The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2628-H2631 on May 8, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3069) to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide for redevelopment of the Southeast Federal Center in the District of Columbia, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3069
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Southeast Federal Center'' means the site in the southeast quadrant of the District of Columbia that is under the control and jurisdiction of the General Services Administration and extends from Issac Hull Avenue on the east to 1st Street on the west, and from M Street on the north to the Anacostia River on the south, excluding an area on the river at 1st Street owned by the District of Columbia and a building west of Issac Hull Avenue and south of Tingey Street under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy.
SEC. 3. SOUTHEAST FEDERAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services may enter into agreements (including leases, contracts, cooperative agreements, limited partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, and limited liability company agreements) with a private entity to provide for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, operation, maintenance, or use of the Southeast Federal Center, including improvements thereon, or such other activities related to the Southeast Federal Center as the Administrator considers appropriate.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--An agreement entered into under this section--
(1) shall have as its primary purpose enhancing the value of the Southeast Federal Center to the United States;
(2) shall be negotiated pursuant to such procedures as the Administrator considers necessary to ensure the integrity of the selection process and to protect the interests of the United States;
(3) may provide a lease option to the United States, to be exercised at the discretion of the Administrator, to occupy any general purpose office space in a facility covered under the agreement;
(4) shall not require, unless specifically determined otherwise by the Administrator, Federal ownership of a facility covered under the agreement after the expiration of any lease of the facility to the United States;
(5) shall describe the consideration, duties, and responsibilities for which the United States and the private entity are responsible;
(6) shall provide--
(A) that the United States will not be liable for any action, debt, or liability of any entity created by the agreement; and
(B) that such entity may not execute any instrument or document creating or evidencing any indebtedness unless such instrument or document specifically disclaims any liability of the United States under the instrument or document; and
(7) shall include such other terms and conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate.
(c) Consideration.--An agreement entered into under this section shall be for fair consideration, as determined by the Administrator. Consideration under such an agreement may be provided in whole or in part through in-kind consideration. In-kind consideration may include provision of space, goods, or services of benefit to the United States, including construction, repair, remodeling, or other physical improvements of Federal property, maintenance of Federal property, or the provision of office, storage, or other usable space.
(d) Authority To Convey.--In carrying out an agreement entered into under this section, the Administrator is authorized to convey interests in real property, by lease, sale, or exchange, to a private entity.
(e) Obligations To Make Payments.--Any obligation to make payments by the Administrator for the use of space, goods, or services by the General Services Administration on property that is subject to an agreement under this section may only be made to the extent that necessary funds have been made available, in advance, in an annual appropriations Act, to the Administrator from the Federal Buildings Fund established by section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)).
(f) National Capitol Planning Commission.--
(1) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority of the National Capital Planning Commission with respect to the Southeast Federal Center.
(2) Vision plan.--An agreement entered into under this section shall ensure that redevelopment of the Southeast Federal Center is consistent, to the extent practicable (as determined by the Administrator), with the objectives of the National Capital Planning Commission's vision plan entitled
``Extending the Legacy: Planning America's Capital in the 21st Century'', adopted by the Commission in November 1997.
(g) Relationship to Other Laws.--
(1) In general.--The authority of the Administrator under this section shall not be subject to--
(A) section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b);
(B) sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 484);
(C) section 7(a) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 606(a)); or
(D) any other provision of law (other than Federal laws relating to environmental and historic preservation) inconsistent with this section.
(2) Unutilized or underutilized property.--Any facility covered under an agreement entered into under this section may not be considered to be unutilized or underutilized for purposes of section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Before entering into an agreement under section 3, the Administrator of General Services shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the proposed agreement.
(b) Contents.--A report transmitted under this section shall include a summary of a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed agreement and a description of the provisions of the proposed agreement.
(c) Review by Congress.--A proposed agreement under section 3 may not become effective until the end of a 30-day period of continuous session of Congress following the date of the transmittal of a report on the agreement under this section. For purposes of the preceding sentence, continuity of a session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment sine die, and there shall be excluded from the computation of such 30-day period any day during which either House of Congress is not in session during an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
SEC. 5. USE OF PROCEEDS.
(a) In General.--Net proceeds from an agreement entered into under section 3 shall be deposited into, administered, and expended, subject to appropriations Acts, as part of the fund established by section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)). In this subsection, the term ``net proceeds from an agreement entered into under section 3'' means the proceeds from the agreement minus the expenses incurred by the Administrator with respect to the agreement.
