"The General Services Administration

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. As a reminder, if members wish to insert a document into the record, please also email it to documentsti@mail.house.gov. I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening statement for five minutes. I'd like to thank our witness for being here today as we examine the management of federal real estate and how we can reduce costs to the taxpayer. In December, this subcommittee held a hearing on federal real estate to discuss how we could minimize costs and maximize value for the American taxpayer. Since that hearing, GSA Administrator Ed Forst was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. Today is an opportunity for the subcommittee to hear from the administrator on GSA's plans and priorities for managing its real estate portfolio. Last Congress, significant public building reforms were enacted as part of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024. Those reforms included new requirements and limitations on federal agencies when it comes to their use of space. For example, the USE IT Act and the FULL Act included in WRDA 2024 are intended to hold agencies accountable for their space usage and set a requirement that if agencies do not actually have people physically coming in every day using at least 60 percent of their space, they will lose it. It also includes requirements that GSA and other federal agencies report to Congress and the public on the cost associated with unused space and that the Office of Management and Budget submit to Congress a plan to consolidate headquarters buildings in the D.C. area. As expressed at the last hearing, we are extremely concerned that key deadlines have been missed. I understand OMB is a key player here, especially in ensuring all agencies, including those who have real estate authorities outside of GSA, are in compliance. But without that data, critical time is being lost. That is why on February 13, full committee Chairman Sam Graves and subcommittee Chairman Perry sent a letter to OMB and GSA requesting a briefing to update the committee on compliance with the new requirements. Getting these bipartisan reforms across the finish line under the previous administration was not easy, and they represent the most significant checks on federal real estate costs in decades. The reforms also give you, as GSA administrator, significant leverage over agencies that are resistant to letting go of unneeded space. That is why effective implementation of the reform is so critical. With that said, we are pleased with some of the progress that GSA has made so far in consolidating agencies and getting rid of excess space, including moving HUD out of the Weaver Building, preparing to move USDA out of the Agriculture South Building and DOE out of the Forrestal Building. Decisions like these are going to help reduce the massive deferred maintenance liability that has accrued, which currently has a price tag that ranges anywhere from $26 billion to $340 billion, depending on which report that you read. I don't think the American taxpayer or even the federal agencies themselves understand how much of a financial liability federal real estate has become. There is no excuse for agencies to hold on to space just in case or hold on to a building because they've always been there. With limited funding to properly maintain and operate federal buildings, the deferred maintenance has grown significantly, and that's just to keep the lights on and doesn't account for renovations needed to make them functional for the long term. That is why GSA's work on identifying core assets we may want to keep and non-core assets that should be disposed of is important. Finally, there are other key topics I hope to hear more on, including the reorganization of the Public Buildings Service as well as plans to divest from the heating operations and transmission division, which services steam and chilled water for 62 federal and D.C. federal and D.C. buildings here in the core of the city. With that, I look forward to hearing from our witness. I now recognize Ranking Member Stanton for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for leading this important hearing. Thank you to Administrator Forst for appearing before this committee today. I share your concerns about the liability of certain public buildings, and I believe that there's a real lack of transparency with the agency provided the American public regarding GSA's role in ICE's rapid expansion across the United States of America. I'm deeply concerned by also what is happening outside of your agency overview with regard to ICE and ICE facilities. Department of Homeland Security is on a warehouse buying spree across the country. DHS is purchasing dozens of large commercial warehouses to be converted into mass immigration detention facilities. It is doing so entirely by going around GSA, the agency that Congress has explicitly charged with managing federal real estate. We're not talking about a handful of properties. We're talking about facilities with a combined capacity of up to 80,000 detainees, dozens of properties. These are not purpose-built detention centers designed with appropriate oversight and public input. These are commercial warehouses acquired quickly and quietly, bypassing the procurement process with no public notice requirements, no consultation with local officials that GSA standard procedures mandate. One of these warehouses happened to be in my home state of Arizona. Arizonans did not find out about it through any government transparency process. They found out because advocates and journalists were paying attention. DHS did not even notify city officials. And once the community did learn about it, the response was immediate. In less than 48 hours, my office collected more than 7,000 comments from Arizonans concerned about this proposal. Hundreds of residents turned out to a local city council meeting. Even my Republican colleague who represents the area, Paul Gosar, he wrote a letter to Kristi Noem in which he emphasized that DHS must respect the legitimate interests of the communities that bear its local impacts. This kind of response shows exactly why transparency matters. Communities deserve to know what is being built in their neighborhoods before decisions are already finalized. Administrator Forst, your agency's mission is to construct, manage, and preserve government buildings and to lease and manage commercial real estate on behalf of the federal government. That is your mandate from Congress. So when DHS cuts you out of billions of dollars worth of real estate acquisitions, acquisitions that will fundamentally reshape communities across this country, that is not just a matter of bureaucratic turf. That is a breakdown of the oversight structure Congress has put into place. And it comes with a real cost. No congressional oversight. No community input. Nothing from school districts. Nothing from neighborhood associations. They didn't even notify the local mayor and city council before purchasing this real estate. The American people are being left in the dark. What's more, at your nomination hearing last October, you said to the Senate that, quote, "right-sizing our federal real estate portfolio" was one of your top priorities. I'd like to understand how an agency conducting a shadow warehouse acquisition program entirely outside of your oversight fits into that vision. And I'd also like to address what we know GSA has been involved in. GSA has played a significant and largely hidden role in ICE's build-out across the country over the past several months. We know that last summer, ICE approached your agency with a massive request: find space for 10,000 immigration enforcement employees across 200 cities nationwide. That single request turned into 249 individual procurements for GSA. Of those, 196 are active. This is not a routine administrative adjustment. That is sweeping, deliberate, and shady expansion of federal immigration enforcement infrastructure. GSA has been at the center of it. What's more, the manner in which this was carried out raises serious concerns of its own. GSA employees were embedded in the, quote, "ICE surge team" to find and expand office locations at speed. ICE explicitly asked GSA to disregard standard lease procurement procedures, and GSA has actively hidden these lease listings from the public. The result is hundreds of ICE offices quietly planted in the middle of communities, near preschools, elementary schools, houses of worship, medical facilities, with residents none the wiser until it was a fait accompli. The American people deserve transparency. My constituents in Arizona deserve to know what is being built in their backyards, and this committee deserves honest answers about how and why the oversight mechanism Congress created are being deliberately circumvented. I look forward to your testimony, Administrator Forst. I hope today will provide transparency that has been sorely lacking. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member Stanton, for convening today's hearing on federal real estate. Administrator Forst, thanks for participating in this hearing. Appreciate it, and your first before this committee. I must say it's been a tumultuous 14 months for GSA. Staff have been reduced, regional offices shuttered, building sustainability goals eliminated, leases terminated then reinstated, buildings have been on and off and on and off the disposal lists. The president has repeatedly made significant decisions on federal property renovations without consulting and coordinating with legally mandated parties. So Administrator Forst, I certainly want to hear your plan on how you plan to stabilize GSA and to deliver the highest value to the American taxpayer. The Administrative Office of the Courts has long complained about GSA's poor management of federal courthouses. So recently, the AOC transmitted draft legislation to Congress that would grant the judiciary authority to acquire, lease, operate, maintain, construct, and repair courthouses with funding obtained directly from Congress. So I want to hear more, I look forward to learning more about this request and how it impacts the stability of GSA's Federal Buildings Fund. Administrator, you recently as well signed an MOU with the Advance Administration of Pakistan to renovate the Roosevelt Hotel in New York. The Roosevelt Hotel, as far as I know, is owned by the Pakistan International Airlines. It is not a property owned by the federal government. I want to hear about the MOU, why the federal government is involved in the redevelopment of a property that is owned by the federal by a foreign government, when in fact the role of GSA is to manage and dispose of federal government-owned property. This doesn't make any sense, and I hope that you are able to share any available legal counsel advice that you received so that we can better understand the justification, the legal justification for this action. GSA is required to submit to this committee descriptions of proposed construction, renovation, and leasing projects that require funding in excess of established prospectus thresholds. Previous GSA administrators have requested that Congress raise the prospectus threshold to $10 million, and a bill in was introduced in the Senate to do just that. So if you could share with us as well if you support raising the prospectus threshold, why, and to what amount. Finally, a little closer to home for me, final GSA has made great progress on three critical land ports of entry in Blaine, Sumas, and Lynden in my district. Public Building Service Acting Commissioner Andrew Heller recently updated me on these projects. And I look forward to working with him and the GSA staff to expedite delivery of all three of these LPOE construction projects. There is bipartisan support in Congress for reducing unnecessary leases and disposing of excess federal property to increase efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. You heard that from the chair and chair of the full committee, Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania's been a leader in that area that we agree on. And it's great to be able to work as a as a committee on bipartisan basis. But that support does require consistent communication from GSA. So I hope that under your leadership, GSA can provide us some transparency, improve communication with Congress, and perhaps we can avoid what we saw in 2025 so that in 2026 and beyond, we can have a kind of a better relationship with GSA as we move forward to try to get best taxpayer value from the federal real estate. With that, I yield back.

