USE IT Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, another week, another round of trivial messaging bills. That is all this Republican majority can do. It has been one pointless messaging bill after another that will never, ever become law. In fact, we haven't passed a single bill out of the Rules Committee that has become law in 9 months--9 months.

First, let's talk about H.R. 6276, a bill that is supposed to help measure and evaluate Federal building utilization. This bill seems to do with the Republican belief that working from home is always bad no matter what.

Don't get me wrong. I hate Teams meetings, and I hate Zoom calls as much as everyone else, but can Republicans please acknowledge that it is 2024, and people can work from home?

Basically, this bill says that if a Federal employee works from home 1 day a week, they are no longer counted as being in the office. Ignore the 4 days a week that they are in the office. If they work from home once, then they are not in the office. Oh, and by the way, we are going to get rid of their desks because they worked from home once. Come on. It is just a silly solution.

This bill fails to capture even the fundamental nature of some of our most vital jobs in the Federal workforce. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you are a food inspector who spends 4 days a week ensuring that our food supply is safe and secure, this bill would not count them for occupancy, which could eventually lead to eliminating their office space. Or if you are a Federal firefighter protecting the lives and property of countless Americans week after week after week but not sitting at a desk for 40 hours, then this bill would say: No, you won't be counted, and you won't need to have a desk.

Now, if we want our Federal workforce to be the best in the world, then we need to compete. We need to give people the flexibility to work from home, just like other employers do in the private sector, which is something that this bill discourages. For those reasons, I believe it is a bad bill, and I will be voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, next we have H. Res. 1065. The actual resolution calls on the President to detain and remove specific individuals from the United States.

I have news for you, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are in charge of this body. They are barely in charge, but they are in charge, nonetheless. They don't have to call on the President to do anything. This isn't a debate club for God's sake. Pass a bill and change the damn policy if you don't like it, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, wait. Republicans don't want to do anything about immigration or the border. They just want to complain and talk about their feelings.

Let me talk to my friends as if I am talking to one of the sixth- grade classes from my district that comes down and tours Washington every year:

If you want a bill to become a law, then you have to pass a bill. There is a difference between a bill, which starts with the abbreviation H.R., and a resolution, which starts with the abbreviation H. Res. I will spell it out for you. That is H, period; R-E-S, period.

Now, some people think H.R. stands for House resolution. It actually stands for House of Representatives, and H. Res. stands for House resolution. Be that as it may, let's move on because I only have 30 minutes.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate, and we do that by passing bills. Bills can change policy. Bills can change taxes, fund programs, and regulate interstate commerce. Hell, bills can even force the President of the United States to do something. They go to the Senate, and then the Senate can pass it and send it to the President. The President can either veto it and send it back to us or sign it into law.

That is how a bill becomes a law.

My Republican friends might have forgotten this, so it is helpful to remind them.

This resolution on the border cannot become law because it is not a bill. It is a resolution, H. Res. 1065. See, it is right here, Mr. Speaker.

If this resolution passes the House, then it will go nowhere. It will just be put on a website and sent out as a press release. This resolution just tells people how you feel about the border.

Mr. Speaker, it is a way for Republicans to talk about their feelings, and I know Republicans have a lot of big feelings on the border.

Now, Democrats care about the border too, but the difference is we actually want to do something about it.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is a time and place for nonbinding resolutions, but this isn't it. We are not going to reform our broken immigration system with a nonbinding resolution. We are just not.

We had a bipartisan deal on border security that Republicans initially supported until Donald Trump called, and then they changed their minds. They killed it. Republicans killed a bipartisan border security deal, a bill that was negotiated by the second most conservative Republican in the United States Senate. They killed it.

So what do they bring up instead?

Not a bill, but a resolution, a meaningless resolution, this resolution, H. Res. 1065 which changes no law, which will not go to the Senate, and which is literally a press release talking about their feelings.

Now, here is the kicker: This resolution, H. Res. 1065, is almost identical to a similar resolution that we dealt with only 3 months ago. So not only does it do nothing, but it is a repeat. They are so bad at legislating that they are even bad at not legislating.

This is all they have to offer Mr. Speaker, half-baked, empty resolutions that don't address any of the fundamental concerns at our southern border.

Oh, sure, they like to pretend that they care about border security on rightwing TV so that Trump and Republican candidates can use it as a campaign slogan in November. They are really good at that. They go on FOX News and say, secure the border, secure the border, but then they kill bills that try to do anything about the border.

They killed the bipartisan border security bill that came out of the United States Senate. It was a bill that would have provided more funding so we could have more people at the border patrolling our border. It was a bill that would provide more money for judges to accelerate consideration of asylum claims. It was a bill, by the way, that was supported by the Border Patrol union that is at the border.

Now, the only thing that they say they will agree to is their grossly partisan H.R. 2, seemingly ignoring the fact that H.R. 2 has lost in the Senate already. It failed bigly. It only got 32 votes.

In fact, the gentleman across the aisle from Kentucky even voted against H.R. 2, but even if it were to pass the Senate, President Biden would never sign it into law because it is a crappy bill.

Furthermore, I got a little whiplash, Mr. Speaker, because on one hand, I hear from my Republican friends, H.R. 2 or nothing, H.R. 2 or nothing. Then we had a gentleman on the Republican side come and do a 1-minute speech and say, we don't need any legislation at all to do anything. We don't have to pass anything. They need to pick one or the other.

