>> even in the face of this clear intent and transports past agreement to apply narrow interpretation of the law the va continue to refuse to bargain over many types of pay disputes that have nothing to do with

setting pay scales. this is why the law needs to be tweaked. clarify what congress intended and what is commonsense and help health care workplace. the va's interpretation of section 7422 may be permissible under the law of statutory interpretation. but it is definitely not preferable. va's current policy to time and money away from direct of veterans services to protected labor-management disputes and the cost of losing nurses and doctors and other to other employers. we all vote with our feet when it comes to time to get played -- page probably for the work. as it restores what congress intended, says the health care dollars that should be spent on veterans, this boost work place morale, and the health care marketplace. thank you very much and i would be glad to take any questions.

>> make you very much for your testimony. mr. steele, let me start with you. in supporting our hiring act, you stated it is critical we bridge the gap between military service and the civilian workforce. and i wanted to ask you did it if you could share with this committee what you think the biggest challenges are facing our young veterans when they tried to get a job when they come home. [inaudible] >> the biggest challenge is the job market itself. we have suffered in 2007-2008 in mass in financial crisis that has led to a large overhang. this is an overhang that will take years to work off. therefore, acknowledgment of that fact will come and this is in deference to senator burr, limit what we can expect to do.

there's only so much you can do. it makes it important that we acknowledge that, that we may be target certain programs only for the time that it takes to recover, instead of making open-ended programs forever. this is trying to balance both senators concerns, but the one other thing i would note is in my opinion young veterans will always appear initially the lagging behind those of the same age for several reasons. those who never served i believe that in time to they will hold their own in the job market and given that time they will prove their worth. thank you. >> what are the biggest challenges facing our veterans coming home today in trying to seek employment? >> i think one of the things you pointed out in your bill is the fact that government spends millions of dollars training these individuals, and it's

difficult when they come out to get those licenses and that they need to continue to practice that they were va. that's one of the biggest obstacles, if we could eliminate that i think we would see more veterans -- or more military flowing into jobs a lot easier. >> mr. kelley? >> i think it is cultural. military has culture. civilian life as coulter and they don't mesh. military personnel, especially if they're enlisted has probably never done a job interview. they've never had to go out and fill out a resume. they had a recruiter come find them when they were in high school sank please join the military. they take a test and the naked to choose what job they want. they going to the military, get all the training they need. when they leave they are not prepared because the way the military has worked, everything has been presented to them. now they don't understand how to work in a civilian environment.

and providing them with recall to ration, having them understand the process of getting a civilian job, what's important to say, how to present yourself, how to the quality resume that doesn't look like it's a military transcript. i think those are the key issu issues. >> i've heard a lot from veterans about their frustration with having to wait years for the board of veterans appeals to issue decision on the appeal. on the agenda today is my legislation that seems to reduce the delay by changing the way that new evidence is considered. do you agree we need to streamline and expedite the appeals process? >> that's one of the goals. we certainly support that, believe that your legislation would help us do that. >> the american legion a great smack the vfw also agrees. >> thank you.

and mr. cox, va's testimony refers to a joint workgroup with unions and the va, is it your view of the work of that group which is ongoing now reduces the need for senator brown's request for bargaining bill? >> i don't agree with that whatsoever. the workgroup has concluded. there were unions that came to an agreement with the va, afg which is the largest union and va did not come to an agreement. with the results of what the final product and the secretary offered. there was consensus in the workgroup from the va officials that came to the workgroup and everyone agreed, then went back to the secretary and he pared down on what the workgroup had consensus on. and afge could not agree to those things. so i believe the legislation, is very important. it's nothing more than the va gets to decide that they, all the rules, all the regulations. if they write them they should

be willing to live by them. and all afge is asking is for them to live by their own rules and for a way to enforce that. >> okay, thank you very much. i do have more questions. i will submit to all of you for answers in writing but i will turn it over to senator burr for any questions you may have. >> thank you, madam chairman. i will give all of you an easy one. i mentioned earlier that i'm committed to providing veterans and families with the benefits they need and they deserve. what i want to make sure we pay for those benefits and services by looking at other programs including cuts, so we can continue to provide the benefit without saddling future generations of americans with enormous debt. i want to ask any that would like to submit to me areas that are current programs that you think could be eliminated

because of the usefulness of them, maybe their time has run out, programs that have overlapped or duplicative functions where you believe consolidation into a program would actually be cheaper but more importantly, more effective. any suggestions that any of you can provide i would be interested and i'm sure the committee would be interested in looking at. david, let me ask you in march 1995, doctor kaiser, then the undersecretary felt at the time at va wrote vision for change. that introduced the concept of restructuring veterans health administration in divisions around the country. in his paper, doctor kaiser anticipated that each vision headquartered would range between seven and 10 full-time employees. you notice the significant growth in the number of employees in the vision?

>> while it's been five years since i work for the i would expect that number is higher than 10, senator. i'm sure the va could keep you exact numbers on how many are working and employed by the business. >> so far they have ignored the e-mail request to talk to them about the neighbors but you have any idea what the total number of employees are at dead or? >> no, sir, i do not. i know it's significantly higher than 10. i am very certain it is higher than 10. >> does afge have a position on what would be a suitable amount of staff? >> that's a very broad statement, senator, to ask because part of it, the way they consolidated the services divisions, that as such many things that was done in individual medical centers is now done in a collective whole, for the whole vision. so the employees and how they

operate very. so i don't think we have come as a number. we would certainly be interested in the number of administrative employees that work in vision offices and division management level, that actually the worker bee that is getting all the veterans care out there in a medical centers is a whole different story. >> when i get an award and and the breakdown, i will share with you. >> thank you very much. you can get them to pay. >> one of the consolidations by the way, i don't think i'm trying to shock you, is the medical facilities report on sexual abuse claims. and it might enlighten us to some degree on the layers of bureaucracy we've now put between the medical center and the ig. jerry, listen, you and i talked many times, and for some hours there just hearing the story of

camp regime marines, their families. you've had an opportunity really cover the country, and i stated in the past that i preceded it problematic for the committee to have the department of defense and specifically tricare be the provider of this population. i'm not going to go back through my case but i will make at the appropriate time, but you've been out with the marines, you've been out with their families, oh, what do they think what's do they want to be under dod and tricare or do they want to be under va? >> thanks for asking that, senator burr, because the general consensus is that everybody i speak to, and i would ask anybody, anybody who recommends that we be turned back over to the department of defense, very people that were responsible for poisoning us for

our health care, say trust them, when today they're still denying that they did anything wrong, how would that work out? i mean, i'm sorry. dod still hasn't stepped up to the plate on this issue. they are still in the nile, and they're fighting and scratching at every inch to deny and like i said in my test we can so why would anybody even ask us to trust the department of defense with our health care? and that's the way, senator burr, most of the victims feel? >> jerry, and the last bill some refer to a t. sdr. some know that is the agency within cdc that is charged statutorily with the investigation of the level of contamination.

