Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of Federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the structured rule. While the unemployment numbers are now at their lowest point in 3

years, the American people know that our economy is still teetering. That's why it's important for Democrats and Republicans to come together around commonsense proposals.

This underlying bill, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, stemmed from President Obama's proposal in his FY 2012 budget, and I'm glad that Congress is beginning its deliberative process on this important issue.

Currently, the Federal Government owns and manages over 1 million Federal buildings and structures--including many in my home State of Colorado--which costs over $20 billion a year annually to operate and maintain. This bill seeks to ensure our government is a better steward of taxpayer dollars by improved utilization and management of surplus properties and the elimination and monetization of unnecessary assets to reduce our deficit.

Building on President Obama's proposal contained in his FY 2012 budget, this bill sets up a process to consolidate, sell, or exchange Federal Government assets it no longer needs. Sounds like common sense, but it hasn't been done yet. As the President identified, an estimated 14,000 buildings and structures are currently designated as excess properties. In essence, this legislation attempts to do with Federal Government property what the Department of Defense has successfully already done with its base closure and realignment program--BRAC--for military installations, an attempt to remove politics from the process so that effectively our Federal holdings can be streamlined and that money can be raised from properties that are no longer necessary for the operations of the Federal Government.

To accomplish this goal, this legislation sets up an independent Civilian Property Realignment Commission, which would recommend which Federal properties should be consolidated, sold, exchanged or redeveloped. The commission's downsizing recommendations would be subject to approval by the President and then by Congress before they could be implemented en masse.

The underlying legislation should be a strong bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, there are a number of last-minute considerations which are causing some contention between the two parties. And I understand that some language has been added, including contentious riders that were added without a hearing or a meeting of the Democratic side.

The current language, therefore, includes some offensive provisions that will jeopardize support on my side of the aisle, including a measure that would change Federal law to eliminate the preference homeless shelters receive, as well as a provision that waives compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, part of the ongoing Republican agenda to gut environmental protections, but in this case, a policy waiver that has nothing to do with trying to manage our Federal property.

The Federal public comment process needs to be in place when assets are transferred because they have important roles in communities. Whether it's urban, suburban, or rural, our comment process is a critical piece of ensuring that all stakeholders are taken into account. If there's a flaw with the NEPA comment process, or NEPA, fix it elsewhere, but not in the context of a bill that's supposed to streamline Federal Government holdings and allow us to sell off excess property.

Another problem with this bill is that the new programs funded under this bill are not funded. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would cost $68 million over the next 5 years. Now, some on the other side might argue that $68 million isn't much money, but as a matter of principle it should have an offset. This violates the CutGo protocols and is an example of the majority spending money without saying where it's going to come from. So to be clear, this bill in its current form would increase our deficit by $68 million. I think it would be relatively easy, in a bipartisan manner, to figure out where we can find $68 million elsewhere in the budget to offset this so it doesn't go directly to the deficit.

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

The ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Representative Cummings, offered an amendment to ensure provisions of the Homeless Assistance Act would continue to apply. This was a germane amendment that would be allowed on the floor if this were an open rule, and yet it is blocked by this restrictive process.

That's one example of an amendment that was actually brought to the Rules Committee and dismissed by the majority. But what if this debate inspires a Member to offer other practical, commonsense amendments, including offset ideas to ensure that this doesn't increase our deficit?

Under this process before us, that Member's amendment will not be allowed, no matter how good or how bipartisan or how universal the support is for that amendment. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining speakers.

I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that significant issues still remain with the Civilian Property Realignment Act in its current form. The gentleman discussed the potential savings from this bill.

To be clear, this is a transfer of items that are already in the asset column of the Federal Government. It's not the creation of new value or new money out of nothing. It simply turns assets into cash.

We need cash. We have a large deficit to cover. It makes sense to sell excess properties, but this money doesn't come from nowhere. Once those properties are sold, those will no longer be on the ledgers of the Federal Government.

Now, it does save significant operating capital and maintenance of these unnecessary properties; but, again, I think common sense would indicate that if the commission costs $20 million to set up, with the various people involved with this process, we should specify where that money is coming from in the bill. And I think that there would be a way to do that on a bipartisan basis.

Given all the concerns that remain with this bill regarding how it's paid for, the homeless situation, and the NEPA, the environmental review protections, we should be engaging in an open process, not one that limits and shuts down debate.

The American people are frustrated that this Congress refuses to consider bipartisan-supported balanced bills that would stimulate job growth in our country and restore fiscal responsibility.

We can only reignite the American Dream and reinvigorate our economy by strengthening the middle class and encouraging innovation. President Obama has introduced a package to spur small business growth and start- ups, which includes many of the proposals previously offered by Members on both sides of the aisle with bipartisan support. And yet, to the dismay on many on my side of the aisle, this Congress has yet to consider these measures that will strengthen the middle class and help small business grow.