Any way you square it, Republicans now own the border crisis. Democrats have given them every opportunity to work together, and we have been turned down by a Republican Party that does not want to solve problems or govern.

So guess what? They own the border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own all of it. This is their issue. They continue to pass meaningless resolutions like this which do nothing. They continue to scream and yell in committees and on the House floor. They continue to use victims of crimes as props, but when push comes to shove, they don't do a damn thing.

They vote against more funding for border security. They reject serious proposals for border security. They don't want to solve this problem; they want a crisis because they think it helps them in November. What a rotten, cynical, awful way to treat the people of this country. What a terrible way to govern.

This isn't serious legislation. It is a press release. It is embarrassing. House Republicans have no new ideas, so they are just going to keep passing the same meaningless resolution every week until they lose in November.

Maybe then they will realize that this is a bad strategy; that it is a bad idea to treat the American people like they are idiots because the American people are smart, Mr. Speaker. They see what Republicans are doing--obstructing, obstructing, obstructing, and then blaming Democrats for the obstruction they created, passing silly, nonbinding resolutions that do nothing instead of actually working with us to get stuff done.

Democrats actually want to get something done on the border. We want to stop the fentanyl from coming into our country. We want to fix the broken immigration system. And Republicans own this issue now because they rejected a bipartisan deal, and they refuse to work together. They refuse to put people over politics and work with us to address our problems at the border.

Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by, again, reminding my friends on the other side of the aisle--and I would say this to a sixth-grade class if they came to visit Washington--that we now have divided government.

We have, again, a House of Representatives barely controlled by Republicans, a United States Senate barely controlled by Democrats, and a Democrat in the White House.

This notion of ``my way or the highway'' for either side is a nonstarter. If you want to get something done, you have got to work together. For heaven's sake, I would think that you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. We ought to be able to agree on something, like more support for border security along both our southern and our northern border.

We ought to be able to agree that we need to have more judges to evaluate asylum claims so people aren't here for months and months and months or years; that we can resolve these claims efficiently and effectively in a matter of weeks.

We ought to also, rather than doing nonbinding resolutions, be addressing the situation in Ukraine. Ukraine is out of equipment. I don't know why my friends on the other side of the aisle seem so dedicated to giving Putin a victory; Ukraine is running out of time.

Why haven't you scheduled a vote on a bill to provide Ukraine the military assistance that they need so that they can repel the Russians and stop Putin? They are out of time. And if Ukraine falls, my friends own that, too.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Kentucky, we have acknowledged the problem. Maybe the gentleman wasn't listening to my eloquent oratory here, but I acknowledged and identified the problem at least 13 times in my speech.

I think what I and people on my side of the aisle have a problem with is that you have been acknowledging the problem like we did 3 months ago with a nonbinding resolution a lot of times, and we don't think nonbinding resolutions and acknowledging the problem or expressing our feelings is enough. We have to actually do something.

Mr. Speaker, to the other gentleman who just spoke, we are horrified by the crimes that have been committed by undocumented immigrants who have come to this country who have criminal records. We pray for their families. We want to do everything we can to make sure that these things never happen again. I have a hard time when we gather and we hear this from my colleagues when we have shootings that are happening in this country almost on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an AP article dated June 3, 2023, listing the names of the 19 children and two teachers killed in Uvalde.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the names of all 58 Las Vegas shooting victims that were released by the coroner.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on. We can do something about that, but the NRA provides lots of money so my friends don't want to deal with it. I mean, come on.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan American Dream and Promise Act provides a pathway to citizenship for people who only know America as their home. They contribute to society as taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and more. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no-fault of their own. It is past time to open the doors and empower these talented individuals by granting them access to citizenship that they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and to secure our border. H.R. 16 won't solve every issue, but it will address a long, outstanding one in our failing immigration system. It is the right thing to do, and we should start doing the right thing around here.

It has the added benefit of being a bill that actually does something. It is not an expression of our feelings. It does something.

Instead of considering the do-nothing Republican nonbinding resolution before us today which just restates the Republican position from a nonbinding resolution we already passed 2 months ago, let's consider actual legislation to start fixing these issues. Let's bring up H.R. 16.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I kind of feel like I am in an episode of ``The Twilight Zone.'' I can't figure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle out.

The bottom line is, I hear they want to be tough on the border, and every time we try to pass a tough border security bill, they say no.

What we have here is a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It does nothing. It doesn't even go to the Senate. It can never become law. It is nothing. It is just a press release.

What they turned down was $440 million for more judges to accelerate the asylum claims so we are not waiting years and can do this in weeks and months. $23 million to destruct Mexican cartels, they said no to that. $6.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, they said no to that. Fifty thousand ICE detention beds, they said no to that. $4 billion for USCIS, they said no to that.

Why? Because the former President of the United States called up and said: I want the issue.

This is the former President of the United States, by the way, who says that immigrants poison the blood of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the Record. This is from Salon. The title is: `` `He said, Hitler did some good things': Ex-chief of staff says Trump praised Hitler in White House.''

Mr. Speaker, let that sink in.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Axios titled: ``Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal.''