we had to do some rather threatening things in the last 18 months to get the department of the navy to actually pay for what the law required them to pay for him the standpoint of studies that atsdr were doing. share with everybody what the level of cooperation is today between the department of the navy and the core with the atsdr investigation. >> well, senator, thank you. it's like i said in my testimony, there's been many half-truths and total lies being destroyed by the department of navy and numbering court relating to this issue. and one of them was a letter that they sent out to every member that was registered on their website. in that letter it stated that

the national research council report had done an evaluation of exposures to certain chemicals in the water at camp lejeune and they're expected negative health outcomes. one of the chemicals they said that the in our css was benzene which is a known human carcinogen. the nrc never accessed benzene. if they would have, the effects would have been in the top category in the report. but yet the department of the navy and the marine corps persists on saying that they did assess benzene. that misinformation was distributed to every that was registered on the website. senators byrd, hagan, senator nelson from florida, congressman brad miller and congressman john dingell all sent a letter in

april to the secretary of the navy asking him to rectify this mischaracterization of that nrc report. their response was, the secretary of the navy went to the nrc and had the director of the nrc answer a letter that was written last october by the director of atsdr. i'm sorry, i mean, this is just a vicious circle. >> jerry, thank you for that. and the chairman has been very kind and lenient with me on my time. and i've gone over again but i thank the chair. >> an important question. thank you very much. senator begich. >> thank you, madam chair. i just want, if i could, mr. steele and mr. kelley and mr. violante, i want to talk about, i want to describe

because sometimes, and i've read your testimony in detail, and your concerns are treatment, fairness, reimbursements. let me describe alaska for second. first off, i was just there on memorial day, which to get to it, you have to fly from anchorage to bethel and have to fly from battle to quake in a force you to plan. if they have one avail and the weather is good. there's no road. that total trip took two and a half hours. of travel, airtime. in our state we have the premier indian health services in the country. why? be frank with you, indian health services doesn't run. we run. our travel committees and alaska took control of the health services because they wanted to deliver health care the right way. we have veterans in quiq, $2000

for air transportation. who pays for the? the veterans administration. yet there's a clinic right across the street, or road, there are no street, trail. that is run by the indian health services. providing incredible health care. in nome, alaska, we are building 170 million-dollar state-of-the-art indian health services care facility. but again if a veteran is there they will not be able to use that facility. they'll have to get in a plane because they cannot drive because there are no roads with 80% of our communities. there's no state like this. as a writer testament i know you want to try to keep everything -- there's no state like this. there's no state that you can try to another clinic yet there is a high quality run facility right there.

and what we are trying to do here, and if you read this, i understand your commentary and how you've written some of your testimony. a key part is roadless communities in alaska. that is pretty narrow. we have more and more, you know this, more and more veterans living in rural communities in this country, but i can stay right now in alaska, 77,000 veterans, the highest per capita of any state. we have a high percentage in rural alaska. we want to provide them the best care. and we believe this piece of legislation will actually lower the cost of the va. winning individual has to fly to anchorage and sometimes to seattle, because we have no va hospital, make sure we're clear on that. we don't have a hospital. we have a clinic, that's it. so they have to fly. thousands and thousands of dollars, and away from their families which, as you know, a

veteran for care is critical to be close to the families. so i want to work with you folks, and your concerns are easy to be met by cliff occasion but i want to respond, it's hard to understand alaska and kill you been to one of the small villages and you have met a veteran, in order to get care, to flight alone was $2000. that means someone down here in low bridge does not have $2000 for care. it's going to an airline. that doesn't seem right. can you give me comments? it's a statement by want to comment so you understand where we are coming from. it's not montana, it's not utah. it's not north carolina. it's not washington. it's very different. anyone of you three want to comment? >> senator, i'm not an expert on va health care. i have staff the focus on that. but i do think your question should be directed to va. i mean, they have the authority

to provide -- >> i'm going to interrupt you. we did that for years, didn't work. that's the problem, and the reality is we have a fully federally funded indian health services sitting right there run by tribal consortium delivering equal or in some case to be very frank with you, higher quality than what could be achieved in the va system at times and alaska. so i understand that question. but you have questions on mine so i am asking you, how do we -- >> that's our concerns. the va has the authority. they can provide community care for contract care when necessary, and i don't understand, and maybe have explained it to why they would want to spend $2000 to fly a veteran somewhere when they could go to a clinic, you know, nearby. i mean, to me that doesn't make sense and i would like to know the a's answer to that. because with the authority they have they should be able to take care of those, and if they're

not in me what should be happening is some oversight by this committee, getting va in your to find out why they're not doing that it i just had my deputy at a convention in west virginia, and a veteran came up to her and said that he has been on the basis for years as a service-50%. and they told him they didn't have funds to continue to do that. now, this is the same va that they should said that at $1.1 billion carry over. and would like to split up between 2012 and 2013. things are not making sense and our concern is va needs to be doing what they should be doing, and i agree with senator burr that we need to be looking at ways for them to do it better. i just am not comfortable with your bill and what it means to other veterans also around the country who may not be in such

severe situations, but still in need of health care when va has the authority to take care of most of this. >> i believe, joe stated it very articulately. i don't believe i have a whole lot to add. it's my understanding though that va and indian affairs is working to try to figure out a single pay method. i would like to understand that better and what that is going and if it would be an effective alternative to veterans card that would allow them to use indian affairs. >> madam chair, i know we're over time but i would like to make one quick. they have an m.o.u. and it is basically driven by our efforts there. because the one thing we don't want to do with veterans is have a constantly worry about how to get service. you know, we testimony or three weeks ago, for weeks ago with individuals talking to us how they pass facilities to go to

this debate because of some arrangement they have. and the art of the base this note other doctor. it's indian health services. and every single village in alaska has a clinic. there's no place like and it's because we have to deliver health in a very different way. so that's why they're doing m.o.u. is because they know something like this is necessary, or at least they are aware we have to figure this problem because of the current system doesn't work in alaska because the way the system is. it's a federal government facility and another federal government facility. not private doctors out there hitting the service. it's a different situation and that's why its draft. i'm going to work with you folks because every time i go to a veterans organization in alaska, when i mentioned this, we get applause at the end, this issue when i bring it up what i just described to you, it's not just an applause, it's a standing ovation because alaska and

veterans understand this is the care and how they can access it because they've tried other ways and doesn't work. so i just want to have you have an open mind. i hope i described alaska little. i would love to take you to quiq and drive on that road that is really a boardwalk of light into that airport that is a pat. but that's what we're trying to come the sugar car were work with you folks but i understand, i really think, for alaska, this is so critical these veterans get the care. i will leave it at that. >> thank you very much, senator begich. >> thank you, madam chair. and very quickly i just want to apologize for having delay. we had a markup on telecommunications bill with our first responders, and so just got done with that and i want to thank senator begich for his help and with a bill that we have introduced. and we appreciate you, madam

chair, for allowing us to bring that forward. and we also appreciate you guys as always for all that you do in pushing these things forward and your support of the bill. so again, we appreciate you, appreciate all that you represent, and i will put my statement in the record if it's okay with you. >> all right. thank you very much. i want to thank all of our panelists for being here today. we will have more questions we will submit for the record. and i want all the committee members to know i look for to working with you as we developed legislation based on today's hearing for our market which is currently scheduled to take place on wednesday, june 29. and i want all of you to know as the chair of this committee i'm going to continue to make sure that this committee does all it can to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits and services they have earned through the service to this nation. thank you very much, and with that this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama has ordered federal agencies to eliminate properties that are not being used. hoping to save $3 billion by the end of next year. a bill approved by house subcommittee last month would say that the commission to to recommend which federal properties should be sold. the subcommittee hears from the white house budget office, the general services administration and the department of veterans affairs in this two and a half hour hearing.

