what is possible as you have debated on the floor this evening for Mr. Carnahan and my amendment. I would encourage that there be further discussions if you and the gentlelady can secure that opportunity. I think both would be able to hopefully have dialogue, but I do want to have on record my high esteem and respect for her leadership on these issues. You are very kind to have yielded to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose of and consolidate excess Federal property. I have worked diligently with the

chairman for such a bill for most of this year. However, the bill before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to. Moreover, I have just learned that the President also opposes the bill, and apparently, it does not even reflect a compromise among Republicans.

I opposed this bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and it passed on a party-line vote. The bill before us today is essentially the same bill that I opposed at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup. Shortly after that markup, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I also serve, approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote, which I supported because it did not have the issues I have with the bill before us today.

Why was the Transportation and Infrastructure bill rushed to the Rules Committee on Friday and quickly brought to the floor today?

Why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the House with bipartisan support and that could stand a chance to pass in the Senate?

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill that I agreed to before us on the floor this evening? When I testified before the Rules Committee on Friday, I indicated that I would support the bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the homeless were included in the bill. These protections are not included in the bill.

The Rules Committee reported out a bill with no self-executing amendments. Instead, they made several amendments--including mine--in order for full consideration. I could have done that all along. There are no assurances whatsoever that my amendments would be adopted on this floor. The only way to ensure that my amendments were included in the bill would have been for the Rules Committee to have adopted a rule that made my amendments self-executing and, therefore, a part of the bill before us today.

I will not stand here today to support a bill I've consistently opposed at Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markups on a hope and prayer that my amendments would have been adopted on the floor. I will not offer, as amendments, provisions I had every reason to expect would have been a part of the bill reported out of the Rules Committee. To offer my amendments separately is to greatly risk their defeat while the bill before us, which I oppose, still passes. I will not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a divide among Republicans.

The subcommittee that I serve on had two excellent hearings on the creation of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. I support the original bipartisan idea of assembling a Civilian Property Realignment Commission, but there are several portions of H.R. 1734 before us on the floor right now that do not reflect a revised bipartisan bill. I have consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill, and they were unacceptable at the full committee markup and then at Rules, where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this floor today.

As subcommittee ranking member, I was not informed that if I wanted the changes in the bill, I would have to offer my amendments separately on the floor. Who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise?

I have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill to eliminate the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the inclusion of a review of excess Federal property for homeless service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission that would have been created by this bill.

Curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment concerning homeless providers which mirrors the homelessness section of the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment the NEPA provision section of my amendment to which he and I agreed in order to reach a compromise.

The bill, as it stands, severely limits the review of Federal property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By bypassing McKinney-Vento in the disposal process, the bill unnecessarily reduces the pool of Federal properties available for transfer to homeless service providers. In these difficult times, extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a huge downturn in charitable giving during the recent recession. The experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take only the smallest properties. And I had already agreed to shorten the time period for providers to claim properties.

Secondly, the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to some actions of the commission which I have always strongly opposed. Section 18(b) waives compliance with NEPA for the actions of the President, the commission, or any Federal agency when considering any of the commission's recommendations, except during the process of property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from a property being disposed of or realigned to another location.

It is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any decision to close, relocate, or reconfigure a Federal facility in time for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions. The current language precludes a full review of the actions until after the decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has already been made. This problem could have easily been fixed by including language that required agencies to submit information about the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if a property was disposed of, consolidated, or redeveloped. Therefore, I must oppose the bill before us, and I urge opposition until a bipartisan base bill reflecting the issues I have discussed is presented on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I hope the gentleman is not implying that I do not keep my word, and let me be clear what my word was. I gave my word that I would support a bipartisan bill, not that I would support the opportunity to offer amendments on the floor.

The gentleman knows quite well that the NEPA amendment is an amendment that his side generally does not support. Let me be plain. They generally don't support NEPA. The reason that the gentleman was willing to somehow come forward with what would appears to be a redundant amendment on homelessness--since mine already had homelessness in it--is because he wanted to separate himself from the NEPA amendment, and he knows full well that I would never support his bill without the NEPA provisions that I have spent months--months-- changing.