I'd now like to welcome our witness, Mr. Forst, and thank him for being here today. But before I yield the floor for his testimony, I'd like to take a moment to explain our lighting system. There are three lights in front of you. Green means go, yellow means you're running out of time, and red means please conclude your remarks as soon as possible. I also ask unanimous consent that the witness's full statement be included in the record. And without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witness has provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments, information submitted by members or the witness to be included in the record of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. So as your written testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to five minutes. With that, Mr. Forst, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. Everybody hear me okay? Appreciate that. Chair, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Ed Forst, and I began my service as GSA Administrator when a local Florida mayor swore me in on Christmas Eve. Today is my 44th business day in the job, and I'm proud to serve in President Trump's administration for the American people. During my career, I was the CEO of Cushman and Wakefield, the third largest real estate service firm in the country, and I was also a leader at a premier global investment bank. And here's what I've learned over the last 40 years of working. If we execute with discipline, we do things efficiently, we manage risk, and we take care of our people, we will achieve results at the highest level. Today, I'm here to fill you in on GSA's uphill battle to fulfill our mission in real estate excellence. I've come to realize that both GSA and Congress must forge a new direction and we must hold ourselves jointly accountable to the same standards that we demand from private landlords when we lease space. And you know we lease 7,000 of them. To move forward, we need two immediate things from Congress. Full access to the Federal Buildings Fund, and we appreciate this committee's support, and we also need prospectus thresholds that reflect real world costs. Without these changes, our buildings will continue to deteriorate and taxpayers will ultimately pay more. Since 2011, Congress has diverted almost $16 billion from the Federal Buildings Fund. Moneys that were appropriated to our clients and that were collected by us. Adjusted for inflation, that's over $22 billion in lost maintenance spending. We've previously estimated $26 billion in delinquent maintenance across the portfolio. However, I believe that may meaningfully understate the true liability by tens of billions due to some very simplistic methodology. I have directed this agency to retain independent construction and engineering consultants to catalogue each federal property and quantify the real number, and when that assessment is complete, I'll bring those numbers to this subcommittee. It may be eye popping. The maintenance delinquency is not abstract. A water leak left untreated becomes mold, a minor repair escalates into a major renovation. It accelerates physical decay, compounds cost, erodes value. It should be unacceptable to all of us. I'd like a minute of show and tell if I can. I've heard from many of our departments about the state of their facilities and how it degrades their ability to perform their mission. I've seen this firsthand. First, we have the Hoover building. That is somebody's office. And we're lucky it was the weekend when this happened. No one should have to risk that. Then there's Ag South. The image highlights damage from an ongoing roof leak. Our delinquent maintenance liability on that building have approached $1.7 billion, it's our largest liability, and I'm grateful for your support in disposing of the structure. Last week, alongside USDA Secretary Rollins and Senator Ernst, we began the disposition process to free us from the 1.7 billion and also more than 15 million in annual expenses while we achieve the President's executive order to consolidate. And then finally, I'll show you GSA's own DC headquarters at 1800 F Street. The picture shows a corroded hole in the wall near our elevator shaft on the third floor. Our own headquarters exemplifies this maintenance crisis. Approximately 40 percent, 4-0 percent of our building has been deemed uninhabitable. It's a travesty that the agency managing federal real estate cannot properly maintain its own building to execute even the return to work order. This is a money problem, it is not a competency problem. Now this leads to my next point. To fix GSA headquarters and many others, we need our prospectus approved by the full committee and I would ask us all to do this together. Our real estate portfolio is one of the largest in the federal government, yet our $3.9 million per project threshold is inferior to our vast needs and it's even inferior to other agencies of the federal government. Congress affords 9 million to the Department of War and 30 million to the VA, and I support those agencies with those levels and those efforts. But our sole mission is to go ahead and focus on federal real estate. That's our job, and this is a misalignment of needs and methods and it makes it impossible for us to do our job and our prospectus threshold must be raised. On my first day, I launched Project 410. It's named after the Empire State Building. It was built using 1928 technology in 410 days. 86 stories. It stands as proof that vision, execution, and urgency can overcome bureaucracy. We will use this mindset to transform real estate. May we please work together, authorizers, appropriators, and the team at GSA to craft renewed legislative legislative framework that's practical, actionable, and results focused. Our American people deserve a shared better stewardship. Thank you for having me today and I welcome your questions.