>> good afternoon. we are happy to welcome you to a hearing today. we thank you for joining us. today, as it turns out we have votes starting at 2:15 and senator brown will be back your a few minutes. he will come back and chair this hearing until i get back so we can both vote and we will not waste your time. we will get the show on the road. but welcome here today will examine the challenges that our federal government faces in managing our property. property of the american people. we will also discuss the presence proposal to address at least some of these challenges through the creation of the administration calls civilian property realignment board to assist agencies in rightsizing our federal real estate portfolio. there's general consensus that the federal government has to get smarter about the way we manage our buildings and lands

and with concerns over the implications of our of our deficit, and our national debt mounting of the waste and achieving in this area must remain a priority. between 2001 and 2009 we ran as much debt as we get in the first 208 years of our nation's history. last year we ran up what may be the largest detonation our nation's history. but most of us here in washington are united in our desire to find a solution to our country's fiscal problems we're still facing and ocean for as far as the eye can see. a wide variety of views have been put forward on how to reduce our budget deficits and begin whittling down our debt. last fall the majority of bipartisan deficit commission appointed by president obama provide us with a roadmap to reduce the federal deficit for the next decade by roughly $4 trillion. a number of the steps we need to take in order to accomplish this goal will likely be painful.

many americans believe that those of us here in washington are capable of taking the steps. a don't think we can do the hard work that we were hired to do. that is effectively managing their tax dollars that they entrust to us. they look at the spending decisions we made in recent years and the poor management across government, question whether the culture is broken. they question whether we are capable of making the kind of tough decisions they and their families have to make everyday with respect to the own budgets. i don't blame them for being skeptical. we need to establish a different kind of culture in washington. when it comes to spending. we need to establish what i call a culture of thrift. that involves looking at every nook and cranny of federal spending, domestic, defense, entitlement programs along with tax expenditures and asking a simple question, is it possible to get better results for less money, or at least better results for the same amount of

money. when it comes to federal property management is clear to me and others we need to get better. federal property management has been on the government accountability opposition high-risk list since januar january 2003. in part due to the overwhelming number of unneeded, underutilizing even they can facilities held by federal agencies. but most recent comprehensive data show that the agencies possess more than 45,000 underutilized buildings, totaling more than 340 million square feet in space your that's about the size of delaware. i exaggerate but it's a lot of space. [laughter] these buildings cost and $1.7 billion annually to secure and to maintain. just last month the ministration released a list of 14,000 real property assets that they have identified as accessing the no longer meet federal need and should be disposed of.

in addition, we've also likely over leasing. since 2008 the general services administration has leased more property than it once am even owning a federal building is often more cost effective way of meeting and agencies long-term needs. fortunately, both congress and the obama administration are united in their commitment to address this issue. in june 2010 president obama issued a memorandum urging agencies to move force will be to dispose of unneeded property. we also put into place a goal of achieving $3 billion in savings through property sales and other disposal actions by the end of fiscal year 2012. the president's latest budget includes a recommendation to form what the administration calls a sibling property realignment board whose purpose would be to reduce the government's property portfolio and disposed of those deemed excess in an expedited manner. this is a proposal that my

colleagues and i and homeland security government affairs committee still needs to spend time examining, but i am pleased that the president has put his suggestion, something, on the table. clearly the minimum to address this problem, yet in all of our zeal to save we must be careful in our approach. rome was not built in a day. federal government property cannot be unveiled in a day. we have an opportunity to do this right, change the way the government manages its hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets. the presence proposal may be the right approach, and it may not be. it does hold some promise, and that's that agencies shouldn't be waiting for a civilian brat to solve the problem, meanwhile, managing properties. in an era of shrinking budgets and scarce resources is critical that agencies come up with

better property management tools to expeditiously dispose of assets that they no longer need and take better care of those that they do need. our government has many underutilized and vacant properties across billions of dollars each year to maintain. we pay for the maintenance, we pay for security for those properties, we pay for utilities for many of those properties. despite efforts to reduce this inventory, multiple obstacles remain to preclude quick and easy solutions. and i really look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. as you share your thoughts with us on the administration's plan. and i'm sitting down with our colleagues were interested in this issue so that we can move forward with more difficult work that lies ahead. senator brown? >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i've enjoyed our time together and really learning about where a lot of the waste and inefficiency is. this is something i commend the president for putting forth a plan to how to do with a lot of

the underutilized properties which as you reference cost those 1.7 billion a year which we could be using and other types of programs are putting back to paying down our deficit. i will submit my statement for the record, but i just want to point out those two things and i look forward to witness testimony as well. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator brown. let me just say to our staff, both democrat and the public and, thank you for the preparation for this hearing. i want to begin by just welcoming diverse panel of witnesses. and the first is a person who needs little introduction. someone who served on this site of the dice many times. it's the honorable alan dixon. senator from illinois from 1981-1993. while he served in the house or at least 10 of those years, or the senate, i was serving in the house. we had a fair amount of overlap. senator dixon was a member --

send on banking housing and urban affairs who i used the service will. and the committee on small business. since retiring he has continued to demonstrate his commitment to public service by serving as the chairman of the defense base closure and realignment commission during 1994 and 1995. is going senior counsel at an international law firm. senator, welcome. it is great to see. mr. david baxa is president and chief executive officer of vista technology services in corporate. management and i.t. consulting firm, that supports large organizations getting the most from the real property asset for photo. he has more than double the size of this is since 2003. previously mr. baxa that one half of history as general manager of a team providing support for every defense base realignment and closure ground since 1980. so our paths have crossed a lot

with mr. dixon. welcome. tim ford is chief executive officer of the association and defense communities, which has been credited with helping guide hundreds of its members through barack, 2005. mr. ford is a nationally recognized expert on impacts of base closure, base we develop and and community military partnership. previously mr. ford was executive director of the new york city employment and training coalition which is the city's leaking workforce development association. mr. ford, very nice usage. and, finally, our fourth witness is a person whose last name has never been correctly pronounced. i'm going to try. i'm going to try to i asked my staff member of i asked them to spell it out phonetically. and we will see how i do and how well they do.

vast arenas? thank you. maria is the executive director of the national law center on homelessness and poverty. she's the founder of of the center which is advocate of a solution for homelessness 1985. ms. foscarinas, served with stewart mckinney for number of years. that was the first major act, federal legislation addressing homelessness. she has led the successful litigation to secure the legal rights of homelessness and his nsa known expert and we think and each our panelists for being here today. wide-awake ahead and begin your testimonies. we will ask that you try to limit your testament to five minutes or so. if you go way over that we will rain again. if you don't we be in good shape. senator brown, you may want to slip out and go vote. is the vote going to start at

2:15? if it is, you may want to do that and then you can come back and then i will run over and vote. thank you. senator, pleased to see. your entire statement will be made part of the record and feel free to summarize as you wish. >> thank you, mr. chairman and senator brown. it's delightful to be with you today. my full statement is in the record. i think you'll find it useful in view of my experience as chairman of the 1995 brac. you know, in that year, my good friend senator sam nunn, the chairman of the armed services committee recommended me to president clinton to be the chairman of brac and talking into. i have come to forget them both, thank you, for that experience. but i can testify on the basis of that experience that brac was an immense success. billions and billions and billions of dollars were saved

by what we did it i'm simply going to close by saying my experience is outlined in the record for you. by want to say that the brac experience show that some form of government assistance to committees affected by major closures of relentless essential both for losing communities to overcome the economic impact and in some cases for gaming communities to prepare local infrastructure to receive new activities. now, mr. chairman, i noticed that under the administration's proposal, the civilian property realignment board meetings are not open to the public. and the chair and ranking member of the congressional oversight committees can sit in on meetings of the boards. i respectfully suggest, mr. chairman, that the subcommittee should take a close look at these aspects of the administration proposal in light of my brac experience.