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who was

just yelling that the proposal that we are talking about, the bipartisan border security deal, is not something that we wrote over here: It was written in a bipartisan way in the Senate, led by the second most conservative Republican in the United States Senate.

He said it doesn't have a chance of passing. I will bet him anything that if he brought the bill to the floor, actually let it be brought before the full House, it would pass.

That is why Trump intervened to make sure that it never got a chance to go to the floor, because he knows it would pass.

Also, to the gentleman from Kentucky, I certainly didn't call the victims of--

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the victims of violence and who were killed by undocumented immigrants as props. I said that my Republican friends are using them as props, and I included in the Record the names of people who were killed by gun violence because I am tired of the selective outrage.

The bottom line is that countless people in this country are killed every week from gun violence, and my Republican friends do not want to do anything about it because the NRA owns the Republican Party in this country, and they are afraid to lose the money. That is what this is about.

Our complaint here is that we are talking about border security issues, and our frustration is that what we are dealing with, this tough bill--my Republican colleagues are so tough on the border. The tough bill that they are bringing before the House of Representatives is a nonbinding resolution that can never become law, that won't even be sent to the Senate, that is just a press release.

That is just a colossal waste of time. Surely, there has to be common ground where Democrats and Republicans can come together and actually pass things to better secure our border and to protect people like Laken Riley and others in the future.

However, I guess that is too much to ask.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to the gentleman who just spoke, not all jobs are the same. I mean, food inspectors, Federal food inspectors, for example, don't sit at a desk 5 days a week. Sometimes they have to go out and do inspections to make sure that the food that we provide people is safe.

Federal firefighters are not behind a desk 5 days a week. It doesn't mean they aren't working.

Our Border Patrol agents are patrolling the border. That doesn't mean they don't need a desk at some point.

Heck, Members of Congress, I mean, we are not in Washington behind our desks 5 days a week. Sometimes we are in our districts, sometimes we are in other places, but because we don't show up physically to work a day or 2 or 5 days in a particular month, somehow we should have our desks taken away?

This is the problem: With some better bipartisan cooperation, with more thoughtful consideration of these matters, we could have had a bill that would have sailed out of here unanimously; but, again, my friends can't help themselves, it is either their way or the highway. In any event, the way the bill is currently written ignores the realities of the workers that I just mentioned.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the gentleman from New York repeatedly brag about this Homeland Security appropriations bill that the Republicans passed last year as a demonstration of their commitment to securing our border, but here is what he left out: My Republican friends still-- still, still--have not sent it over to the Senate. They have not sent it over to the Senate. I don't know why.

By the way, H.R. 2 is dead. It only got 32 votes in the Senate. That is a pretty strong message that it is going nowhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

To the gentleman who just spoke, let me just say, you talk about facts. What is an undeniable fact is that the bill before us does absolutely nothing. Nothing. It doesn't add one more Border Patrol agent along our southern or northern border. It doesn't add any more

judges. It doesn't do anything to stop the Mexican cartels. It does nothing. It is just a press release.

The other fact is, H.R. 2 is going nowhere and fast, with 32 votes in the Senate. He also said they would like to work together. Every time we try to work together--that is what we tried to do in the Senate--my Republican friends here in the House, at the request of Donald Trump, say: No, we don't want to work with you. That is a problem because we have to work together in order to get real, meaningful solutions over the finish line.

The gentleman also keeps on screaming, the border is open, the border is open. That is the Republican rallying cry. It isn't, but if you say it enough times, then people might believe you and try to come here because you keep on saying that.

However, Mr. Speaker, the American people are smart. They know the difference between empty promises and real action. They know that the only way to get things done in divided government, for problems to be solved, like the border, Members of both parties have to work together. They know that come November the future of this country is in their hands.

They have seen the complete and utter disaster that this Republican majority has created in this Congress. They have witnessed the absolute chaos House Republicans have thrown the country into.

We are on the Rules Committee. All bills of consequence go to the Rules Committee before they come to the House floor. The last bill that we reported on the Rules Committee to the House floor that became law was 9 months ago. How can that happen? How can that happen without incredible dysfunction on the Republican side?

These guys have brought the Nation to the brink of default, shying away from fully funding the government, destabilizing this body by throwing fits and unseating Speakers, and taking the House floor hostage.

The American people also know that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. House Democrats carried the vote to ensure that the United States didn't default on its debt. House Democrats have kept the government running despite GOP leadership wasting time pursuing unrealistic, draconian spending cuts, and House Democrats have used every opportunity to stand against conservative legislation that would hurt average Americans.

This majority has been nothing but dysfunctional, Mr. Speaker. They have no new ideas, no tangible solutions, no drive to address pressing domestic and global challenges. The American people know that, which is why Republicans are going to lose in November.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. 6276.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, H.R. 6276, the USE IT Act of 2023, implements commonsense and reasonable space occupancy standards to get Federal employees back into the office or the agency will have to lose that unnecessary, unneeded, unused space.

A recent Government Accountability Office review of how agencies were actually using their headquarters space here in Washington, D.C., found that 17 of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed used 25 percent or less of their space--17 of the 24, 25 percent or less of their space.

One agency even admitted that if 100 percent of their employees showed up, they would still only use 67 percent of their own building.

Even more troubling is some agencies were using only 9 percent. They can't even make double digits of their space. To be clear, we are not just paying for space to sit empty. Throughout the whole time, we are paying for utilities and services such as heating, cooling, lighting, regular power, maintenance, security for the entire space that no one is in.