This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until we went to the Rules Committee, when somebody made it clear, when somebody made it clear--and I don't know who it was--that this bill could be brought forward, the very bill I voted against, leaving it to this Member to take her chances that the other side of the aisle would support an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion support. I keep my word as well.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I will take such time as I may require.

I wish that the chairman--he and I have had a very cordial and an amicable relationship. I only wish that he could guarantee that my amendments would, in fact, pass. I'm afraid that, watching his caucus in operation for a full year when they could not even agree whether or not the United States Government should go into default, I can't blame him for not being able to guarantee they will pass. But let me say why taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith hoping they would pass, is not enough.

If he, in fact, wanted to make sure that the amendment passed, then he, of course, would be on the amendment. Instead, he does something curious indeed. He looks at my amendment, dissects it, takes the part of the amendment that he regards as less controversial--and on his side of the aisle--both parts will be controversial, but the least controversial part--and he says, I take this part, it's exactly like the homeless part of the so-called Norton amendment, but the other part that I testified to in Rules Committee he is not identified with that amendment on this floor.

Now, I ask Members, what would you think if the chairman had gone with you to Rules saying he supported the amendment, and then when we got to the floor was willing to stand up--sorry--went to the trouble of pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own? Why wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment?

Worse, why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill so that I would not be put in this position? And this is important to understand. If I bring up my amendment separately and it goes down, what will be before the House is essentially the bill I voted against in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Do I look like a fool?

I voted against the bill that is on the floor today. In all good faith, the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill with the changes that he and I agreed to will be the bill that, in fact, emerges here this evening. In fact, let me be even more blunt. What is more likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that I, in fact, opposed on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to NEPA, is included in the bill would have been for this bill to come forward with what I agreed to in the bill already. For me to have to come to the floor to beg that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement to support it now get a vote, especially from a side of this Chamber which has consistently voted against sections like the section that is at issue here, is to defy--is not to understand how to put together a compromise.

If you have a compromise and you come to the floor, you don't take out part of what the compromise was about, leaving the other part so that she can fend herself on the floor knowing full well that the chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are, based on past experience, are not very great.

So the reason I oppose it is because I believe that perhaps, and I don't know if other amendments on the Democratic side would be accepted or not, but I believe that as it now stands, the bill will look essentially like the bill that I spent all year opposing because my major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill that will be the final bill voted on. And if I

were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the bill, then I don't think there's anybody on that side would guarantee that on their side my amendment with the NEPA provision would, in fact, pass.

In that event, what I would be left with is the very bill that I have voted against for an entire year, and that is why I object to the way in which this bill has been handled.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want the bill you and I agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, and that was the bill that had NEPA in it and that had homeless in it.

And let me ask you, why did you come forward with an amendment that only has the homeless in it, that is the exact mirror image of the homeless section of my bill, but you did not include the NEPA section?

Well, I don't agree that we're past the midnight hour, but I agree that we're past the point of no return.

The gentleman wanted to talk about cost. This bill costs $68 million, a great deal more than another bill that I do support, the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I serve on that committee as well. I was willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since I had worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill, but I don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly than the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I would have thought that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work that problem of two different bills out for themselves.

My chief regret is to have spent a lot of time and effort and conversation that I believed was getting somewhere. Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. But if it were, if that's what it was, we certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. That concern remains.

I don't have any further speakers. I regretfully cannot support the bill before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support the Carnahan amendment, and I just want to indicate what the agreement was with the chairman.

In the base bill, we would have a bill that Democrats and Republicans would support. What we have here is a bill that somehow Republicans are divided on and that Democrats are expected to somehow carry over the finish line. If, in fact, this bill had come as a base bill, I think you would have had Democrats in larger numbers supporting this bill. Whatever Republicans wanted to do with the fact that the base bill did not always conform exactly to what they would have wanted would have been made up for on our side.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On

Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, which will be announced by the close of business today.