the body of transparency, the bite of openness, that i of all opportunities for people to be heard is terribly important. the brac expand shows that military base closures can be due in a fair, open and compassionate manner and the committees affected can recover economically. and i believe that will be true of your experience with this legislation if you're prepared to protect transparency. i thank the chair. >> makes a much. and to your point, i spend a couple days last week when we are in recess, i spent a couple days in california where, as you know, many of the basis including moffett field has been closed. and have been transition to other activities. for the most part they were successful. so i think you're absolutely

right. >> may i make this final response to that? >> please. >> in my own state of illinois, mr. chairman, they closed chanute air force base near the university of illinois. everybody thought that would be the ruination of this community in central illinois. as a matter of fact, that has become a tremendous industrial park and has contributed a lot of good economic to that community. they closed fort sheridan and northern illinois, and that became one of the most beautiful residential areas on lake michigan that you could ask to see. so i definitely believe that the economic results of this will be very beneficial to the government and the people of the united states. >> staff often heavy times hear me quote einstein. the same is true, you have shown it.

thank you. thanks for being with us today. mr. baxa, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly want to say on behalf of the employees, we sincerely appreciate your invitation to share our views. our views and my personal views are honed by new 25 years of experience with defense brac through five rounds starting in 1998. our comprehensive support to dvd is included development tools to determine space requirement and in concert with demographics and organizational missions. we've also helped to determine excess properties i specific type and location. these proven methodologies continue to result in major savings and cost avoidance is to dod. for example, we recently helped the army avoid more than half a billion dollars in new cost of medical and parking facilities that would examine other government agency practices, applicable industry standards and out of private sector benchmarks to help the army a

top new criteria. the result was cost avoidance of $220 million of medical facilities, $3109 for parking. resulting elimination of the 500 square feet of medical and 8 million square yard parking allow the army to avoid tens of means of dollars in additional costs in future operations and maintenance for the facility. this is the kind of thinking that should take place as civilian agencies change the way they do their needs for real property. i would caution, congress not to use the current initiative as a fire sale for assets for short-term gain. rather, should be good as an opportunity to effect permit changes in federal real property asset management practices, the most substantial benefit to the taxpayer will come through reduced year-over-year sustainment cause for facilities we no longer be. we should be ambitious and not miss and extraordinaire

opportunity to a federal asset management professionals drive significant cost out of their systems. my written statement offer several suggestions for the subcommittee's consideration. i would like to highlight six of them here. first, the senate confirmed commission should operate for no less than eight years with official recommendations every two years during that period. it will likely take two or three rounds to achieve the maximum benefits were agencies truly get in sync with the process prescribed by the commission, improvement in agency asset management business practices to become institutionalized, and congress and taxpayer expectations are met with regard to asset sale proceeds, property management cost avoidance is, and other savings. second, the commission state government standards, the government of standards or best practices criteria for evaluating agency recommendation is one of the key to this process.

the commission should avoid a one size fits all criteria, but done right, standard benchmarks can lead to integration business decision methodology across all agencies. this would help ensure that realignment is an ongoing activity. agency should regulate evaluate their real property holdings in configurations as their missions evolve, processes improve and workplaces and realities change. third, steps should be taken to ensure that department and agencies have a central data to account for what they own or lease, where it is, what condition it's in, how it's been utilize and how it compares to what is actually needed to support essential missions and programs. without these important data points, decision-makers will have effectively realign to him prove management of the real property assets. fourth, agency should begin given sufficient time to work through thorny issues associate

with making recommendations to the commission. done right, this process will require agencies to rethink their space requirement. basin years of practical experience, including dod brac, this undertaking requires sufficient time to promote the best choices. fifth, congress should consider requiring department and agency to prepare and publish workforce projections and planning criteria and the federal registry. since brac required duty to publish criteria for determining asset closure and realignment, this establish consistency in the way recommendations were developed and it would be helpful for civilian departments and agencies as well. finally, congress should consider the establishment of the resolution trust entity to take possession of all designated properties and dispose of them in a way that maximizes returns. it would reduce disposal burdens on agencies and promote bundling of assets across agencies.

while gsa is very skilled in customer both landlord and does a good job there, it's expected and bundling assets and creating ways to maximize returns is more limited. rtc type entity could effectively engage private development interest to successfully address such disposal innovation. to conclude, mr. chairman, i generally applaud your efforts to address this need. congress should take care to design the process so that the taxpayer realizes the greatest benefit possible. >> mr. ford, please proceed. if we get about five minutes into your testimony i will have to made a journey, or at least recess. go ahead. up like to get started. >> chairman carper, ranking member brown, we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. for more than 35 years, adc has been the leading non-governmental organization involved with the brac process. we represent over 250

communities that have dealt with or are dealing with the impacts of brac. who are involved with the past round in her current involvement in the proper disposal process we bring a vast experience with working with local state governments, the federal, and the private sector on the impacts of federal property transfer. as the subcommittee considers legislation to dispose of excess federal property, we hope the lessons learned in the brac process and in particular the affect on the role of communities and states should be given consideration. committee and state have been a central part since its inception in the early 1980s. in fact, when the major reasons we ended up with brac was to mitigate the concerned regarding the transparency of the overall process. while decisions related to brac and impact of committees and states have been challenging, the brock process remains politically viable because of the independence of the process and commitment to transfer to a procedure in cajun king communities and states are beginning to implementation of

the decision. demonstration proposal made similar mistakes, and a state to recommendations that i think will improve the overall approach. first, it is critical to recognize that communities and states will be impacted and they will be involved in the decisions regarding the federal footprint in their area. negative impacts of committees could range from the elimination of jobs, movement of jobs and and the implications of property redevelopment. at the same time this process could have positive outcomes for committees and state. working with local governments and the private sector there's opportunities to maximize the efficiency of the federal footprint and enhanced the local tax fees. engaging communities through the entire process may add complexity but we think it's essential to the success of the process. we see three critical elements to really building disengagement. first, transparency.

the administration proposal sounds aboard read an independent commission would be the objectivity of the process and could allow politics to influence decisions. the independent nature of decisions through the commission in the brac process has been critical to maintaining the support and involvement of communities. second, institutionalizing community involvement. given the length of the proposed process at its broad national impacts, mechanism for institutionalized communities and states involvement need to be part of this legislation. first of a celtic ordination of committees and state, the board should establish regional liaisons. second, in those areas with significant actions are taking place the board should have the option to create a joint federal local agency chaired by the community or state and comprises federal local members in impacted areas. this entity could provide a mechanism for ensuring the local tools are in place to maximize the return to the federal

government. a similar model has been very important in the successful transfer of property of military base closure. third, given the ongoing budget discussion there's a high interest in selling as way to generate revenue. while this -- an option in some -- wiley can be an option in some situations where market conditions are favorable, our expense in disposing of federal property and brac has shown the cost avoidance rather than generating revenue through land sales is a more realistic goal. attempt to focus of brac property transfer on updating their market by and still shouldn't have not been successful. in many instances the value decreased because the extra care and cost to the government while he tried to maximize the value in the marketplace. another issue for properties disposal involved the transfer of partial to state and local entities for public benefit. communities have have a strong voice in this process and be allowed to petition. in some cases receive federal

property at little or no cost. community involvement needs to be extended to the screening of the property, screening of property for homeless needs. in most instances communities and states leaders would understand the committees needs and can best accommodate the needs of the homeless. finally, while the site and using existing disposal authorities within federal agencies, both agencies are not set of two minutes disposal action. centralizing the disposal authority into one agency with real estate and property expertise is essential. to conclude, commuters and states can play an important role in the success of a federal disposal effort, create a positive that maintains independence and transparency while engaging commute will be key for implement this process. after decision made the property process must focus on partnering with local entities to expedite the process. brac has taught us while complex this process can create mutual

benefits for all involved. he appreciate the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you very much. ms. foscarinis. >> thank you very much. chairman carper, ranking member brown, members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i am the executive director of the national law center on homelessness and poverty. our mission is to serve as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to prevent homelessness in america. each year more than 3 million americans experience homelessness, including 1.3 million children. these numbers have increased as a result of the recession and foreclosure crisis. in fact, the u.s. conference of mayors estimated a 9% increase in family homelessness in 2010 alone. over 70% of the official survey for the report expect family and child homelessness to increase further during the coming year.