Thank you for your testimony. And now we will now turn to questions for our witness, and I now recognize myself for five minutes. So just last week, the Judicial Conference Thank you for your testimony. And now we will now turn to questions for our witness and I'll now recognize myself for five minutes. So just last week, the Judicial Conference formally requested that Congress grants the judiciary real property authority to directly manage the 396 courthouses currently operated by the GSA stating that continuing the status quo is no longer sustainable. This new proposed authority would also give the judiciary the ability to build or acquire new courthouses and property without the GSA. Do you have a response to this proposal and their characterization of the current situation with the GSA?

I do. And thank you very much for the question. The judiciary is the largest real estate client of of the GSA in terms of buildings, square footage. I was taken aback by the meeting that I had last week, quite frankly. I believed it was my first relationship meeting with the two justices, one who runs the AOC and then one is a subcommittee chair for real estate. And they did present to me their thoughts that they desired to as a pilot manage 10, I think 10 of their 93 judicial districts. They left my office, the story was dropped immediately to the Wall Street Journal, and they went straight to the Hill to meet with several committees. It was my introduction to joining the bigs at that point and so I've I've learned from that. It is not how one should work, I think agency to agency. I do think they are naive, I think they're uninformed, and I think they're ill equipped to go ahead and manage this as they suggest. They have a docket to pursue, we are the real estate experts and I think we should keep ourselves separate in that way. And one can cite metrics on every bit of the equation. We don't propose to say how they should manage the docket. I would note that at this point we're at the the all time high of the amount of time it takes for a civil case to get through trial. 38 months in the federal judicial system. It's the longest in history. It has me dig deeper too about our relationship. It sparked me to get smarter about the judicial relationship. Over the last five years, because I think any one or two year period the data can skew, but over the last five years, they have accounted for 20 percent of the rent that we accrue accumulate from the rest of the agencies. Yet 46 percent of our repair expenses have been afforded to the judiciary. 20 percent of the rent, five year average 46 percent. That's at the expense of every other agency that we serve. That doesn't make sense to me and that won't stand any longer now that I'm focused on it. I've already in my short time visited three courthouses. Tennessee, New York, and recently Huntsville, Alabama. It's where Senator Shelby and Judge Burke collaborated with us to go ahead and create what is a tremendous neoclassical new courthouse. There were 40 or more judges of all stripes at that at that opening celebration. I spoke at the event, which was my honor. Neither of the two administrative justices responsible for real estate actually chose to to participate in that event. And I'm proud to say we completed the project under budget at a cost of around $690 a square foot. Now in the judicial pipeline is an annex project for the Puerto Rico courthouse. I'm going to spend a lot more time on this proposed project because right now the estimate is twice the cost per square foot of Huntsville. Doesn't make sense to me to do that. And so this misguided process started a week or so ago is actually going to have the GSA in a better place and more razor focused and put everything under the microscope so that we can work together and make sure we spend the taxpayer dollars wisely.

All right, thank you for that answer. So in your testimony, you discussed launching a Project 410 mindset at the GSA to have speed and agility to find the GSA's culture. Can you describe your desired outcomes for Project 410?

Yeah, and thank you for the question. And it is not just directed to the PBS or the Public Building Service of which I manage GSA as several businesses rolled into one. Project 410, it just enlightened me when I focused on the fact that that 86 story building with marble lobbies, elevators, survived a plane crash, was completed in 410 days in 1928. I know things are different. But that is going to be a North Star for the GSA going forward, which is things take as long as we let them. And it's inexcusable. And so we're going to apply that same kind of rigor and discipline and urgency to every single thing that we do. For example, in terms of prospectuses and we've talked about the amount per prospectus. But on average, for us to get a major R and A project through the various committees, it takes us 436 days to get a prospectus approved. For new construction, 325 days to get a major project of new construction done. Leases, 244 days through the process. That's to begin the work at that. And in fact, we have six leases in front of committees that have sat there for over 600 days. So if our North Star's 410 days to build an 86 story building, we should be able to move the paperwork and analysis through a heck of a lot a heck of a lot quicker than that.

All right, I'm out of time. Thank you for that. And now I now recognize Ranking Member Stanton.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My ears perked up when you suggested that the judiciary was ill equipped to manage real estate, particularly at the size and magnitude of the number of buildings that they have. I'm going to make the same argument about Kristi Noem. That she is ill equipped to manage the massive amount of real estate that she is purchasing right now, cash money without any notification the neighborhoods, without any involvement of you and your agency, which is tasked with managing federal real estate. The people of my community are angry. They are mad as hell that they have purchased a light industrial warehouse in the middle of a neighborhood right near a school. Nobody knew about it, not a single phone call to the mayor, the council, the local school district, the nearby neighborhood association, no community contact at all. And they're going to put a detention center the size of seven or eight football fields for 1,500 detainees plus staff right in the middle of a neighborhood. I know your agency would not do that. So that raises some important questions as you mentioned someone being ill equipped. What authority does DHS and ICE use to lease these spaces, buy these warehouses across America without GSA?

So sir, I very much appreciate the question. As much as I would like to say we have an aggregated unified real estate mantle, we don't. Of the office space of the federal government, we manage 40 percent. There are many different authorities across many different agencies. We have a federative approach in that sense, not a unified approach, although I would like to see us get to a more unified approach and I believe the President would as well. I think we could bring greater discipline to it, greater intelligence to it, and be able to focus and achieve better results in terms of from the money.

Yeah, you couldn't do much worse than DHS has done with buying these warehouses across the country for 80,000 detainees without any communication to the local community. I would agree with that. In my community, the city of Surprise was completely caught off guard by DHS's purchase of an industrial warehouse it does intend to convert into a detention facility for up to 1,500 individuals. As head of the agency that oversees federal real estate, does it concern you that a federal agency is purchasing properties that will have a significant community impact without involving GSA?

As I was trying to finish up my comment, different agencies, different departments have different authorities around that. There is an executive order 10886 that the president issued on January 20th of 21, and it went ahead and declared an emergency situation. And under that, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which needs space, was authorized to go ahead and pursue it at their pace.

Administrator, let me ask a question. If GSA was the agency purchasing the property, would your agency work with local stakeholders, school districts, neighborhood associations, and the city, work with local stakeholders before making any such purchase of property?