Building upon our legislative agenda this week, the House will consider two more bills next week aimed at reforming the Federal budget process, including H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and cosponsored by Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, as well as H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Scott Garrett.

In addition, the House will act on legislation passed in the Senate yesterday, commonly referred to as the STOCK Act.

Finally, the House may consider H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeff Denham.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is the Republicans on the House side, led by Chairman Camp, have been and are ready to make sure we resolve the issue of the payroll tax holiday extension right now. The issue has been the reluctance on the gentleman's side of the aisle on the other side of the Capitol. So if I thought that working 7 days a week, through weekends and all hours of the day and night would make a difference, I would be all for that as well.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this House continues to act. This House passed a yearlong extension that also did not have the effect of raiding the Social Security trust fund, something that the gentleman and I both want to make sure happens, that we restore the integrity of that fund for the people who are counting on it.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would say the House also, this week, acted on several measures that, frankly, are very relevant to the work of the conference committee, but yet no action by the Senate. One of those things, as the gentleman knows, was passed out of the House this week. It was a measure calling for a pay freeze at the Federal level for Federal employees, including Members of the House and Senate. This was a bipartisan vote; 309 Members voted for that. It allowed for about $26 billion in savings that could be easily included in the conference committee deliberations, something that our side continues to want to include, but yet no answer from the Senate majority leader and his conferees.

So, again, I would tell the gentleman, please, we are as anxious as you are to try and resolve these issues.

We had another vote this week, Mr. Speaker, which garnered 400 votes in the House--a bipartisan bill--which called for some necessary reforms to the TANF program. These were reforms which preclude the use of the monies that beneficiaries receive for purchases of services at casinos and other types of establishments, that perhaps those monies could be better spent not in those places; but again, no response from the Senate.

And I would ask the gentleman if he could please direct his urgency towards the majority leader in the Senate to see if we can get this off the dime and resolve the issue of the payroll tax so we can, as the gentleman suggests, send a very certain signal to the people who are struggling out there, working day in and day out, that their taxes will not go up.

As for the gentleman's suggestion about the job numbers, I don't know if he saw my public statement this morning, but I said that was welcome news, that when you have job creation like that, welcome news, but I also think we can do a lot better.

I was pleased to see that the President came out this week and said he now, too, wants to be a champion of small business; and we say we are happy to work with this White House so that we can provide the help to small businesses. We will be bringing to the floor, before tax day, a small business tax cut bill that goes right at the issue of helping small business people, allowing them more incentive to invest their capital so they can create jobs and we can see this economy really take off.

Let me respond, if you will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, I do hope that we can act in an expeditious manner to accomplish the same goal that he's stated. That I agree with. We need to let the people of this country out there who are working so hard know that they are not going to have their taxes go up on them and that we should allow that certainty for a full year, the position this House has taken from the very beginning.

I would say to the gentleman about his assertions of our policies and those under the last President and perhaps their effect on job creation or job loss, the issue is right now--and my question to the gentleman is, as far as that's concerned: Doesn't he agree that we could be doing better?

And that's my point, Mr. Speaker: we can do better. We can do better by focusing on the private sector small businessmen and -women so that we can empower them to begin to invest and create jobs again. We can do better. That is what we intend to do straight up through policies that affect reduction of red tape in this town to make it easier for small businessmen and -women to operate; as I indicated before, a bill to be brought forward to provide for a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses.

And I hope if the gentleman says he's for small businesses that he'll join us in a bipartisan way to support a bill that provides for a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses.

Now, I would ask the gentleman as well, he continues to advocate higher taxes for people, higher taxes. That's what we hear: higher taxes on people who make a lot of money. Well, the fact is, the result of that is putting more money into this town, putting more money into the hands of Washington so that Washington can decide where people's money is spent.

We all know we've got a spending problem, and we all know that raising taxes does not dig us out of the hole. So I would just ask the gentleman, Does he think that's going to fix the problem? It's not as if we're saying we don't want to help the people who are out there struggling. That's what we're trying to do. So I'm looking forward to working with him in a bipartisan way to see if we can get resolution on these issues.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of the 13th. I think there will be adequate time for Members to review the bill and the text, to the gentleman's concern about Mr. Rahall's inquiry last night in the committee. That is exactly why we are allowing for the time, so that Members can review such a big bill, a bill that means so many jobs to so many Americans.

