Dec
01
H.R. 665 would accelerate sales, but proposed CPRA legislation holds key to sustained success.
No question, Congress is looking for immediate “green” from the federal real property portfolio given the “super committee’s” recent failure to come up with a deficit reduction plan. Several bills are in play that would reap big sales revenues and savings from real property management improvements. For maximum return, Congress should combine the best ideas from these various proposals.
Just two weeks ago, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011 (H.R. 665). If codified into law in anything near its present form, H.R. 665 would empower and require GSA to implement a 5-year pilot program for the sale of 15 high-value federal properties deemed excess. There are, of course, other details but this is the principal thrust.
H.R. 665 has merit given its primary objective of near-term sales of high-value properties with proceeds going directly towards deficit reduction. Unclear at this moment, however, is how (or if) provisions of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA)—approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in October—might fare in competition with this newest proposal.
In my view, a combination of HR. 665 and H.R. 1734 offers the best chance for real reform.
CPRA offers several improvements to provisions in H.R. 665, including:
- An independent commission which can package assets as a group, and, through an “up or down” vote, mitigate political influence on property selection that might diminish an effective outcome. Successive rounds of Defense BRAC have demonstrated tremendous successes that could be replicated for civilian federal property.
- As proposed, CPRA would foster a management process that continuously revisits the operating efficiency and effectiveness of the federal portfolio. Rightsizing this portfolio would become an ongoing practice—incrementally reducing assets, thus, decreasing recurring operating expenditures over time. Results, in turn, for deficit reduction are sustainable, predictable, and significant.
There’s nothing bad about selling a few high-value assets and realizing several billion dollars towards deficit reduction. However, 15 buildings and a few billion dollars represent a small drop in a big bucket. As is, H.R. 665 does not adequately address the larger and more systemic challenges of effectively managing the ongoing financial obligations inherent in our substantial federal real property asset base. In my Senate testimony back in June, I insisted the big challenge and opportunity must be addressed head-on.
My hope is that some provisions of CPRA could be added to strengthen H.R. 665—or provisions of H.R. 665 be amended into H.R. 1734. Combining the best from each will give this initiative a solid and lasting management structure. It would support the mandate for agencies to make difficult downsizing choices, mitigate contrary political influence, and create a sustainable paradigm for incremental long-term reductions in operational spending for real property.
There is no reason why accelerated programs like those in H.R. 665 cannot be crafted to ensure long-term viability and sustainability. It seems only logical given the complexities of the challenges before us. To that end, I encourage the authors of H.R. 665 to consider the significant long-term benefits offered by the CPRA approach and incorporate those salient provisions. Both reducing the deficit and managing the federal real property portfolio are, after all, long-term propositions.
|