It's very difficult for me to answer the hypothetical around that situation. In different circumstances, different constituencies are considered. But understand, ranking member, we serve our clients. Our clients determine their needs, and we go ahead and provide the specs and try to get that executed to the best of our ability.

How many leases is GSA executing for ICE, and how many leases has ICE undertaken without GSA?

I'm sorry, I can't answer that question, but I'll return to you with an answer.

No, I appreciate that. Since January of 21, has GSA limited or withheld public notice of new DHS or ICE leases?

Again, sir, I can't answer that question yet.

Has GSA invoked national security justifications to avoid publishing leases for DHS or ICE?

Yes, on September 24th, we received instruction from the agency that under that executive order, we were not to publish certain upcoming lease awards.

Okay. Do you know the reason why?

At their determination under their authority.

That is not a GSA determination?

It is not.

According to press reports, DHS and ICE have requested that GSA bypass normal procurement procedures citing unusual and compelling urgency. Is that accurate?

Correct.

Has DHS or ICE requested that GSA bypass the Competition in Contracting Act?

I can't answer that specifically, sir. I'll respond to you.

Why was full and open competition of these contracts deemed not needed or not feasible?

Again, sir, I'll respond to you in writing.

With regard to the ICE surge team to find new office locations for ICE across the United States of America, is it common practice to create a surge team for a particular agency?

When our agencies, our clients have urgent needs, then it is something that we choose to do to go ahead and provide them the best service in the quickest fashion we can. I think it's good client service.

Is there any other agency besides DHS for which GSA has created a surge team?

I'm not aware of any at this point in time.

Okay. Well, I'm out of time, so I will yield back and I look forward to getting written answers to those questions. Thank you, Administrator.

I now recognize full committee ranking member Larsen.

Thank you, Chair. Administrator Forst, in my opening statement, I mentioned I wanted to ask you about this MOU with the Defense Ministry of Pakistan. Do I have it accurate that you've signed an MOU with the Defense Ministry of Pakistan?

Correct, I did.

Yeah. So this quote, because we have not seen the MOU, so one, I want to see the MOU. But this quote is from a reporter in Pakistan, and that's how we got this quote rather than from you all, that both participants have mutual interest in renovation, operations, maintenance, and redevelopment of a certain building called Roosevelt. And assuming that's true that you have mutual interest, the question I have is whether you have a legal authority to do that, that GSA has a legal authority to do that. What is exactly the U.S. government's interest first off in redeveloping this hotel?

Well, I think if you've been to New York, you've seen it's a very hotly interested location. The government of Pakistan approached special envoy Wyckoff with the opportunity to collaborate on that property where they've not had good success thinking it through. Obviously, the federal interest is broad and deep across cities like New York City. And so this is really a first-stage conversation, begin to work together to see if there's an opportunity that also benefits the U.S. government from a location standpoint.

Yeah, let me go back to the legal authority side of things. And as I noted, if you can, I will request that we get information on the legal advice you received that says GSA has this authority because from what I can gather, this isn't, it might be a really great idea for your former employer to do, but not for, it's not GSA's job to do this. In other words, I can give you more work if you want it. We've got plenty of work for GSA to do. But I don't think you need more work that you don't have authority to do in the first place. Do you have a, did you get a legal counsel, legal counsel advice on this?

Wouldn't have signed an MOU without it.

I wouldn't have signed it either, but yeah. Can you share, are you able to share that?

That MOU?

The MOU and the legal advice with the committee.

Yes, sir. We'll respond to you with that. I don't have it with me obviously.

Please do that. Because I'd sure like to understand the legal authority. So what does the MOU then obligate you to do, obligate GSA to do? I mean, I don't want to be personal, obligate GSA.

Obligate the federal government, quite frankly. It obligates us to do nothing, quite frankly. Obligates us in good faith to work together to see if there is a very good outcome for that particular site. I would not personally get held up with the fact that it had been a hotel. It could be anything upon redevelopment. It could be things that are quite interesting to the federal government.

Yeah, but why GSA? Seriously, not again not to bring up your previous employer, there are plenty of companies that do this.

You know, I guess we could have turned it over to the judiciary.

Fine, whatever. They also would not have the authority to do this, and then we'd have questions about that.

I believe special envoy Wyckoff and the federal government believe that since we are the principal organization charged with federal real estate, that we would be in a good position since we buy, we build, we renovate, and we turn over property.

But this is not, so are you planning to buy this property in order to renovate it?

The MOU has no obligations whatsoever. It is as much of a one-way option as I think you can probably structure.

Yeah, okay. I'm not trying to be too harsh here, but it just doesn't seem like the original sin, if you will, is the fact that you don't have this authority to do anyway. Now you might, your job is as you described it. That's true. For federal property. To build, construct, and manage federal property and to dispose of it as well. And I just don't see where this fits in at all. Why doesn't Pakistan's GSA do this? They own the property, or the Pakistan International Airlines owns it. All right, we're going to follow up with you. Appreciate that. Onto a more pleasant topic. On the prospectus limits bill in the Senate, can you provide us some insight on your thoughts on that particular bill?

You know, we talked about some of the limits here. There's other agencies with more significant limits than what I talked about. None of them are in the real estate business. And so I hope we can agree 3.9, I think it's $3.96 million today, whether it's 10, I think the number quite frankly should be more dramatic. These are not issues that should require a lot of debate. If we want to replace a boiler, a roof, an elevator is about $1.1 million a pop to go ahead. When you build a building, those elevators are all of the identical vintage. They tend to go at the same time. And so if you have three or more elevators, we can't actually just jump in and replace those, so we may wait 436 days for a prospectus approval while they're entrapments. I get a daily email whenever there's an entrapment anywhere in the United States now. I want to be very focused. We manage 4,400 elevators and escalators. It is a problem. It's an embedded problem. I would think everybody should want us, if you have confidence in us as the real estate arm of the federal government, then let us go fix these things when they happen. There is a geometric progression to the problems when we don't address them early. And so that's the prospectus issue, and I would candidly argue for a much more significant number than what people have talked about. Again, it can be defined according to the category of work that we want to do, but I think all of us should agree is uncontroversial. But if we could take hundreds and hundreds of days out of this, we would take hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of problems down the road off the table.

Thanks. I'm done with the first round, but I hope we have a second round opportunity. Chair, thank you very much.

I now recognize representative Kylie from California.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Administrator Forst, for being with us today. I have just one pretty simple question. The FBI is moving into the Reagan Building, and there's some questions among existing tenants about what's going to happen. One of those is the National Children's Museum. They do quite a bit. They do a lot of work that dovetails with some of my priorities on the K-12 Education Subcommittee. So just wanted to know if you had any information about what the plans for the National Children's Museum might be with the FBI moving in.