I hope that the gentleman will be true to his nature, which is bipartisan, and to work with us, because this American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act is just that; it's a jobs bill. It is a bill that can provide some certainty to our contractors, some certainty to our communities so that we can start to grow again and see jobs proliferate.

But I find it ironic that the gentleman complains about paying for it, because he talks about our wanting to open up our resources, our resources offshore, our resources in ANWR as, number one, an attempt to allow America to develop finally a national energy policy, but to also promote jobs.

The gentleman knows, as I do, the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty parts of this country, and can do a lot more, and is willing. Private capital, willing to deploy to create jobs.

But I find it also ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman complains that there's no bipartisanship because somehow we're not working with the administration. Well, the administration's been absent on all of this. They're not interested in working with us to create a product where we can see jobs created.

As you can see, the Secretary sits in his office and opines and attacks the bill, saying it is all the negative things that he said. Now, that's not a way to collaborate and work together. And the gentleman knows that as well. The gentleman knows that that is certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to produce a result.

So the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together and that the administration is being trampled by some action here. He knows good and well, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has been absent in so many of the discussions on so many important issues. And the fact that we differ on policy, yes. But I think the gentleman also knows that reasonable people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that we can't work together to find some things that we agree on.

Certainly, we agree on jobs. The gentleman says we agree on small business. I'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit bill. And we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part of our economy. So I'm looking forward to the next week or so, as the bill works its way to the floor, to hopefully garner his support.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I join the gentleman in thinking Secretary LaHood is a fine gentleman, but all I can say is actions speak louder than words.

What I would say to the gentleman about his request for the President's jobs bill and whether we're bringing the whole bill up for a vote, I'd ask the gentleman, How many Members on his side of the aisle have actually sponsored that bill?

I think that there are certainly many elements of that bill that we can all agree on, and, in fact, we have voted on four separate elements, big elements,

of the President's small business agenda that he announced this week that were part of that bill: crowd funding, many offerings to help small business access financing; a bill to provide for 100 percent depreciation; the provisions that will allow for more ability for small business to see money go to the bottom line so they can grow; and a bill that we passed out of this House to eliminate country caps for immigration for highly skilled workers. All these are part of the President's proposals. All these the House has passed, and they sit, and they sit on the other side of the Capitol.

So I would say to the gentleman, he knows, as well as I do, that more stimulus spending as a part of that, the President's proposal, is something we don't accept, but there's plenty in there that we can agree on.

Back to the notion of bipartisanship. Let's set aside differences and find where we can agree. These are areas that we can agree on. So I would say to the gentleman, please work with us. Please point the ire to the majority leader on the other side of the Capitol and say, bring these bills up. These are jobs bills. The President said so this week.

If the gentleman could yield just for a correction. There's no need for pay-fors on these bills. These bills are something that were cleared out of the House in a revenue neutral way.

Right. So, again, the gentleman is correct in saying there is bipartisan support for these bills. The President supports them. Where's the problem? It's across the hallway here, and if we could actually get the majority there to help move these bills, we could make some progress.

It has always been my intention to try and act with dispatch on this very important issue and to get the President a bill that he can sign as quickly as possible.

Again, the underlying notion is, as the gentleman believes, we need to make sure that the people that send us here know that we are acting and abiding by the trust that they place in us. That's what the STOCK Act is about. So what we're going to do next week, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, is we are going to act with dispatch. We are going to take up the Senate bill. We are currently reviewing the actions the Senate took on that bill, and we intend to strengthen that bill, again, to do so in a way that can get a bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people that sent us here that they can have trust in this institution and the Members, and there is no perception whatsoever that anyone here misuses information that they gain in the performance of their duties for their own personal benefit.