(b) Recovery of Expenses.--The Administrator may retain from the proceeds of an agreement entered into under section 3 amounts necessary to recover the expenses incurred by the Administrator with respect to the agreement. Such amounts shall be deposited in the account in the Treasury from which the Administrator incurs expenses related to disposals of real property.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for his close cooperation in waiving jurisdiction over certain portions of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following exchange of letters between the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) regarding this matter:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, April 13, 2000.Hon. Bud Shuster,Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 3069, the ``Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000.'' As you know, this bill contains certain provisions related to matters in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. Specifically, Section 3 of the bill waives current law regarding the treatment of Federal property, which is under the Government Reform Committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting Floor consideration of the bill, the Committee will not exercise its jurisdiction over H.R. 3069. This action should not, however, be construed as waiving the Committee's jurisdiction over future legislation of a similar nature.
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, April 13, 2000. Hon. Dan Burton,Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman, In the near future, the House will consider H.R. 3069, the ``Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000.'' While H.R. 3069 primarily contains provisions related to matters in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I recognize that certain provisions of Section 3 of the bill, which waive current law regarding the treatment of Federal property affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.
I agree that allowing this bill to go forward in no way impairs upon your jurisdiction over these provisions, and I would be pleased to place this letter and any response you may have in the Report on this bill. In addition, if a conference is necessary on this bill, I would support your request to have the Committee on Government Reform be represented on the conference with respect to the matters in question.
I look forward to passing this bill on the Floor soon and thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for her tireless efforts to move this bill forward. I know that this legislation means a great deal to the residents of the District of Columbia and will greatly improve the quality of life in the area of the Anacostia River, where the center is located.
H.R. 3069, as amended, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000, authorizes the Administrator of the General Services Administration to enter into agreements, including leases, contracts, partnerships, joint venture trusts, and limited liability agreements with private entities to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, operate, maintain, or use land and make improvements at the Southeast Federal Center.
The Southeast Federal Center is a 55-acre parcel of land located on the Anacostia River in Southeast Washington, D.C., adjacent to the Navy Yard. The bill will also allow the GSA to leverage private capital and expertise to develop this site for use by the Government and private sector, including retail, commercial, and other uses.
This bill bars the Government from debt, obligation or liability in connection with development and allows GSA to prescribe terms and conditions for any lease by GSA for developed space as appropriate.
The Administrator is permitted to accept in-kind consideration of payment, including construction, repair or remodeling of physical improvements of Federal property. To ensure maximum development flexibility, any agreements shall not be subject to the Economy Act of 1932, which prohibits GSA from accepting in-kind contributions.
Further, certain provisions of the Property Act of 1949, the Public Buildings Act of 1959, the McKinney Homeless Act and other laws, not related to environmental law or historic preservation laws, are waived. These laws are waived to make an agreement with private-sector entities more attractive. GSA shall report to the committee prior to entering into any agreement, including master leases.
I support the bill and ask our colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his kind words and for his generous support.
I want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing H.R. 3069, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000, to the floor today.
I also want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), the subcommittee ranking member, for his strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Franks), the subcommittee chairman, because, were it not for his leadership and attention to the Southeast Federal Center, we would not finally be on the path toward making this valuable Federal asset productive and beneficial to American taxpayers.
The Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000 reflects the best and strongest bipartisan intents of the Congress. It arose out of a hearing in May 1999, where I was engaged in perennial questioning concerning the failure of the Federal Government since 1962 to develop its largest tract of land in the city while leasing massive amounts of office space here and throughout the region.
{time} 1515
Over many years, consistent criticism from our subcommittee concerning the magnitude of the waste never brought results until the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) at that hearing took a deep interest, suggested a tour and then worked with me in developing H.R. 3069, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Redevelopment Act of 2000 that is before us now.
H.R. 3069 would allow the GSA wide latitude to contract for arrangements to bring any appropriate development to the site, private, Federal, local or some combination. Our bill specifies that any agreement entered into between the GSA and the developing entity must: One, have as its primary purpose enhancing the value of the Southeast Federal Center; two, be negotiated pursuant to procedures that protect the Federal Government's interest and promote a competitive bidding process; three, provide an option for the Federal Government to lease and occupy any office space in the developed facilities; four, not require unless otherwise determined by the GSA Federal ownership of any developed facilities; and, five, describe the duties and consideration for which the government and the public and private entities involved are responsible. The bill also authorizes GSA to accept non-monetary, in-kind consideration such as the provision of goods and services at the site.