the united states government has committed itself to ending homelessness. just a year ago the u.s. interagency council on homelessness released opening doors, the federal strategic plan to end and prevent homelessness. the plans central belief is that no one should experience homelessness, no one should be without a safe, stable place to call home. recently our government data for the world community that homelessness in our country implicates our human rights commitment, and made a pledge to the world community to reduce homelessness. and congress has made similar commitments, most recently in the act of 2009 which established a federal goal ensuring that individuals and families who become homeless return to permanent housing within 30 days. you might wonder what homelessness has to do with federal surplus property. the answer is simple. in 1997, title v of the

mckinney at put in place a set of important protections for homeless people. under the law homeless service providers have a right of first refusal to acquire federal property no longer needed by the government, to use it for urgently -- urgent needs such as housing and services for people who are homeless. more than 2.4 million americans benefit each year as a result of this provision in the law. formerly vacant federal properties now provide shelter, transitional and permanent housing, case management, food pantry, joplin, mental health and substance abuse treatment and childcare. just in the states represented by members of this committee, properties have been transferred in alaska, arkansas, maine and montana. massachusetts is also on that list. as congress reviews efforts by

federal agencies to dispose of surplus properties, homeless people must be protected. and another committee is committee is very concerned with cost reduction, and i want to note that ending homelessness is not only the right thing to do, but also the fiscally responsible thing to do. it is more costly to allow homelessness to continue in our country than to end it. and title v is one of the important federal programs that can help us do that. i want to make three points that are elaborated in my written testimony. the title v process is not the cause of inefficiency in the federal property disposal process, and thus it should be protected and not eliminated or drastically altered. as a result of procedure reform. the process takes a mere matter of months, and once complete the federal government may move forward with any alternative needs of property disposal.

we know that nearly all of the 14,000 properties on the list of existing, on the list of properties that have entered title v, the review has been completed and we are now waiting transfer. title v is not the cost of the system. if there's reason for the delay, they do not lie within title v and title v should not be altered to address inefficiency. second, we reject, while we reject the contention that title v is causing delay, we agree that reforms can be made to streamline the process and make it work in a faster and smarter way. and we are are happy to work with the committee to do that. we also believe that more federal properties could be made available that would be useful in providing housing for homeless people, and those saving the federal government

ultimately resources. third point, we understand that the subcommittee is now considering a legislative proposal put forth by omb that would eliminate title v and replace it with brac like process. we want to say that we cannot support this proposal and its current form. the protections that are in brac are not in place in the proposal and we cannot support the proposal without those protections. those protections include representation of homeless people on the commission that would review property, and it would include a right to have, by those representatives to refer property be screened for use on behalf of homeless people. this is not the time is homelessness continues to rise across the country. this is not the time to take away an important federal program to help homeless people that has been in place for almost 25 years. this is the time for the federal

government to be looking at increasing ways it can assist in addressing the needs of homeless people. and as i said before, this is not only the right thing to do, it is also the cost effective thing to do, because homelessness not only cost lives, it costs resources. so, with that, i will submit the rest of my testimony for the record. i thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and i would be glad to respond to questions. >> thank you very much. ..

it has been a process that has been successful. >> in your experience, any mistakes you encountered that we should avoid in administering the civilian property realignment proposal? >> some of the things that i would call attention to is there were instances win more could have been done to help localities deal with these closures. i am not sure the same thing applies to a civilian brac since we are not looking at shutting down small cities like we were in the case of defense

installations. there are different parameters that come in to play that need to be recognized. >> there are many stakeholder interests in the proposal of -- disposal of federal property. in california of the types of states that have interests in protecting or eliminating or dealing with these types of properties, do you have any suggestions to ensure an efficient process while also considering stakeholders' interest? >> it is establishing a process in gauging the communities and states and regions and decisionmaking process. early attempts at base closure were done from a washington perspective and started making decisions and the committees and states fought back which is how we ended up with brac as a more transparent process.

establishing a system to engage communities so that they are working with the commissioner board. it had some complexity to it but it could make the process move. >> on the 14,000 properties you indicated had little market volume what type of properties are we talking about? non developedable plots of land? >> when you look at the list that has been put out at this point in time i think you can see there are number of very small structures that are part of that. there is open land and some are scattered in remote areas. those would have little or no value. some are on federal enclaves that could not be reasonably cordoned off. >> issues to generate --

>> we are spending money maintaining these buildings. >> real savings are what come down the road. >> with your recommendations be to tear a building down? >> that is the logical disposal approach. >> what has taken so long up to this point? some of these properties are maintained, fair market value -- >> there has not been a strong emphasis to dispose in the past. that may have slowed things down. i don't have the full view of those properties. there are different hurdles that have to be overcome in that

process. >> miss foscarinis, you are not in favor of the president's proposal and have plans to out streamline the process. what are your suggestions? turn your mike on. >> first of all, our first point is don't alter title 5 because it is not the cause of the problem, is not the reason there are 14,000 properties languishing. >> what do we do about those 14,000 properties? >> i can address the issue of title 5. with regard to tidal 5 there could be better targeting of properties that truly could be of use where people are targeted and offered for that use to service providers. there are all kinds of properties in the title 5 process, those include national

security properties, air strips and or kinds of properties that cannot conceivably be used. those don't need to go through the process. there could be better out reach so providers serving homeless people are better aware of the application process. that would speed it up. >> i will turn it back to the chairman. i completed my questions. >> how are they doing answering those questions? >> did very well. >> bill ahead and feel free to make a statement. >> i will combine here. i am looking at the testimony and ideas. i come from a city where for 20 some years, we have surplus properties and put them into the heritage landing bank appointed by the mayor under republican and democratic mayors, they hold the land in trust and they do it

for public purpose and listening to your concerns, we have a home -- homeless population and recognize -- i am from the real-estate industry and every property has value. there is no property that doesn't have value. i have seen it time and time again. there is a sliver and they take it and develop it, amazing what they will do. i am looking at this from a simplistic idea that taking all the surplus property, it should be an independent board related to government. i am going to throw a thought and if you could respond, i am not sure, toomey brac is day and night. we have to deal with it.

towns disappearing, commercial centers, these are buildings and facilities, who owned that? there's a window broken, we get the calls when i was mayor all the time. all these properties, 14,000, protect tidal 5. we put these 14,000 properties or whatever else might occur over the years. the board's purpose is to have two or three goals. look at these 4 public purpose and put these aside. those are then to be inventoried or put on the market to sell and there is usually the third capped, there may or may not be as to more analysis that needs to be done and the board continually looks at the inventory that occurs that goes

up and down but depending on what is going on in the industry's we are right now consolidating homeland security into one building. maybe they are, maybe there are government buildings that will be surplus. i want to keep it that simple. that is what we do. keep the concept of title 5 in play but also get rid of properties that let me guarantee is someone will buy that airfield. why not do something like that? i see a lot of nodding heads. i'm afraid to ask for any verbal comment because if it is not in your head, to try to replicate the situation is not what it is about. we utilize for federal government purposes and other purposes. >> if i may respond by think there's a lot that could be done to reform as you indicated.