I do applaud the majority for beginning to take up the process that President Obama has put forth in his fiscal year 2012 budget of selling off excess Federal property. There just remain a few I's to dot and a few T's to cross to ensure that this important piece of legislation can garner the support of the bipartisan majority in this body.

There remains much work to be done on the large issues, including enacting a comprehensive jobs plan, extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, ensuring seniors have access to their doctors under Medicare, comprehensive tax reform, and putting our fiscal house in order by passing a bold and balanced plan to reduce the deficit.

Selling off excess Federal assets and making sure that the Federal Government doesn't own or have to maintain or operate more than we need to is a small, but critical, piece of the overall equation. This Congress has the opportunity to get it right through a deliberative process.

But because the majority has restricted debate on the underlying bill, I cannot support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 537 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

House Resolution 537 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.

The rule makes six amendments in order. Of these, five are Democrat- sponsored amendments and one is a Republican-sponsored amendment. The only amendments not made in order were either because of a lack of germaneness and/or they were duplicative in nature or the subject of other amendments.

H.R. 1734 has come to the floor under regular order. The applicable subcommittee held two hearings specifically on this bill and held an additional six hearings on the subject of Federal property consolidation. The subcommittee held a markup and subsequently passed the bill out by voice vote. The full committee also held a markup during which several amendments were considered before the bill was reported out of committee. Further, H.R. 1734 enjoys a bipartisan list of cosponsors.

The Civilian Property Realignment Act enjoys bipartisan support because it tackles an inherently bipartisan issue: making government work more efficiently in order to better safeguard taxpayer dollars.

The Federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive real property portfolio that includes 429,000 buildings and over 1 million total properties. In fact, the Federal Government is the largest owner and manager of real estate in our country.

The Office of Management and Budget in 2007 estimated that the Federal Government is holding $18 billion in real property that it does not need. If we sold all excess Federal properties, the resulting proceeds could approach $15 billion, on top of the annual savings reaped from reduced maintenance and operating costs.

These properties have been accumulated by the agencies over time and in many cases these agencies' missions have evolved over that period. As missions change, so agencies' needs also change. As a result, many properties that were once crucial have become less useful, or in some cases unneeded altogether.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 2009--the most recent data available--the government held 10,327 unneeded buildings and spent $134 million annually to maintain them. According to Office of Management and Budget testimony delivered before Congress, the Federal Government has approximately 55,000 properties classified as ``underutilized.'' It costs taxpayers nearly $1.7 billion annually to operate underutilized Federal buildings, according to the Government Accountability Office.

H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission to make recommendations to Congress to better manage the inventory of Federal civilian real property. The commission, consisting of eight members appointed by the President, would report annually on its findings. Under the bill, within 6 months of enactment the commission would identify and recommend to the President and Congress the sale of at least five high-value Federal properties with an estimated fair market value of at least $500 million. Both the President and Congress would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. The President could transmit recommendations from the commission, with or without his approval, to Congress, where an up-or-down vote would take place under an expedited procedure.

H.R. 1734 is modeled after the base realignment and closure--BRAC-- process and would require an examination of Federal civilian real properties across government, used and unused, and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. Military installations, properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and national parks are not subject to the commission's jurisdiction.

The cost-saving initiative would achieve a reduction in the size of the Federal Government real property inventory by selling or redeveloping underutilized properties, increasing the utilization rates of existing properties, and expediting the disposal of surplus properties.

Given the vast real estate holdings of the Federal Government, poor asset management and missed market opportunities cost the taxpayers significant sums of money. The Government Accountability Office has placed real property management on its list of ``high risk'' governmental activities, citing excess and underutilization of real property, deteriorating and aging facilities, unreliable data, and overreliance on costly leasing.

H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, seeks to reduce the Federal Government's footprint, increase efficiency, and ultimately enhance stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It isn't just about closing buildings. It's about looking at the taxpayers' assets and deciding whether or not they are being efficiently utilized. Given the realities of the current economy, this is the same type of belt- tightening taking place all over our Nation right now. It's time for our government to start leading by example.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other presenters. We are ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The cost of real property to the Federal Government--costs are significant, and most agencies do not have the incentives to minimize those costs. Properties sit vacant and woefully underutilized, not only costing taxpayers billions of dollars, but often are eyesores in the local communities, and steal property away from the ad valorem revenues of local communities.

Even so, despite the current budget climate, many agencies continue to seek more space than is necessary, reducing efficiency and increasing cost. Better management of Federal property presents an opportunity to reduce expenditures and increase revenues.

H.R. 1734 is a bipartisan measure. It seeks to address a problem that has become a hallmark of our bloated, inefficient Federal bureaucracy. H.R. 1734 is intended to bring an independent process outside the bureaucratic red tape to the management of real property owned by the Federal Government. It will reduce waste, increase efficiency of the Federal Government, and produce significant savings for the taxpayer.

With deficits over $1 trillion in the Federal Government, we simply can't afford to sit on money-losing properties and empty Federal buildings any longer. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.