I appreciate the question, sir, and I recognize the president of the museum sitting behind me was able to say hello before we started today. I also had a meeting in person with Mayor Bowser this week, and this was a topic that we jointly agreed to discuss and work on together. I've toured the building, I've seen the museum, and we need, this is an important thing for us to work on together to not in any way abandon it and its important mission, but help it get on to its next place.

Maybe find a new home, that would be, I'm sorry? Finding a new home, you mean, that would be well-suited, is that the idea? Or?

I'm sorry, again?

Finding a new home for them, is that what you're saying?

I'm going to, I'm going to, finding a new home for the museum. Yes, that's an important priority for us. Yes, it is.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I yield back.

Welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't hear it.

I'm happy to yield my time if the ranking member wanted more. Okay.

Is Ms. Titus on her way? All right, we're going to start another round of questions. All right. We're going to keep you in the hot seat. So since 2011, the GSA has not had full access to the Federal Buildings Fund. As you know, the FBF was created to fund the operating, maintaining, repair, construction, and acquisition of federal buildings and facilities. The GSA's tenant agencies pay rent to the GSA, and that rent goes into the FBF. Unfortunately, the amount of those funds that the GSA can use has been limited each year. Can you talk a little bit more about how this is impacting your ability to properly maintain federal buildings since we've been talking about concerns about maintenance?

Now, and I very much appreciate that question, and this is a clear and present danger for us to continue on the path that we're on. We're one of the very few self-financing agencies. Different elements of Congress provide money to different departments and agencies. They transmit that money in part to us to service the rent on their locations. Two kinds of rent. When we lease space, we collect it, we pass it on to the landlord. When it's owned real estate, we keep it, and that's what we use to go ahead and service the building and also to provide for the repair and maintenance expenses in that sense. Since 2011, 16 billion, almost $16 billion in nominal terms has been taken from that Federal Building Fund set of collections. When one inflates that under the Turner Construction Index, which is a commonly used construction inflation tool, that is $22 billion in today's money that could have been spent on repairs and maintenance. It's an astronomical sum of money. It happens to have some parallelism to the $26 billion in our financial statement, which is the underfunded delinquent maintenance. And we changed that term. The accounting term is deferred maintenance, and in my confirmation hearing, I kind of changed it up a little bit to delinquent maintenance. I think you defer to a point in time, and if you just never get to it, it's delinquent. With our private sector landlords who we pay rent to, we would never stand for leaky roofs, broken elevators, broken curtain wall, windows that don't function. We wouldn't stand for that and we would bring very serious pressure to bear. We don't operate in a symmetrical sense and we should, which is we should be good competent landlords to all and stewards to all of the other members of the federal government. But when that billion dollars a year is taken from us, aggregating to 22 billion, it's not the competency of our team. Our career staff are world class. But what they don't have is access to the capital that they were entitled to have, that Congress intended for them to have on the one hand by providing it to agencies, but on the other hand taking it back.

So let me just ask one more follow-up question. How has the impact been to your tenants?

How has it impacted our tenants? Yes, your tenant agencies. Well, I showed you a little bit of the show and tell. Here's a piece of Hoover concrete that fell down as well, which I'm happy to leave with everybody. It's hurting their ability to prosecute their missions. When you can't, when you get stuck in an elevator. In the VA, I had a terrific meeting with the Secretary, that happens quite frequently in their headquarters building. That is disruptive and by the way, it creates some fears on the part of the population. We should just go ahead and get the right thing done. We've got to start today. We then have to keep things going and then we've got to work the backlog problem. Our focus on disposing of real estate though right now, like with Ag South, we're focused on those buildings that have insurmountable amounts of repair work that need to be done and we just have to call the day and turn those over to private sector or other uses. But we need to shrink to a better core. One other suggestion I would make to follow Congressman Larsen is when we sell a building, it would be terrific if we were able to go ahead and recycle those proceeds towards renovations. And I think it's the right incentive structure. Shrink, sell, monetize, redeploy the money on the current stock that we choose to keep. I think that self-funding mechanism would also give us a jump start on some of the work that we need to do.

Well, thank you for that. I yield back the balance of my time for questions. And I now recognize the ranking member for five minutes for questions.

Thank you very much. I only have a couple of additional questions for the second round. According to GSA's leasing desk guide, GSA must consider local planning and economic development goals when making location decisions. We discussed earlier about the ICE surge and the lack of transparency with regard to the location decisions of the hundreds of new locations for ICE offices across the country. Do you think GSA should be placing federal agency tenants like ICE near critical infrastructure, schools, medical facilities, and houses of worship?

Sir, we serve our clients. And in the case of ICE, and I know that's that has been a principal focus of your questions, we're operating under the authority of an executive order and under the Department of Homeland Security's interests and needs and determinations. And so that's what governs how we prosecute those particular situations.

I respect that answer. Are they asking you then to go against your own guidelines for location decision of offices because of the sensitive nature of what they're asking you to do or are you following your own guidelines in making leasing decisions for ICE offices across this country?

A lot of tough decisions have to be distilled to zero one, on off, yes no. And in this particular case, the executive order is clear, the instruction from the cabinet secretary is clear, and we execute according to that mission just as we would for any other agency that has asked us to serve on their behalf.

Okay, I totally respect the request that has come to you to do these leases for ICE essentially in secret, not providing the normal information that you would provide to the public before acquiring or leasing space for federal government agencies. The question though was by having them, by having them ask you to operate the way they are, are they, are you in fact then not following GSA's own leasing guidelines for what I would describe as normal leasing situations?

Sir, I'm just operating under the instructions of the moment with those rules of engagement.

Okay, I appreciate, I appreciate the nature of the question. Can you talk a little bit about PBRB, the Public Buildings Reform Board? How has the PBRB been of assistance to GSA? We know there's a termination date upcoming. Do you think that date should be extended?

So, I think the gentlemen that serve on the PBRB are seasoned professionals in that space and I look for help in any direction that we can go ahead and find it. One thing that's important I would say in terms of collaboration with that group and I'd like to see it even better and that's one of my intentions in my office now, is there is tremendous disruption if we pre-announce that a building should be sold when we haven't worked specifically with that agency or department and in particular its people. We are, the House is, the Senate is, we are, we're people-based organizations and it can be quite disruptive and therefore an impediment to going ahead and pursuing some things if we haven't collectively worked. I am very optimistic right now about several conversations that we have underway where we will have two agencies combine in the same space. We've lived in a world of sovereignties where each agency needs its own building, its own fax machine, its own everything. And I'm now quite heartened by the fact that we have three or four possible combinations, one of them in the headquarters building of my agency, we're working with another possible organization to team with us on that. But I just think the pre-announcements can create some angst and some difficulty and ultimately slow us down in trying to get to the right place.