Empty Federal buildings are not only a drain to the Federal taxpayer, they also don't produce investments needed for local economies because nobody is in the building. There is nobody there to go out to lunch.

The bottom line is agencies should bring Federal workers back to the office. The reality is underutilized space has been a chronic problem in Federal real estate and is one reason Federal property has been on the GAO's high-risk list since 2003. This problem was identified 20 years ago, and it is still in existence today.

In order to address the issue, H.R. 6276 would use similar metrics to those used by the GAO and require Federal agencies to report on their actual utilization rates, set a target utilization of not less than 60 percent, and require the General Services Administration to report to Congress if any agency fails to meet that standard.

Agencies will be given time to meet the 60 percent utilization standard, but if they fail to do so, they would have to lose or give up their excess space.

Ultimately, the results of H.R. 6276 will benefit not just the Federal taxpayer, but also allow unused Federal buildings to be put to better use for the local communities.

Madam Chair, I urge support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, the current administration doesn't even count every single employee in the Federal system. This bill, as he knows, does not affect flex schedules or telework schedules. It has nothing to do with that. We can, in this case, have our cake and eat it, too.

We can have this bill. We can get our occupancy rate up to 60 percent. We can pass the bipartisan amendment that myself and Representative Auchincloss had worked together on and is in order. We can try and right-size the people that actually show up to work while acknowledging in the Federal system that not everybody has to be in the office.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.

Madam Chair, historically, for 20 years anyhow, while this problem has been identified, these issues have historically been bipartisan. In fact, it was former President Obama who advocated agencies to freeze and then reduce their space footprint, recognizing that agencies had far more space than they needed.

To the gentleman who just spoke, GSA actually wants to do it. They want to reduce the space, but the agencies won't allow it. Why would they? They get so much space, and they don't have to deal with managing it or not. They just get the space, and they can continue on their other work with as much space as they need, sometimes 3,000 square feet per employee.

A lot of people in America would like to have a house that is 3,000 square feet for their whole family. If they were watching today and found out that the Federal Government was paying for that, that their taxes were paying for that when they couldn't afford it themselves, they would be furious.

The Obama administration set a standard that agencies had to account for things like teleworking, actual space usage, and planning for the space. For example, in an agency that may have 1,000 people assigned to a building, only a portion of those people would be counted when it came to desks and space. It puts into consideration things like teleworking. The Obama administration even proposed selling the Department of Labor building based on this type of space utilization and counting.

More recently, I know that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has previously proposed legislation to move and sell the Department of Energy, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Republicans just want to kick Federal employees out of their buildings. We don't. We would actually prefer that they come back to work.

Additionally, if they come back to work, I think it is very reasonable for us to say that we want the building to be 60 percent occupied. Sixty percent is, to me, a pretty good compromise with my friends on the other side of the aisle who are saying we just want to sell buildings and kick Federal employees out of their buildings.

We don't. We want them to come to work, but we want them to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and to use the space efficiently. When they don't need it, like everybody else would do, give up that space to be utilized either by other agencies in the Federal Government or by the political subdivision. Some town or city where that building is located should have the advantage to use that space so that they can increase their tax rolls, so that they can help their vendors out on the streets, and so that they can help their community.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I do want to respond to my good friend from Washington.

I didn't mean to mischaracterize his assessment or his comments. However, the speaker before the gentleman from Washington did essentially make those claims, and so I was answering that.

While I am here, I want to characterize what the public is seeing if they are reading The Washington Times. Here is an article from Wednesday, December 6, 2023, ``Idea to fill empty Federal buildings with illegal immigrants,'' where DHS headquarters is 69 percent unused and Social Security offices are 93 percent vacant.

No wonder offices like mine deal with so many constituent calls when they can't get answers from the Social Security Administration.

We would like those folks to come back to work, but if they are not going to come back to work, could we stop having everybody, including Social Security recipients, pay for the empty building?

Here is another one from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, September 21, 2023: ``Telework's empty buildings opens the door for Legionnaires' disease.''

Well, isn't that wonderful? Won't that be great when the source of a new outbreak of Legionnaires' disease comes from a vacant Federal building that we are paying for?

Here is another one, ``IG to investigate Federal offices left vacant by telework policies,'' from The Washington Times, and the date of this is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

Finally, ``Ghost towns: Federal office buildings are 80 percent vacant, government audit finds.'' This article is from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, October 26, 2023.

We have an opportunity here that shouldn't be partisan and should be pretty simple. All we are saying is: Federal agencies, can you come back to work at least 60 percent? Is that too much? It is 10 percent above 50 percent, which would be half empty. We find that very objectionable, but at least 60 percent should be something we agree on.

Mr. Chair, I include all the articles that I discussed previously in the Record.

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2023]

Idea To Fill Empty Federal Buildings With Illegal Immigrants Solves Two

Problems for Biden Admin

DHS HQ is 69 percent unused, Social Security offices 93 percent vacant

(By Stephen Dinan)

The Biden administration is desperate to find shelter for

all the illegal immigrants caught and released into the U.S.

Perhaps they could stay in federal office buildings.