I say to the gentleman, first of all, I know the gentleman likes to talk about past Congresses. When he was House majority leader, he did not bring this STOCK Act to the floor, and it was a submitted bill. So let's set the record straight. This majority leader is going to bring a STOCK Act bill to the floor next week.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Walz's bill actually would weaken the Senate bill; and it is our intention to pass and get to the President a workable, strong bill that makes sure that we're delivering on the promise that we made to the people that sent us here. I hope the gentleman--I know he wants to join me in the effort to reinstill the confidence of the public that we are abiding by that trust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1734.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The purpose of H.R. 1734 is to shrink the Federal real property footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling what we don't need and better utilizing what we keep. In fiscal year 2009 alone, the Federal Government wasted more than $1.7 billion in operating underused properties. Unfortunately, under existing law, solving this problem is not easy--the process is too cumbersome and congested with red tape.

The administration has tried but has realized it cannot achieve major savings without reform. As a result, H.R. 1734 includes a bipartisan solution to this problem--establishing a civilian BRAC-like process. However, unlike BRAC, the purpose of H.R. 1734 is to save money, and the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net savings. The administration believes there are several billion dollars worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly, and I agree with their assessment. Federal real property has been on GAO's high- risk list for nearly a decade now, and our committee, which oversees public buildings, has seen the waste firsthand.

The amended bill creates a nine-member commission that would review Federal properties and recommend specific actions to reduce the Federal building inventory and, more efficiently, house Federal employees. The commission could recommend property sales, consolidations, redevelopments, or other property actions. The bill does not apply to military bases, national parks and recreation areas, or a variety of other Federal properties. The administration would have 30 days to reject the recommendations or forward them to Congress for an up-or- down vote. If approved, agencies would be required to implement them.

In conclusion, let me say that both Republican and Democrat administrations have tried to work within the system to get rid of unneeded Federal property and have failed. Both parties know the process is broken and have proposed an independent BRAC-like commission to solve the problem. I believe this bill is a big step in the right direction, and I thank you for your consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just to quickly respond, let me first say thank you to the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have worked on this bill for a year. We agreed on language. We accepted the administration's language and worked with OMB on making sure that this was a bill that not only passed with bipartisan support but was something that the Senate would welcome and the President would sign. So it's been a good year. We've worked very well together, I think, on the issue up until this point.

And I know that it became somewhat contentious in committee because we had several different properties listed in the bill to help pay for and make sure that this was a pay-as-you-go bill. We pulled those out in an effort to create bipartisanship and to make sure that those issues that the other side of the aisle wanted addressed were addressed, but we went a step further.

As the ranking member of the committee asked for several different amendments, we agreed to those amendments. The environmental issue, we agreed to her amendment. Even though OMB had suggested that they didn't want lawsuits to apply, we went ahead and, in a sense of bipartisanship, wanted to agree to the ranking member's amendment on this. As well, the homeless, we agreed to a $2 million exemption to make sure the homeless were well taken care of. That was changed to $3 million. We agreed to that. It was changed to $5 million. We agreed to that as well, even though I can't imagine the homeless wanting to utilize a $5 million piece of property--it seems somewhat excessive-- but in a true spirit of bipartisanship, we agreed.

I keep my word. I will continue to support the ranking member's amendment on the floor today. As well, I have included it in my amendment. I stand by my word, and I hope others on this floor would do the same.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the former chairman of the subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate one more time, I support the gentlelady's amendment. I look forward to voting on it as long as she brings it up. We support the homeless in this bill. We agreed to it in Rules. We still support it today, and there will definitely be sufficient votes on this side of the aisle if she decides to bring it up. And you know what? If it doesn't pass, then vote against the bill. But if you believe in the homeless issue, then put your amendment up and let's have the votes on it.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), also a former subcommittee chairman.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, we're talking a lot around this issue. The gentlelady wants a guarantee. Let me give her a guarantee. She can bring her amendment up right now; we'll do it on a voice vote. It will be in the text of the bill within 30 minutes, and that is exactly what we will be voting on tomorrow.