I really appreciate that. I can't help but note the dichotomy though in your approach that you're concerned about the chaos that would be created without doing the appropriate work, without appropriately working with in this case the agency employees, but seemingly be unconcerned about the chaos in a community when you're moving in something like ICE and ICE officials and the fact that you that this apparently the White House has asked you to hide those leases to not have the same due care for the neighborhood as you're suggesting you should have in this other process. With that I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Representative Onder for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator Forst, thank you for testifying today. It was great to meet you in my office last week. And thank you for your willingness to take on the challenge of reforming our government's massive real estate portfolio. The federal government owns or leases thousands of buildings totaling hundreds of millions of square feet and far too much of that space is sitting empty. The GAO has found that many federal buildings operate at roughly a quarter of their capacity and other analyses show occupancy levels averaging around 12 percent. At the same time taxpayers are paying billions of dollars every year to maintain these facilities. That disconnect is unacceptable. If the federal government expects Americans to manage their homes and businesses responsibly, it should hold itself up to the same standard. I believe Congress took an important step with WRDA 2024 by establishing new occupancy metrics and requiring agencies to report utilization data and return underused office space. These reforms were intended to help right-size the federal footprint, reduce unnecessary costs, and better align facilities with the realities of the modern workspace. Administrator Forst, my bill, the SPACE Act, which was passed by the House last year, directs the GSA to collaborate with federal tenant agencies to identify opportunities for shared space and establish measurable goals for co-location. From your perspective, how could expanding space sharing help reduce the federal government's real estate footprint and lower costs for taxpayers?

Thank you very much for the question. I think there's nothing like shining the bright white light on some of these statistics. I think when we will learn a lot both in terms of the numbers produced, the metrics behind them, but also what were the questions asked. We may learn there's some other questions we need to ask once we release that. And we commit to the committee that as of March 31st, the committee will have the information and it'll be released on the gsa.gov website as well, so it'll be there for everybody to take a cold hard look at it. The impediments to getting some of this to happen I think are important. Until now, we actually haven't designated a swing space or two. When you want to move an agency out of a space, otherwise it's been the perfect match, do you have this or that? We now have something where we've dedicated a swing space. That's going to enable us to go ahead and create the velocity of action that we need here as well. I also think in terms of getting agencies to work together towards this, as I said, we have three or four twinning opportunities in front of us right now. We've not had those before. And I think now that we're making some of those steps and that's why GSA and our prospectus that's in front of Congress is really important because we're going to bring another agency in with us. And I think no one ever wants to go first on some of these things. But then once somebody does, they see the wisdom of it. By the way, down the road, there may be industrial logic reasons why certain people tenant together and I think that will be a terrific thing to see as an outcome as well.

Very good. Well, you've also highlighted the need to raise the prospectus threshold to allow the GSA to more quickly respond to repair needs at GSA buildings. This is not a new request from GSA and adjusting the threshold would impact congressional oversight. What are your concerns related to repairs and alterations?

I have to say having now met the career staff and work with them and having brought real estate experience of my own to bear, the team is fantastic. I think we should trust the team to do their job. Their job is not to deliver the mail, their job is not to deliver justice, it's to deliver real estate responsibly. And I feel very good about it. If Congress has seen fit to give other agencies more authority than us, I don't understand the mismatch and misalignment of that at all.

And can you provide any examples of relatively minor repair or alteration requests that would exceed the current threshold that increasing the threshold would result in lower costs and more efficiency?

I would say if if we needed to replace three elevators in a building. It's not a big deal when we have 4,400 elevators and escalators. That would approach the limit. Just that that kind of a repair. Large boiler system, a complicated roof. $3.9 million today, I don't I don't mean to speak arrogantly about $3.9 million.

But given the size the size of some of these federal buildings.

These buildings are enormous. And if you look at our deferred maintenance liabilities on them, they're gargantuan numbers that we should be embarrassed about. But let's stop the embarrassment, let's start the action. And we want to team with you on finding a legislative approach that you can be comfortable with that can get us back to business.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Ranking Member for five minutes.

Thank you. Thanks for a second round as well. So the GSA has announced its intention to dispose of several properties. Liberty Loan building, former GSA regional office building, building here in DC, other other buildings here in the DC area. The the challenge is disposing of those also could flood the market for space. And so how can what's the balance on the disposal timing versus maximizing the redevelopment potential of the site by, you know, under undermining the value by putting too much out there if you will?

That's a heck of a commercial question. I really appreciate it.

Well, I'm a heck of a guy.

And and I think in that instance, we have to be smart about this. Okay? We have to bring a private sector private sector mentality to how we're going to deal with that. Okay? And by the way, we have a broader set of of possible disposition opportunities than necessarily just the for-profit sector has in that regard. It's also though the use intelligently of commercial brokerage firms. I used to run the third largest in the United States. There are others. And I think it's important how we get their advice about what else is it's not just what we're doing in the market, it's what other people are doing in the market. And if we just live within our shell, we will not have the benefit of that information. So I am very much let's get the right intelligence about the market. Let's plan the timing and the approach well. And there could be certain instances where partnering with a private sector organization, disposing that way, or to other urban-based groups that may have an interest in something. I think we should be open and flexible about that. But I think we need the intelligence and we don't just run down a path. That's why I'm not a fan of just putting something on a on a website, putting it out there, and and having it happen. I think we got to curate this process to maximize the benefit for the federal taxpayer.

Well, I think if you watch this committee's response last year to the DOE's recommendations, we're also not fans of just putting things up on a website. And we were able to get those taken down quickly. And I think there's a danger there for this reason and other reasons as well.

These are not commodity properties.

Right.

These these are special and they have to be treated as such, I think.

Yeah. And on that point, I know there's a we talked about the USDA Ag South headquarters building. But that building itself has unique infrastructure challenges, including underground infrastructure connecting to other buildings and so on. And but they're federal buildings connected to federal buildings. And so that create we just can't, you know, put that on the market for the private sector and then allow that to be connected to a federal building when we're trying to be sure we're protecting the federal employees in these buildings too. So you have some unique challenges. Can you discuss that particular one and maybe what the lesson is there?