The Department of Homeland Security's palatial headquarters

in Washington's southeast quadrant sits nearly 70 percent

vacant, according to data released this week by Sen. Joni

Ernst, Iowa Republican.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose

mission is to put Americans into homes, is even worse. Its

headquarters is 93 percent vacant. So is the Social Security

Administration's main building outside Baltimore.

The Office of Personnel Management, the government's human

resources agency, is a ghost town with 88 percent of its

space unoccupied. The General Services Administration, the

government's chief landlord agency, can't fill its own

headquarters, with an 89 percent vacancy rate.

Across two dozen departments and agencies, not a single one

was at 50 percent capacity in the first three months of this

year, according to Ms. Ernst's figures.

``While it's not the night before Christmas yet, there's

not a creature stirring, not even a mouse, in the halls

across this city,'' Ms. Ernst said in releasing the occupancy

figures.

She said the Biden administration gave the numbers to her

but didn't want them released publicly. She defied that

demand, saying the public needs to know how bad things have

become in the federal workforce.

``COVID's been over for years. Where are the workers?'' she

said.

The Washington Times reached out to the worst-performing

agencies to ask about the vacancies and their plans to

rectify matters.

None of the agencies provided a comment, though in response

to federal officials, HUD and the Small Business

Administration said their spaces were undergoing renovations

during the test period, which contributed to a decrease in

attendance.

The GSA controls more than 90 million square feet of office

space in the Washington region alone, and the government

holds about 511 million square feet nationally. GSA figures

on 150 to 180 square feet of usable space per employee.

The 24 headquarters buildings for which Ms. Ernst released

data were operating at about 20 percent of full use.

Occupancy is based on a building's capacity and the amount

of use of its space. The data was based on average attendance

during sample days in a three-month period from January

through March and was derived from sign-ins, logins and badge

swipes.

While offices sit empty, many American communities are

overwhelmed by the surge of illegal immigrants whom the Biden

administration has caught and released.

Ms. Ernst suggested a meeting of the minds.

``So-called sanctuary cities have run out of space to

shelter the influx of immigrants that the Biden

administration is allowing to enter the country illegally.

With two-thirds of the Department of Homeland Security

headquarters going unused, maybe the agency causing the

problem can solve it by opening their doors,'' she told The

Times.

Homeland Security, which has a use rate of 31 percent, did

not respond to a request for comment on the idea.

Exact numbers are a closely held secret, but outside

estimates say Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

has paroled 2 million illegal immigrants into the U.S., in

addition to others caught and released or who sneaked in

altogether.

The administration has moved to stick thousands of them at

a National Park Service property in New York. It signed a

lease with the city for the Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn.

That location lacks many amenities, and the tent city

erected to house the migrants sits in a flood plain, critics

charged.

House Republicans, joined by a smattering of Democrats,

voted last week to cancel the lease and to prevent migrants

from being placed on other property held by federal land

management agencies. That legislation, which is unlikely to

make it through the Democratic-controlled Senate, does not

appear to block migrants from being placed in buildings run

by non-land-management agencies.

Meanwhile, vacancy at federal buildings is an increasingly

touchy issue for the Biden administration, which has declared

the pandemic emergency over and ordered employees back to

work in person but has been met with resistance by those

workers.

The comptroller general, in a report earlier this year,

prodded agencies about the matter.

They offered a host of excuses for why they weren't filling

space, including preparing for a possible surge of returning

employees.

Some excuses seemed more territorial.

The audit said some agencies seemed to worry that giving up

their buildings or sharing space with others would make them

seem less powerful than other agencies.

Even within departments and agencies, divisions were

reluctant to share space such as conference rooms, the

Government Accountability Office said.

Mr. Chair, Federal real property has remained on the GAO's high-risk list for more than 20 years. The Government Accountability Office has said this is a high risk for the last 20 years, and we are on the precipice. We are standing on the edge of providing a solution to the excess space that exists that we keep paying for.

At the same time, our debt has gone to $34 trillion. By May, it will be $35 trillion. We are not going to save trillions here, but we can save billions here. If you start adding up billions, maybe you will finally get to trillions. However, we are not saving anything right now, and we are not going to save any of this if we don't pass this bill.

This is our opportunity, Mr. Chair, to finally fix this problem, a problem that I will note has historically found bipartisan support to address the issue. Even on this occasion, when the bill was lacking, we had a hearing. We had a markup on it.

Friends on the other side of the aisle said: Would you listen to a way where potentially we could improve it?

Of course, we did, and we worked together. You are going to have an opportunity to vote on that amendment shortly.

The USE IT Act of 2023 is reasonable. It is commonsense legislation that simply says that if the Federal employees don't come back into the office, the taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the empty space.

We don't have any extra money in this town, Mr. Chair. Nobody has any extra money. Right here, we have identified it. This is where some of it is going unnecessarily. We can consolidate. We can sell things off.

Some of these agencies will probably get a new building, just at the right size, where their workers would still have flex time, would still telework where appropriate, and where constituents--our bosses, the American people--could access the services that they pay for and deserve to get because they do pay for them.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this soon-to-be bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment to H.R. 6276 with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss). This amendment makes two clarifying changes to the bill, ensuring that the legislation collects occupancy data in a way that better encompasses all Federal workers, wherever they are working, and protects the privacy of those workers.