our first goal would be keep title 5 separate. >> i heard that. [talking over each other] >> from our perspective, from the point of view of homeless people who are not in a position of power at all, is to keep title 5 separate and address the reform post title 5. and your discussions make a lot of sense. >> we use to do a lot of partnership with habitat for a humanity, with inventory of the property that they can use that stuff they look at whenever possible and stuff that we would have to debate on the best value. >> we're calling it the brac process for civilian property process, with the commission, we put special emphasis to get the

job done, having that in play, a chance to be politically difficult to make outside that construct. something along the lines of the brac commission, i favor the commission and it has a wider acceptance, would in fact help us, much more rapidly than we would otherwise. >> in discussions about this process there has been some assumption that a commission could look beyond the 15,000 properties on the surplus to looking at how to create efficiency across the federal footprint and agencies probably haven't put on the proxy's the commission might consider. this could have a broader impact and the history of brac

especially in the last round where it used to be about closing bases and our last round it became transformation. brac is a decision making process. at least it is a process that has shown the ability to deal with local politics and federal local politics. >> that is great. i agree with that, semantics or whatever you call it. maybe i am naive about this, but the political controversy of getting rid of properties that no one uses at least has a mayor, 4 ten years on city council, not really controversial. the controversy occurs when you don't do it and it becomes a dilapidated, falling apart and deteriorating when neighbors get upset because you haven't done

anything. i understand the politics of brac, what should be closed or not be closed. i don't see the controversy even comparable. it is a process but there's a way to do this very easily. we don't overthink this because it is a way to make this happen for the benefit of both ends and at the same time be our goal which is we don't want to call it purpose from a federal government site. the faster you get this into the market is not a public purpose property, to produce economic development for communities and it is dominoes. i hope we are not -- what i learned is we overthink these issues to the point where is not

that complicated. we have done this, mayors have done this lot and it seems to work. wind use a realignment you are reassessing the asses of the federal government's. they don't need that anymore. we're pulling that over here. we are seeing the same thing. it is a mechanism. i don't want to get it complicated. >> i am all for this. we talked about it. this is the right movement. we have 14,000 properties backed up. >> should we -- >> keep it simple. >> senator coburn has worked on this for many years.

we will make some progress. thank you for being here today. >> i was going to reply to senator begich. it is not simple because you have every roadblock in the world. there are 70,000 properties. the $1.2 billion that comes close to maintaining that is -- we have billions of dollars. the question i would ask miss foscarinis, should we use cost-benefit analysis, we have a building we could sell for $5 million that the homeless could use and it is not the appropriate structure and for $1.5 million we could get the ideal structure. why not do that rather than say we do this because we have title 5 and actual good sale of a building for real purpose one we can take profits from that and

put it into homes. what would we not do that? >> there are examples of groups. >> most of the time we don't do that. most of the times, is an inventory factor. it is not just title 5. when we are sitting $14 trillion worth of debt and we are drowning in debt and we are saying instead of making smart moves the right appropriate economic move we will get the building to a state or city by law because we have to. we should be selling at lower than the debt and we have an obligation to help take care -- you can't touch title 5. we have to touch title 5 but not in a way that makes it better, not less than what it is.

if we have commitment to the homeless we should do that in the most cost-effective way. you can't get rid of any real property. i have been working on this for 14 years. the number one thing that blocks, people will get afraid. we will make a commitment over here, what we have heard is we can't change this. make a commitment to homeless the did the smart thing economically for the country and very supportive of the idea behind this. >> i know you have been working on this issue for many years, the issue of title 5 is not

problem. [talking over each other] >> it is a problem. the 14,000 properties are languishing -- >> title 5 is up problem because we have inappropriately match properties to the benefit of title 5. here is how much property we have and our commitment to the homeless. and give some of the money to the homeless and let that happen. we are making something very difficult and every time we try to move anything on this you are very effective. because you have a dead stop to every movement that property reform in congress last 13 years. it has been dead stopped. >> i guess i should be flattered. >> it's a compliment. you are effective lobbying for the homeless but if we really care about our country and the homeless we will do both.

with your statement is you can't touch title 5 when you are saying to us is there's not another way to care for the homeless accept a the way we are doing it today. >> senator coburn, i think you might have missed my statement where i said we are happy to work with the committee to reform title 5 to make it better and we are open to reforms that will streamline it and make it work better. >> your still stuck on title 5. what about just a commitment to the homeless? the right thing to do outside of title 5 and separate it from real property. >> there are many things that need to be done and it is not just about title 5. five 05 alone will not solve the problem of homelessness but in many communities the absence of a piece of property is the key factor. >> take the money, separate real

property from homelessness, commit a portion of the money to homelessness and create the organization where you do the ideal thing for homelessness rather than less than ideal. >> i understand. we need to do both. title 5 can also serve well. we are not talking about a lot of properties. there are only a few properties that goes through title 5. those properties make a big difference. >> if every property in the warehouse has to encounter title 5 to see if it is available that is crazy. >> we do think the process can be reformed because right now there are many properties that goes through the process that are of no conceivable use to homeless people and we would be happy -- [talking over each other] >> we got feedback that you can't do that. >> we proposed and worked with this committee on sensible

reforms that would target -- >> that wasn't on the floor. i want to follow up with senator begich and we can use a lot of his experience. it is like an old haberdasher, the short sale to suit you coming by. you might not get as much as we wanted but you could always sell it. senator carper's idea and the idea that we have to account for the cost of a new facility under the budget guidelines when we take position and consequently what we have seen is we have gone from buying property to leasing property and that cost the government a lot more money. do you have any comments on the budget process that forces us

into leasing properties to a great deal more expense? anybody have any comments? >> if i may, it doesn't seem to make reasonable sense that you can't count total cost of a lease in the process of deciding to do it or not. if i were leasing for my own personal purpose of would look at that. and count that as part of the cost of acquiring that particular -- >> you do a cost-benefit analysis over life -- >> expected life -- [talking over each other] >> we worked with elements of the defense department to help figure out where it to take things and put it in the government owned facilities and a lot of cost for the army as an example.

>> the smaller agencies don't have that option because if they buy a property we charge it to them the year they bought it rather than analyze the life of the bill. any comments? >> his expertise is probably more clear. >> i went over. i apologize. >> quite all right. i want to hit rewind and go back to the exchange between foscarinis and senator coburn. we have been listening back and forth. how we actually end up with a better outcome here and what advice you would have for us. >> every base closure community, every community impacted by bracc goes through a process. there have been some changes and i will speak to the technical changes the communities face but

what has always been important is maintaining the community role in that process so the communities are at the table trying to figure out what is in the best interests of the community. they're working with the local redevelopment authority to make these decisions. the local redevelopment authority have a plan they are trying to implement so it becomes not an abstract discussion of what is good for the homeless but sitting in with an overall concept of how to reuse land. the biggest focus for bracc communities is to get jobs back in. it is a more comprehensive approach and i can say it has not been without challenges but the local redevelopment authorities would tell me it could create a lot of headaches. it has been a process that allowed them to move forward. it hasn't been a huge stumbling block. for