Well, it's a great point and I'm glad you raised it. The interconnectivity of some of these buildings. I'll just say one thing, GSA's getting out of the utility business. Okay? It's not a good place to be. And by having its connectivity today, building to building, utility structure to building, it inherently limits our liquidity in those particular assets. So that's a that's a negative. So we need to go ahead and begin the extraction process and move that way. I think at its peak there were probably 120 or 125 buildings on the HOTAS system. I think we're down to 62 right now and we need a path to get down to zero quite frankly. But that's why again, you don't just pop the Ag South building on a website and say bids bids received for something like that. It is a complicated process. We have to work carefully with those who would be bona fide, intelligent acquirers of it and see if we can get to the right place.

Okay. Thanks. I want to underscore what the chair said at the beginning of we've done a lot of work here with the Carper bill, Carper-Wicker bill, that the USE IT Act, some other things. Like there is a process in place on the for leased space. There is a process for the PBRB to to dispose of properties. These are tools that GSA should use because we told you you should use them and they're actually as it turns out pretty well thought out and provides a structured system to dispose of property that we don't need anymore. And in a bipartisan way, we agree there's some property we don't need anymore. And and we have outstanding leases like 2,000 coming up 2,000 leases coming up in the next couple of years that you've got to decide are we going to re-up or not re-up. So you've got some work ahead of you. That's why, you know, I can give you more work if you want, but you don't need more work. You got plenty.

I have day 44. I feel swamped but energized because I think there are a lot of these problems and I think we share very much where do we want to find ourselves on a durable path post when I when I leave office. But until that time I'm going to work intensively on on that. I also think in the in the category of leases, they serve a purpose. I'm not negative on leases. I'm negative on the path that we're on which is let's just do leases because the ownership path doesn't work the way we fund it today. I don't think that's necessarily sensible. So let's just get to the common ground, create some symmetry between leasing and owning, and then we can get to the right purpose, the right math, the right longevity, and pick the asset type or pick the financing type if you will that we want to pursue.

Great. Thanks. Yield back. Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

The Ranking Member yields back. I now recognize Representative Titus for five minutes.

Welcome Administrator. I want to change the subject a little bit. During President Trump's first term, I was pretty outspoken about him using federal land, real estate to benefit his own financial interest. And one of the most egregious examples of that was the Trump Hotel, turning the old post office into the Trump Hotel. I introduced a bill called Our Public Buildings Act that would have prohibited any president, member of Congress, head of an agency from entering into subleases or outleases rather with the GSA. And that now that we did that, we talked about it and it's got caught up in the courts and stuff. We're hearing that President Trump is in talks to sell the hotel now. This is the landmark here in the national capital. It's all rumor and all, but I wonder if you'd comment on if that is happening and who's interested and what kind of talks are going on and what kind of price you're looking at. What kind of safeguards are there to keep anybody from personally benefiting who's in the White House?

So my limited understanding on that is that the hotel went into bankruptcy and the creditors have gone ahead and they're exercising foreclosure and looking to purchase that property. I don't have details on on where that stands right now though.

Well, would that be the role of your agency to oversee that?

I I believe our remaining role in that is just on the land lease, ma'am. It's nothing to do with the building.

Okay. Well, when you find the answers to that, could you get back to me? I'd really appreciate it.

I I sure will. Thank you.

Thank you. Another issue that's come up of course is the Kennedy Center. Now that's been the cultural center of the country for a long time and you know we're very proud of the acts that are there and the center and the people that it draws. And now that we're having kind of hearing in horror what the president is planning to do with that. He fired the board, made himself chairman, stuck his name up on the side of the wall. And then when people started not coming and acts started canceling, he just closed it down and said he's going to remodel it. He's not going to tear it all down, but he's going to do something extensive. Would you tell us what the GSA's role is in that process or what oversight you have or what you know about that?

Congresswoman, we have no involvement at all in the Kennedy Center.

You think you should?

I think I have plenty to do.

Okay. Well, who's overseeing that if it's not you?

I I honestly I don't know the structure of the Kennedy Center. I'm sorry.

Well, who should I ask that question to then if it's not the GSA?

I I can't even hazard a guess. I'm sorry.

Okay. Well, maybe I can find out since you're not very helpful. My last question, see if we can get any further with this one, has to do with design of federal buildings. There's a directive about from coming out of the White House again about having the fallback position being the neoclassical style I think here in Washington buildings despite the Democracy in Design Act and the long-standing provisions about using the architecture of the region and the latest styles and things. And the quest it says in the executive order, in the District of Columbia, classical architecture shall be the preferred and default architecture for federal public buildings absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of architecture. Now most people I know don't want Washington to look like Mar-a-Lago and they're not all that keen on having this as the style that's preferred. But this sounds pretty much like a directive or a mandate to me. But could you tell us what exceptional factors are that would...

I am sorry Congresswoman, but I'm happy to follow back with you. That hasn't come to my attention yet.

Okay. So we don't know what the factors are. We don't know who's in charge at the Kennedy Center and you don't have any oversight over the Trump Hotel. That's not a very good lineup I don't think. All right. I yield back since I'm not getting any help here.

The gentlelady yields back. From what I understand, the actual chair of the committee of this subcommittee is on his way back. And so the subcommittee shall stand in recess subject to his call as soon as he gets back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will reconvene the previously recessed hearing. Chair now yields himself five minutes for questioning. Thank you, Mr. Forst, and I apologize to everybody in the room for the delay and the continuation. Some of these things are beyond our control. At our last hearing, Mr. Forst, Acting Commissioner Andrew Heller shared that the release of utilization data mandated by the USE IT Act was delayed by the fall 2025 government shutdown. However, Mr. Heller committed to releasing the finalized data by the end of this month on March 31. As I expressed previously, of course that is not ideal. The question is, has GSA made any determination as to whether the data can be provided faster, and is GSA at least on track to deliver the data by the 31st?

Thank you very much for the question. And consistent with Andrew's testimony to you, we will be delivering that to you and posting it on our website at gsa.gov by March 31.