This amendment updates the definition of ``occupancy'' in the bill from the total number of employees performing duties in person over a 5-day workweek to the number of employees doing so over a 40-hour workweek, ensuring that occupancy calculations can more comprehensively account for all employees.

Now, the issue came up during discussion in regular order in the committee. Mr. Auchincloss had some issues with the bill, and rightly so. He came to me, and he said: Can we work on this? I said: Sure, I think we can because we are all interested in making things better, no matter where the ideas come from.

Additionally, this amendment requires that the sensors used to collect occupancy data within this bill are designed to protect the personally identifiable information of the building's occupants, ensuring that these new requirements will not impinge and impose on Federal employee privacy.

It has been great to work with the gentleman. We all want to improve things. We all think we have the best ideas, but sometimes we don't, and when somebody else does, you have just got to say, well, look, can we get it done together? If that brings us together, that is a win for the American people and, quite honestly, a win for this Congress if we can work on the amendment, get it passed and also the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, again, trying to alleviate the fact that a vast majority of the buildings are vastly understaffed, yet 100 percent of them are paid for, that is what we are trying to do here. It has been a 20-year-long problem--20 years long. The Obama administration recognized it and tried to do something about it. Of course, GSA wants to do something about it. Again, the tenants, the occupants of the buildings, the agencies have no incentive to reduce their space. They would be happy to have all the space and have nobody in it except when they feel like showing up as long as the taxpayer is willing to pay for an empty building, well heated, well cared for, well maintained, just in case they might use it.

Now, we have told the Rules Committee that we want to see all the amendments that are worthy to be listened to be debated and come to the floor for a vote because we think that improving ideas, no matter where they come from, is the greatest thing for this institution and for this effort.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment that I worked on with my good friend, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I do think it is incumbent on me to characterize my position and recharacterize my friend's characterization of my position, which, as I recall, was to close buildings and kick out Federal employees.

That is not my position. In fact, in many ways, I share the goals of the chair of the subcommittee, that it is clear we have much more federally owned and leased space than is currently being used given the work schedules and changes that have taken place since COVID. It is necessary for us to look at how best to consolidate that space, to rightsize that space, given its usage.

The problem I have is the hammer approach that this particular bill takes by setting a hard and fast 60 percent rule rather than looking at the flexibility necessary when you are considering agency by agency, division by division within those agencies, and how that space can be used properly and most efficiently.

We have worked on a bipartisan basis on the committee on a wide range of policies, including rightsizing the Federal real estate footprint. Just yesterday, we passed, on suspension, the FASTA Reform Act, a bill that the chairman himself sponsored that will expedite the disposal of excess Federal property.

When we work together, we can make some really good progress on this and other issues, but today's bill does fall short by failing to take into account the complexity of the Federal leasing process and using an incomplete and flawed metric for measuring the occupancy rate of Federal buildings.

I do welcome the opportunity to work with any Member in good faith, and we have done that, again, on many issues in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We all want to make genuine improvements on the Federal real estate program.

Mr. Chair, I do oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy that the administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 12 from the AFL-CIO in opposition to H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 11 from the Federal Workers Alliance opposing H.R. 6276; and a letter dated March 8 from the American Federation of Government Employees opposing H.R. 6276.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6276--Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies (USE

IT) Act of 2023--Rep. Perry, R-PA

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276, the USE IT

Act, which would direct the Director of the Office of

Management Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of the General

Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that Federal

agencies' building utilization meets an arbitrary level of

not less than a 60 percent average each year and, if an

agency does not reach the target, GSA and OMB would have to

forcibly reduce the agency's space. While the Administration

believes that the Federal real estate portfolio needs to be

evaluated and optimized, the Administration believes that

agencies' unique missions require individualized approaches

to improving space utilization. H.R. 6276 does not consider

the varying mission and technical requirements of individual

agencies or the age and original design of affected

facilities when directing the OMB Director and GSA

Administrator to develop and implement a plan to consolidate

multiple agency headquarters functions into fewer buildings

within the National Capital Region. These buildings, many of

which are historic, would require major modernization and

reconfiguration, prior to supporting dramatically increased

occupancy levels. Instead, the Administration recommends

strengthening the

collection of utilization data by Federal agencies and

providing sufficient funding to GSA and affected agencies to

execute necessary consolidations. The Administration is

committed to working with agencies to improve their

utilization of Federal space and to identify opportunities to

reduce space.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires GSA to include in its occupancy agreements with Federal tenants a requirement that tenant agencies submit a report on utilization and usage to GSA. It also requires the return of office space by the tenant to GSA if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months within any 1-year period.

GSA previously allowed tenant agencies to return unneeded space back to GSA with 120-days' notice, but in May of 2023, GSA changed its policy and now all new occupancy agreements between GSA and Federal tenants must include a noncancellation clause to prevent agencies from returning space to GSA.

Requiring agencies to return space if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months does not account for the fact that space costs incurred by the government still remain under the lease contract.

While I have concerns about the mechanics and the cost of an agency returning space to GSA with this amendment, I will not oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I do not oppose the amendment on this side of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Mr. Chair, my biggest concern with the underlying bill is that it defines occupancy as the total number of employees physically working from the offices at least 5 days a week. Many Federal employees do not actually sit at their desks at all because they are out in the field working.