A site centrally and strategically located just 5 minutes from the Capitol, the SEFC is considered one of the most valuable undeveloped parcels on the East Coast. Yet it has become a wasteland that also has triggered decay in the surrounding neighborhoods. The SEFC represents an astonishing denial of productive use to the Federal Government and of revenue to the taxpayers, particularly considering that the location is so close to the Mall and the Capitol.
Efforts by the Federal Government to develop the land exclusively for Federal uses have consistently failed. Most recently the Reagan and Bush administrations in a thoughtful innovation proposed a mall infrastructure to be built by the Federal Government with amenities to be provided by the private sector to attract Federal agencies, but regrettably this proposal had no effect on agency decisions and no relocation of Federal agencies to the SEFC occurred as a result. The Clinton administration also has encouraged Federal agencies to locate at the site, to no avail. The Washington Navy yard located next to the SEFC is being redeveloped successfully with civilian Navy personnel, but its very visible innovation has not reversed the fortunes of the SEFC. Nor has the Metro station which was located there in December 1991.
The subcommittee's analysis of the site and of the real estate industry makes clear that the reason that so attractive a site has not been developed after decades of trying by the Federal Government is that it is not developable as a traditional government-owned site today. Moreover, the limited set of tools available to the GSA do not enable the government to make productive use of the SEFC. The subcommittee's work demonstrates that without new tools, the Federal Government will not be able to capitalize on this valuable asset or to offer an economic incentive for private developers to develop the land. H.R. 3069 is applicable to this single parcel alone and its value to the government and to this city makes it important to proceed without further costly delay.
What are the government's realistic options? The land certainly is too valuable to sell in light of the scarcity of land in the District and the sale of federally owned land in any case would never be tolerated by Congress when the Federal Government is leasing space throughout the District and the region at a cost of billions of dollars to the taxpayers. Yet an OMB bureaucrat recently threw up his hands and was so anxious to get this embarrassment of unused land off the government's books that he did a pass-through to the District of Columbia until it was called back by higher authorities at the OMB. For years, the Congress has not allowed cost-free transfers of Federal land. Alternatively Congress, which has not appropriated funds for its own development of the SEFC, would clearly not fund a pass-through to another jurisdiction. Another alternative, leasing the land, is also unworkable and has at least two major drawbacks that would undercut the concept and purposes of the bill. First, the GSA is limited to supplying general purpose special office space and lacks mixed use authority through leasing. Second, leasing a government-owned site requires the sale of the site under the existing scoring rules. If leasing were the answer, GSA would have pursued it long ago, Mr. Speaker. The smart way to develop this property in today's climate is to combine the government's value in ownership with the private sector's ability to develop land.
H.R. 3069 not only represents the subcommittee's thinking, this bill is entirely in keeping with the reinventing government public-private partnership ideas and practices fostered by the present administration. Moreover, the Congress itself has long sanctioned the use of Federal land value in exchange for private development. The Veterans' Administration, the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense have this general authority not on a one-time basis as provided by H.R. 3069. The extensive experience from these agencies demonstrates conclusively that public-private partnerships involving the Federal Government not only are cost effective, these arrangements protect the government from risk because the scoring rules ensure that every GSA expenditure is accounted and appropriated for in a manner that insulates the Federal Government from financial risk. This bill allows the private sector to do the kind of development it does every day. At the same time, H.R. 3069 provides an option of locating Federal facilities as part of the mix and, therefore, of meeting Federal agency needs for which the SEFC has been unavailable for decades.
The Federal Government has been unable to commit financial resources for the development of the SEFC. Considering the competition with other resources, it is fair to say that the Federal Government is unwilling to develop the site notwithstanding the continuing loss in productivity and in revenue to the taxpayers. H.R. 3069, establishing a public-
private partnership to develop the site, represents an important breakthrough in achieving the highest and best use of a wasted Federal asset, securing revenue for the Federal Government and providing enhanced opportunities for Federal agency occupancy while at the same time contributing to the local D.C. economy and revival of the surrounding neighborhood whose deterioration traces significantly to this large brownfield site. The approach is mutually beneficial. It is win-win. The Federal Government makes its property available for Federal and private development, including revenue-producing occupancy for the government, and the developer, selected competitively, receives a valuable opportunity to add value. Democrats, Republicans and the President, who have all said they will come together when government and private responsibilities are appropriately apportioned, have found a meeting place in H.R. 3069. I appreciate the bipartisan partnership we have achieved here in the House for the public-private partnership H.R. 3069 represents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3069 is a great idea. It is a good bill. I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3069, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