Okay. It's good to know, and I'm glad for the commitment. I just want to state, now that you're here and you're fully ensconced in things, I know you were kind of in the audience the last time, I'm going to request all of the data, not just the revised data beyond the shutdown. Do you know what I'm saying? I want the data. It's my understanding that the agencies have been collecting and reporting occupancy data to OMB on a biweekly basis since last May. Now I understand there's a period during the shutdown where they might not have done that. But what I'm telling you is I want all of the data, unredacted, unfiltered, whatever you unmolested prior to that as well. And I'm going to just tell you why. I don't want anybody else cooking the books. We want to see it all. We're smart people here. We're the elected officials that are accountable at the end of the day. And we want to make appropriate decisions based on all the information, not the cleaned up information. We can give and be fair about it, we can give latitude, so to speak, for things like a shutdown where employees may not have come to work, understandably so. But what we're not going to allow is that that period of time to be used to modify the data to make things look better, right? So we've got a job to do here, and it was a hard-fought victory at 60 percent occupancy, which is 10 points above half, right? Which quite honestly, look, you're in Congress, you make concessions where you have to to move the ball forward, and 60 percent is better than zero, which is what we were getting before, right? But it's certainly not optimal. And if an agency can't fill its facility at that point, like we need to know that and we're going to take some action, right? That's the point of all of this. And look, Mr. Forst, I know you know this, but I'm telling you now in front of God and the whole world, that's what we want. And let me just add one other thing. I'm so happy that I've had time to think about this while I was at the other place. There has been accusations, so to speak, from one person, one agency or another that so-and-so's not given me the information, so-and-so agency's not given me the information. Okay, fair. Maybe they're not, for whatever reason. Maybe they're sick, maybe it's unavailable, maybe it's in Fortran and they got COBOL or whatever. I don't know. But here's what I do want to know. If you can't provide that information, if you can't provide that information, you better darn well find out why it's not being given to you, and I want the name of who's not giving it to you. Because we're going to run it down. We're not going to have any of this, oh, he and she and this agency and that agency. And I don't want just the agency, because there's a bunch of them involved here, a couple in particular. I want to know the name, because I'll call them up. Because we're going to get to the bottom of it, okay? We're going to get the information. It's not going to be career bureaucrats that are trying to live out this administration or that are in this administration that are trying to punish the last one or the next one. We're not dealing with any of that. We want the information unencumbered, unmolested, and then we'll figure it out from there and we're not going to take no for an answer, okay? So just so you know what the terms of the circumstances are. All right, have I probably, oh, well look at that, I just about used up my time. One more question. The steam/chilling plant that services 60-some odd buildings in Washington, D.C. Tell me about the plan for that.

We, I think when it was built in I think 1934, I think it was the best of intentions to service at that time 128 buildings in a unified federal construct. GSA, the federal government should not be in the utility business in this kind of a way. So it services I think 62 buildings today, and it's our belief and it's going to be our process to find the extraction from that. We now have two to nine shutdowns a year because of its age and its maintenance characteristics. It serves these buildings, it's important to those buildings, we have to find an off-ramp for all of them. It also prevents better liquidity in terms of selling real estate when they're tied to this.

Wait, when you mean with if they're untethered to it, right?

We need to untether. It's going to be easier to go ahead and find another buyer for those buildings than if they maintain that kind of coexistence. And so our approach is going to be to go ahead and to withdraw from it, have a very sensible path to do that, and we're not going to do that again.

I just want to clarify so I understand, maybe I'm a little slow here. When you say we're going to kind of divest from it, but it has to be building by building, right? Each building has to have its own autonomous system at some point. You can't just shut the steam/chill plant down. You can't do that.

Correct. And since these are our buildings or related federal government buildings, we have to do this carefully, but we have to help everybody get to that path and get to that plan. Yes, sir.

And do you, with your indulgence, Madam the Ranking Member, do you have a plan that we could see at some point to know how that's going to happen?

So today's day 44 of me in the job. I don't have a plan yet, but we'll have the makings of one.

It'd be, I think it'd be good for us to kind of see that there's some kind of vestiges of an architecture that this is how this could happen so that we can get there. Otherwise, it's going to be, I think, by fits and starts and individual circumstances that are going to be difficult. If we have a plan, it might not survive first contact, but at least we got something we can adjust from and get there. All right.

I appreciate your skepticism. Thank you, sir.

All right. Thank you. I yield the balance and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, D.C., Delegate Norton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I strongly oppose the Trump administration's plans to move federal agencies outside D.C., there are specific federal buildings in D.C. that should be disposed of. These disposals would save the federal government money, generate tax revenue for D.C., increase housing supply, and lead to new mixed-use neighborhoods, such as occurred in the Navy Yard. However, the General Services Administration does not appear to have a plan for disposing of federal buildings in D.C. that maximizes sale prices and drives economic development. Instead, it is selling federal buildings in Southwest D.C. on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. Administrator Forst, does the General Services Administration have a plan to dispose of federal buildings in D.C. that maximizes sale prices and drives economic development, and if so, what is it?

So, thank you very much for the question, Congresswoman, and thank you for your 35 years of service in Congress. I had a meeting this week with Mayor Bowser, actually, teeing engage her in some of these conversations as well so that I'm fully aware of the interests and the needs of the community, but also our responsibility to the federal taxpayer to maximize the outcome for these buildings, and one of those measurements of maximizing outcome is the dollars received for that real estate. We do not have a grand plan for the disposition. At this point, we are looking at buildings that are not needed, and we're trying to be more expeditious about realizing return on those and moving the people out of underutilized real estate into areas collaborating together so we have more density of usage because that's an intelligent design as well. And so the mayor and I talked about ways that we can engage with some of the private sector community to go and explore other options and redevelopment opportunities. I am, though, very focused on the urgency and an urgency measured by time as well on this. And so that we have to bring to the equation. So there's dollars, there's time, there's progress, there's bringing agencies to work together in common space, which then will result, I believe, in some industrial logic. When agencies agree to be together, they may choose to work together in ways they hadn't thought about already. So I believe there's some excellent things that we can accomplish that way. I'm in the early learning curve, though, about the community and about some of the ways and the degrees of freedom we have to realize upon a shared mission that we have with you.

Thank you. The Department of Homeland Security recently began demolishing historic buildings on the Saint Elizabeths West Campus in D.C. Administrator Forst, why are these buildings being demolished now after all these years? What is the federal government's authority to demolish these buildings, and what measures are being taken to protect employees and the surrounding community from health hazards during demolition?

I very much appreciate the question. The Secretary of Homeland Security gave us an emergency declaration to act upon these buildings. That did not mean, though, that we just immediately brought bulldozers in to conduct the work. We went ahead and we gave formal notice to the National Trust, we gave formal notice to the D.C. Preservation Commission, and after those notices, we also hired a very reputable firm that we have used for construction and demolition in the past, Clark Construction. I have met with that firm, and they have assured us that their workers are doing this in every regulatory appropriate way with the safeguards that are part of their corporate practices. So from that standpoint, the work is proceeding.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Are there further questions from any members of the subcommittee who have not been recognized? Seeing and hearing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would like to thank the witness for his testimony. The subcommittee stands adjourned.