As the bill is currently written, these employees--as well as Federal employees who have approved alternative work schedules--would not be included

in occupancy counts. This amendment makes a slight improvement to that definition, as was explained by the Representative from Massachusetts.

The effort to count occupants in buildings is worthwhile, but only if we ensure that all occupants, including those who have been sanctioned and approved with their alternative work schedules, are included.

This amendment will improve the bill, and I thank the Representative from Pennsylvania and the Representative from Massachusetts for their efforts.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, section 4 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration and Congress a report on the usage of real property.

The amendment that the Representative from Wyoming offers expands the reporting requirement by including the telework and remote work practices of the agency and the impact those policies have on utilization rates and buildings occupied by the respective agency.

It certainly would be helpful for Congress to have a clearer picture of these policies and practices across the government.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, section 3 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to work with the Administrator of General Services to identify, deploy, and use sensors and other technologies to measure the occupancies of Federal buildings.

The amendment from the Representative from Wyoming will require that Personal Identity Verification badge swipe data should also be used but only capture the first credentialed use of the day for each cardholder.

Ensuring that each person is counted one time--not every time they may leave and return--would provide accurate representation of building utilization and meet the goals of Congress to better assess the use of Federal office space.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the Representative from Georgia requires some significant reporting on occupancy, utilization rates, and costs by the heads of Federal agencies to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and Congress.

Information gathering and transparency is vital to efficient and effective governing, so I will not oppose the amendment.

I do want to point out, however, that agency heads are already required to report occupancy and utilization data, and that data can be found on GSA's annual performance overview reports on GSA's website that the public can access now.

Mr. Chair, I will not oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, section 4 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and Congress a report on the usage of real property.

The amendment offered by the Representative from Georgia for the Representative from Florida requires the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on the costs to Federal agencies associated with complying with section 4 of the underlying bill.

The GAO's report must include the cost of Federal agencies of surveying, monitoring, and deploying sensors and technologies to measure the occupancy and actual utilization rates of space in public buildings and space leased by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the Representative from Tennessee requires the heads of Federal agencies to

submit a report to the inspector general of each respective agency on buildings under the agency's jurisdiction that has capacity for 500 or more employees that has a 20 percent utilization rate or less.

Upon receipt of the report, the relevant inspector general is to investigate evidence of fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.

Now, I will say this, I don't know why this amendment is necessary. I understand the Federal real estate has been on the General Accounting Office's High-Risk list for years, but nowhere in GAO's reporting were there claims of fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. Even though this is only a reporting requirement, requiring the inspector general of every Federal agency to investigate could be a waste of time and resources.

This amendment seems to be a solution chasing a problem, but I will not oppose it.

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

Mr. Chair, I will close on this amendment by briefly speaking to the broader bill. The goal that we share in Congress is to ensure that Congress, the General Services Administration, the agencies all adjust to the post-COVID life that we have in Federal real estate, that we are rightsizing Federal real estate, and that we get rid of the office space we don't need and use the office space that we do need.

This amendment is an attempt to do that. I certainly will not oppose it, but I do ask folks to consider it.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1071 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of 9-3 a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6276, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act of 2023, and H. Res. 1065, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6276, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act of 2023, under a structured rule.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1065, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies, under a closed rule.

The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order, to consider H. Res. 1065.

Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge that it exists. The other side of the aisle is having a problem with that because that is what this resolution does. It describes the problem.

The second part of solving a problem is to look at what the source of the problem is. That is what this resolution does. The other side of the aisle is having a problem with that.

In fact, today, they opened the debate by simply complaining that this is a House Resolution and not a House bill, but this is a House Resolution full of facts, inconvenient facts to this administration.

This administration, since the beginning, has passed 94 executive orders repealing border security measures that were in place and that has attracted 9.3 million illegal immigrants to our borders.

This is a problem that exists. The other side of the aisle needs to quit denying that it exists, and they need to quit trying to change the topic to Ukraine.

The topic today is these two bills. First among them is the resolution that draws attention to the problem at the border and lists specifically the things that this President could do to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, when the majority recites the names of the victims of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants and the criminals who are coming across our border, that those victims are props.

I resent that. I really do because the other side of the aisle then proceeded in the next measure of the debate to enter names of victims who had been killed by criminals using guns.

Let's just agree today that when we honor the names of people who have suffered at the hands of criminals, whether they be domestic or illegal immigrants--sadly, as so many are now--we don't call them props.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend and fellow colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, during his first 100 days in office, President Biden took 94 executive actions on immigration, including halting construction of the border wall.

In August of 2022, the Biden administration formally halted President Trump's successful remain in Mexico program.

In May of 2023, the administration announced that it would allow for the release of some migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them.

The Biden administration also ended title 42, the CDC order that allowed the Department of Homeland Security to remove noncitizens who did not have proper travel documentation, whose entry was otherwise contrary to law, or who were apprehended at or near the border seeking unlawful entry into the United States without regard to asylum claims or proceedings.

Shortly after taking office, President Biden terminated the asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to facilitate cooperation in resolving the migration crisis.

The Biden administration has also abused its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant parole on a case-by-case basis and has instead used this authority to grant mass parole to over 1 million migrants.

The Biden administration has also failed to detain migrants encountered at the southern border and has failed to use its authority to perform expedited removal of individuals illegally present in the United States.