>> i can only say that it is one more step in the process. what senator coburn has outlined seems to make sense that we can accomplish the same end and not hold up the process of those assets we no longer need. >> this foscarinis, when he referred to agencies that one of the obstacles to this is important but one of the obstacles to property disposal is -- it must be performed before a property can be put on the market for sale. just back up and explain how the process works, how an agency disturbance for the homeless and how to pay for property transferred to a homeless service provider. i call it 101. >> it is listed in the federal

register. there is the 60 day period in which homeless service providers have properties. in that 60 day period they submit a letter of interest. if they are interested in the birdy and there's no interest the property is free to be sold so 60 days. if there is a letter of interest submitted there's a 90 day period for a full application to be submitted. either the application is submitted, the process goes forward, and the property may or may not go to the homeless provider, or it doesn't go forward and it is over and would be ok to be sold. it is a matter of the process goes through the title 5 screening process. >> take off your hat and put on my hat.

what might be some ways to do that? >> one way would be to target the property so that right now there is a very broad brush approach. basically a lot of properties that are published 4 years for homeless purposes that really aren't. the national security properties or properties that are contaminated or not habitable, or -- an air strip is listed that could conceivably be used. there could be a more targeted process happening up front so fewer property is go through the process but better properties that are more likely to be usable for this purpose and we made that recommendation in that proposal. there could be a greater effort,

they often hold as in the application process. very cumbersome process. these every and sophisticated providers. and have additional information which further holds up the process so the application process could be streamlined or more systems could be offered. that is where the process could look better on serving everybody's interests. it is not in our interest to hold the property that is of no use to anyone. our interest is taking resources which are public resources which are often very valuable to the provider. getting a piece of real-estate is the biggest area. not having access is the biggest barrier to providing services or housing for homeless people in the community. >> in dover, delaware, we have the huge air force base surge

and huge airplanes. one of the largest aircraft in world, and other major airlifters, five miles away, the dover federal building and every five or six years we go through that process where there is great concern with going to happen to dover air force base which has 5,000 people. i have always said to folks in central or southern delaware that bracc could be our friend and it has been our friend. we have previously done other bait -- states or bases that has been beneficial to us. we have a federal building five miles away being emptied out. we move down a year or so ago,

congressman carney moved out recently. it is the size of the football field. it is quite large. 5,000 people work at once and fewer than 100. i have been through the bracc process as a governor and a senator and it seems to me that there are some real differences between disposing of dover air force base and the federal building. i asked of each of you, one of the key differences between the administration's proposal for civilian property realignment and bracc? whether there are similarities and taken from similarities and

differencess? >> if i might one of the key differences right off the top is the board versus the commission and it seems the commission's structure has worked well in the past and the commission's tend to have inherent in them the ability for legislative branch to recommend the deck -- appointees, it appears to be more bipartisan in the construct and as a result of the commission's structure it tends to carry more weight or be more credible than many boards have been in the past. that is certainly one key difference. the other difference is we have a little bit different scenario in the fact that with the

civilian property realignment, you are talking about multiple independent civilian agencies. omb is the most likely capstone which provides some oversight to that. in the case of bracc, the secretary of defense who defended the armed service defense agencies make recommendations and there's a certain normalization that took place at the os the level before that was a term submitted to the commission. there needs to be a step like that included in the civilian side, and the omb could play that role. so you have the same opportunity to look across the agencies and recommendations being made.

there could be some locations and combinations across agencies that would be worthwhile for the government to consider given our current budget situation. >> same question. >> the point of that was made is the dod started this process wanting to get rid of property. they wanted to get rid of bases along the way but congress stopped them. the motivation is slightly different because i don't think a lot of agencies look for their surplus but are they going to put forward hire a valued people and properties that could be consolidated or taken out of the federal property roll. the difference between the commission and the board, the independence of it and ability to make those decisions is a big difference. also the opportunity because you won't necessarily have communities like in bracc that are defensive or posturing to save something so there's an opportunity to work with the

community and figure out, federal offices could be consolidated and easier to sell a piece of property the federal government alone is. and also the private sector so there's more opportunity to develop creative solutions at the local level. is a win/win for the community and the federal government. the other issue is the issue of property disposal. we are dealing with property disposals in the 1988 background. still a plan that had not been disposed. it is not an easy process. even the smallest pieces of property can be a challenging process. we'll work with three services and that will struggle because it will increase a law that comes down so i can't imagine working with 16 or 20 agencies to do disposal so the importance of consolidating the disposal of

40 into an entity that moves these properties quickly and has the real estate expertise put the public/private deals together to help everyone. >> what entity would you suggest? >> t s a has those skills. the rotc -- it has been discussed in bracc for years. there are other ways to look for it. it takes a lot more analysis to figure out what makes sense but the focus on expediting the transfer of properties should be the goal. [talking over each other] >> this foscarinis. >> from our perspective the bracc process is different from the process being composed by the administration. it has explicit provisions to safeguard homeless people and their needs as part of the disposal process.

so it is written into the law that homeless members of the community must be considered and disposing of the base property, representative of homeless people must be part of that process to oversee the disposal property to ensure these homeless people -- that is very different. all of those are in the administration's current proposal. >> just one more and we will excuse you. you suggest we consider resolution trust corp. that we know pretty well from the house banking committee. but you suggest we consider resolution to assist the government in liquidating some of the surplus, real property assets. give us a drill down on that idea and describe how you think

that might fit into a civilian process. >> if you look what happened on the defense side, each of the surge ass in the defense agency's had to develop their own disposal office that took care of the implementation plan to implement the commission. we don't want to try to recreate that in every landholding agency in the federal government. we create the agencies that might be getting the talent against each other. i would also suggest the revolution -- resolution trust corporation enables us to bring in real estate development interests and other professionals into an arena where they could begin to look

at combining these. if you have many properties that might be in different cities around the country, it might be possible to bungalows and make it attractive and where they need to be in various locations. the wherewithal and talent putting together those kinds of packages that facilitate the disposal process, perhaps get a higher return for those properties that might otherwise be the case. >> anything else you want to add before you join us? >> thank you for the opportunity. >> our members -- how long is it? to submit questions? >> two weeks.

and colleagues cannot ask questions and we ask when you receive those. thanks to walyou all for

coordinating mr. sullivan of the on u.s. department, assumed his new leadership role in 2009 after serving as the beauty director since may of 2002. mr. sullivan has 25 years of experience in capital budget in

an asset management -- that true? just checking. a pivotal role in the largest portfolios of property and the federal government. mr. david wise is director of physical infrastructure issues at the u.s. government accountability office, he is specialized in transportation and communication and federal property issues. his career dates back to 1951 -- 1981. [laughter] he has a bachelor of arts in political science from the university of pittsburgh and master's degree of public administration from pit's graduate school of public and international -- good to see you. lepore is director of management issues at you as governmental

accountability office. he directs audits and evaluation team reviewing the support infrastructure programs, with realignment. mr. lepore owns a master's degree in public administration from soulful university in boston and communications studies from the university of massachusetts in amherst. drew do you route for when the red sox play the yankees? >> it is an easy call. >> the rest of our panelists for being with us today. we normally ask our witnesses to take five minutes to testify and after that we rain you in. feel free to summarize your entire statement, it will be made part of the record. >> thank you for holding this hearing, chairman carper and ranking member brown. our statements are entered into the record, i thought i would

use my full record -- few minutes to offer thoughts and clarification after having the opportunity to listen to the first panel. one of the things i want to emphasize about the president's proposal is it is not intended to overtake the entire process by which federal real-estate is dealt with and disposed in case of surplus assets. over the course of time as we have evaluated real-estate in the federal government we have identified some more challenging and transformational opportunities that exist within our real-estate portfolio that require a different approach. as senator coburn was discussing the fact the we often hit roadblocks but we see emerging a certain type of real-estate opportunity that usually and to bequeath it a much higher value proposition in terms of savings where those roadblocks are hit. for the 14,000 assets that