It's very simple. We have the votes. We want the amendment. We want the Democrat support and want this to be a bipartisan bill. So all she has to do is bring up the amendment right now, we'll voice vote it, and it will be part of the bill. So now really the question is, do you or don't you want the bill?

Reclaiming my time, I have a second amendment just in case, unfortunately, trust leaves this room. In the unfortunate case that somebody does not offer their amendment, I've got my own. But I am happy to withdraw my amendment and voice vote her amendment right here so it's in the bill and we have a bipartisan agreement.

I'm not sure what the concern is. You want a guarantee? Here is a guarantee, let's do it, bipartisan. Let's get unanimous support out of this House and show the American people we can agree on cutting waste, we can agree on creating jobs, we can agree on selling some of the things we just don't need.

Parliamentary Inquiry

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, once again, this is the amazing thing about politics. You can have an agreement and support completely the other side's opinion and still have a disagreement only in this House.

I support getting this country back in line with our fiscal responsibility. We have a $15 trillion debt, and we've got to do something about it. We have an opportunity to have a bipartisan agreement, one that the President is asking for, one he included in his State of the Union as something to get done. If he cannot get his own party, if he cannot get the Senate to come along with his ideas, how are we the obstructionists?

We want to sell properties. We want to sell the noncontroversial properties. Fourteen thousand properties have been identified as excess, underutilized properties that we could be moving immediately. We could be creating billions of dollars to pay down our debt. We could be redeveloping so many of these historic buildings that are sitting empty, creating jobs, getting these properties back on the tax rolls. This is a bipartisan solution that I'm amazed at some of the rhetoric tonight.

Again, if the ranking member wants a guarantee, we'll give her a guarantee tonight. Bring up the amendment. We will voice vote it right now and she will have a guarantee it's in the bill. But yet she doesn't want to do it. So I have a separate amendment. If we cannot get the other side of the aisle to present theirs, we will present ours.

Again, we've got to get rid of some of this waste, this additional expense--$1.9 billion we pay just in operating costs of these properties we don't use today, properties that are sitting vacant. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree that an empty building that's not being used, that has no reason to be used in the future, cannot be eliminated to reduce our debt, the real question is: What can we agree on? This is the most simple of deficit reduction plans. This is one the President has asked for multiple times.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the amendment before mine is not being brought up?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects what was agreed to by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on the homeless issue. The amendment ensures that there is a reasonable review of properties for use by the homeless.

Under current law, the review process is covered by the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This amendment applies that law in a streamlined way to the civilian property realignment process created in

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1734 is drafted to ensure there is a streamlined process to sell or redevelop high-value assets.

H.R. 1734 preserves our parks and open spaces by explicitly exempting them from the process outlined in the bill. Despite this, the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia would give the General Services Administration extraordinary authority to take valuable properties off the table and set them aside. This amendment would give GSA veto authority over the President, over Congress by allowing GSA to remove properties after recommendations are approved.

The legislation includes opportunities for State and local governments to receive properties in the process, and the commission will include expertise in community development. Those considerations would be included in the recommendations submitted to the President and Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition even though I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his work on this amendment. Just as we saw the other Democratic amendment pass through on a voice vote, I assume we're going to see this one pass through on a voice vote as well, making both amendments actually language in the bill.

That could've been done a couple of other times tonight. We want to make sure we have got a bipartisan bill, that both parties can agree that we want to get rid of waste, that we want to get rid of properties we just don't need, and that we actually run a more efficient government.

But specifically on this amendment, again I'd like to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his work on this. This amendment would ensure that the General Services Administration accounts for the total cost in the design or lease of a building.

Very often GSA makes decisions that bind the taxpayer to significant financial obligations when procuring space. And unfortunately, currently GSA's analyses do not take into account the total life-cycle cost of the taxpayer investment. This amendment would correct this. I support the adoption of this amendment as I've supported other adoptions tonight.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

In reclaiming my time, I support the amendment, and look forward to bipartisan support on the bill tomorrow morning. This is something that taxpayers need. This is something that will help us to reduce our debt in a way in which Republicans and Democrats can come together and work on something on a bipartisan level and actually give something back to the President that he is asking for.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.