As a result, since President Biden took office, 9.3 million illegal aliens from all over the world have arrived at the southern border. The Biden administration has allowed at least 6.3 million illegal aliens to travel from the southern border to enter American communities.

This is a tragedy. We need to call attention to it.

President Biden says there is nothing he can do. Well, I have just listed a number of things that he has done to create this crisis, and further in this debate I will talk about some of the things that he can do, that we know he can do, things that are stated in the resolution contained in this rule to end this national security, legal, and humanitarian crisis at our border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee resolution that we are debating today provides for the consideration of two pieces of very important legislation.

The first is a commonsense bill that says if the government is heating, lighting, renting, and maintaining empty buildings where employees don't show up for work, let's do something about that. Let's find out how bad this problem is.

We believe that there are over 17 agencies with occupancy of less than 25 percent. This isn't green. I thought the other side of the aisle was green. It is not green to heat empty buildings and to light empty buildings when nobody shows up for work.

COVID is over. Either come to work or don't come to work, but let's not keep these buildings open if nobody is in them.

That is the first bill, which was introduced by my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

The second piece of legislation that is in this rule is very critical. It stands in sharp contrast to the State of the Union Address that we heard just last week in this Chamber where the President got up and said there was nothing he could do.

Well, this resolution has a lot of inconvenient facts that refute the proposition of the President that he can't do anything. Not only can he do something, the things that he has done by executive order, over 94 of them, have been hurtful to the security of this country.

We are seeing illegal immigrants drawn like a magnet to this country because of the things that President Biden has done.

The resolution begins with a bunch of statements of facts, such as the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security created this problem at the border, the worst in the Nation's history, and, beginning on day one, systematically dismantled effective border security measures and interior immigration enforcement.

This resolution closes by resolving that there are seven things the President can do to end this crisis: one, end the catch and release policy; two, reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols; three, enter into asylum cooperative agreements; four, end abuses of parole authority; five, detain inadmissible aliens; six, use expedited removal authority; and seven, rein in taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens.

He could do all of these things tomorrow, and that is why it is important to pass this resolution, to draw attention to the problem so that it can be fixed, and to state what the solutions are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1071 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 16) to authorize the cancellation of removal and

adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective

designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 16.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of my amendment No. 3 to H.R. 6276, which expands on the bill's reporting requirements to have the Federal agencies also evaluate whether occupancy and utilization rates are affected by the agency's remote and telework policies.

The underlying bill, as drafted, requires Federal agencies and the General Services Administration, or GSA, to measure and report on occupancy and utilization in public buildings and federally leased spaces.

My amendment builds on this reporting requirement and forces the agencies to measure how telework and remote work impacts the utilization of its physical office space.

Telework and remote work have long been available to the Federal workforce, but the wide scale and regular use of such policies drastically increased during COVID.

Two priorities of this majority have been to return the Federal workforce to work and to understand how remote and telework impacted the efficiency of the Federal Government and the services it is required to provide to our constituents.

The Committee on Oversight and Accountability under the leadership of Chairmen Comer and Sessions have done great work to accomplish this goal.

Mr. Perry's bill and other bills reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee measuring the usage of Federal office space make further meaningful steps in achieving the goals of this majority.

Yet, the agencies have been anything but fully transparent. My amendment seeks to build on this great work by requiring that the agencies measure the new age of remote and telework on the usage of physical government space.

With telework and remote work so widely used in 2024, any study on the usage of office space would be incomplete without measuring it against the number of employees which only sometimes or never have to physically report to work.

This would help Congress understand how much of the Federal office spaces are actually being used on a regular basis in the post-COVID world, which would also help us to determine if we need to divest of physical office space to save taxpayers' dollars and streamline the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of amendment No. 4 to H.R. 6276 which clarifies that the General Services Administration, or GSA, should use PIV badge swipe data isolating the first credentialed use of the day for each cardholder as a tool to measure utilization of Federal office space.

The bill, as currently drafted, explicitly directs GSA to use sensors and other technologies in public buildings and federally leased space to measure occupancy and utilization.

The GSA states that occupancy data has proven to be a vital tool for agencies to accurately evaluate space utilization and to manage property accordingly.

As part of this effort, the GSA is piloting occupancy data collection technologies. Another method GSA uses is badge swipe data which relies on Personal Identity Verification or PIV card swipe data at building access points.

PIV data is broken down into unique credentials and isolated to the first usage of the day. In short, it uses a Federal worker's PIV card to check attendance at the door.

My amendment would clarify that badge swipe data is and should be a tool GSA uses as part of the measurement of office utilization space.

While occupancy sensors measure the utilization of specific rooms, according to the GSA, badge swipe data can provide a historic daily count of the number of unique credential individuals in a space or building, daily building density based on square foot per person, and annual rent per person occupying the space.

This is absolutely the type of data we need to achieve the outcomes of the underlying bill.

The collection of the daily attendance to each Federal office building, which is then reported to Congress, will also help further our majority's goal to measure the impact of agencies' telework and remote work policies.

Again, my amendment is simply to clarify that this important data collection technology that GSA is piloting is utilized to the extent it can be in this

mission to measure usage of government office space.

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

Mr. Chairman, just one final statement. This amendment is to clarify that Congress intends for GSA to use all occupancy data collection techniques.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.