currently sit as surplus we haven't hit those types of challenging road blocks. the reality is they made it through of the process. we need to get rid of them and do a better job getting rid of them but don't necessarily think we need at bracc-like process. as you peel away the onion layers of the federal real-estate inventory and work with federal agencies at the start of the administration as president obama directed us to do a better job on real-estate we started to see two types of opportunities emerge. more short-term opportunity that can take place under the current legal and regulatory environment we have today and we are pursuing those. that is the $3 billion goal that you referenced in your opening and we are making good progress. beyond that at higher savings, the more challenging opportunities we believe we needed different process. there are two types of opportunity i will highlight and

turn over to the other witnesses. throughout our inventory there are not thousands of these opportunities but there are a number of them. they are a high value of assets that exists where we look at the situation and a couple things are going on. most likely not the highest and best use of federal government to be sitting in that property at the time. it might be fully utilized but it doesn't need to be fully utilized by the federal government in that space and by transferring or consolidating them to another location and exploring commercial opportunities the taxpayer could win in a significant way. there might be a high value assets that are no longer needed, but there is such a level of competing stakeholders' interest in whether the federal government stays or goes, what will happen to that property after the federal government leaves? those types of competing

interests created an inner shell in moving those properties forward and we have not figured out how to overcome that inertia. those opportunities represent -- a few of those opportunities in a single digits on one hand could from all the savings associated with the entire footprint of 14,000 surplus assets because assets are so high valued. we really want to make progress and the president represents our best foot forward on that. the other opportunity are these thousands of shield offices that exist throughout the united states for several of our agencies. in some cases agencies have an office in every county in america which we believe no longer reflects the best way in which we deliver benefits in and impose internet era. how do you downsize that footprint? how do you think about no longer having an office in every county in every region leveraging more electronic delivery of benefits? we have seen those same

competing stakeholder interests he merge, a complex array of challenges in terms of getting from point a to point b and downsizing and when we talk to agencies about this and ask we have often got the response you need at bracc-like process. that is how the idea was born. we are looking forward to working with you on this. i wanted to clarify we would continue to carry on the same way senator begich mentioned in terms of 14,000 assets. we don't want to overcomplicate things with those assets but with those higher value tougher opportunities that end up being more transformational to our inventory and higher savings amount for the taxpayer, that is where we think we need a new approach. we are open to ideas and put our best foot forward on how to solve the problem. >> thanks for those comments. mr peck, welcome.

>> i want to thank you and the committee for its interest on this issue and also that of members in the house of representatives who have moved some proposals and we are in support of the administration's proposal. if i could i would like to brag a little bit because sometimes there's a sense that no one in the government is thinking of real property asset management and i can tell you in the -- >> you don't know how pleasant it is to hear the administrator of the federal agency brad. >> we manage three hundred seventy million square feet. >> this will count against your time. >> thank you. half of it is less than 3% of our portfolio vacant by any measure that you use. we do take a look at the inventory that gsa controls and modernized buildings where they make sense and manage them where

doesn't. we dispose of 200 gsa properties valued at $467 million and covering 9.5 million square feet but just as important that eliminated $484 million in future anticipated repair needs. there's cost avoidance as well. at the risk of making things complicated before a come back to make them simple also. some of the properties that in a real property inventory are listed as underutilize are actually undergoing renovations though they are more intensively utilized. so the gsa headquarters building which is 600,000 square feet gets listed in the inventory as being underutilized because half of it has been emptied out to renovate. when we're through with evading we will have 3 times as many federal employees in it and avoid lease costs of $20 million a year. that is a significant thing to note. gsa has a role aside from

managing our own inventory on behalf of federal agencies we have the job of disposing of assets other agencies don't need. we do believe we have the expertise and capacity to take a lot of properties through the disposal process it is each individual landholding agency that is responsible for making their own asset management decisions whether the asset is access to their needs or not. that is the way things currently work. in the last ten years, disposing the agency of assets and other agencies, we dispose of 3,300 government wide assets valued at $8.5 billion. the process works fairly well. there is still some improvement we would make to the property inventory that we give you better information about what is going on. to tell you in our case and i worked with city so i know what senator begich is talking about, it is clear building is vacant.

i want to emphasize what danny talked-about. we have some assets in which it is almost vacant but not quite. a couple of things have to happen. we have to look at an asset that is partially utilize or partially mostly utilized to keep in inventory and then we have to figure out a way to get it out. sometimes that requires an up-front cost to move things around so we can move out last chunk of people or goods from a warehouse and make the property vacant and then we can move it but there is this other issue. and danny touched on this too and you see it in the other information we have given about the administration's proposal. there are times we are moving a property through the pipeline in which although it looks like we have gotten past the point where a building or assets according to the lot is eligible for a pre disposal as discounted conveyance that politics rears its head as part of our system and holds up the process.

that is one reason we believe we need at that point bracc-type proposal. there are couple things needed to accelerate disposal. the administration proposal as you might guess include all of these. we need to incentivize disposal to federal agencies by enabling the agency to realize the benefits of the proceeds. our experience tells us that makes a big difference. we need to address the up-front costs i mentioned in being able to move properties we don't need to the disposal process. and eliminating the stakeholder will slow us up. one other thing i would like to note. with technologies days and the way work is done in the workplace, ability for people to work from home or on the road or wherever we are we believe we can work with federal agencies to reduce the amount of space

they need. constrained budgets these days are encouraging a lot of agencies to talk to us about how that is done. we are moving aggressively and i would like to say even with this legislation pending, under the white house's leadership we have a council of representatives from many federal agencies already taking a look at how we can make some of those decisions that need to be made to reduce the overall federal property inventory to disposal. >> mr. sullivan? >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss management of veterans affairs property. in particular ongoing efforts to reduce or eliminated and needed and vacant properties across the country. it is a privilege to represent the more than 300,000 employees of the department of veteran affairs working tirelessly on behalf of vet--veterans everyday. and would like to highlight successs on disposal of assets

especially when they have resulted in providing housing for homeless veterans. before i begin imus emphasize our primary mission is to care for veterans and everything we do every day must put veterans first. i would like to begin with a brief overview of our portfolio. the owner of one of the largest portfolios in the country and over 1 sixty million square feet and 70 one hundred buildings on thirty-one thousand acres. v a is one of the first agencies to develop a highly structured methodology to assess construction needs. most recently reflected in the issuance of the a strategic capital process. skip involves a systematic evaluation of capital investments based on how well they address performance gaps. one of the gaps is how well these investments address disposal of unmuted assets. all of our projects considered in light of the aging

infrastructure which is more than 60 years old on average. we directly address the challenges by the aging infrastructure with a range of solutions including the reuse, repurchasing and disposal of unneeded assets to reduce space and same government costs. 1 to point out the property realignment act involves a similar strategy of great costs. for the past several years the a has pursued disposal of the aborigines -- we completed disposal or use of approximately 381 assets. since 2001 we reduced our inventory of vacant space by 34% and we have done this despite a growing mission in additional pressure in workload on v a infrastructure. where do we stand today in 2011? va has 313 across the country.

[talking over each other] >> how many? >> 313 out of 6500. va has plans to dispose or reuse 250 or 80% of these buildings. the remaining 63 are the most challenging disposal actions because they involve environmental-for housing for homeless veterans. this initiative is critical to help achieve the goal to end veteran homelessness by 2015. head to this end the secretary announced 34 birth sites which would include 600 acres of land for a conversion for veterans and their families. this will bring the total number of units to care for our homeless veterans more than 5,000 units in process or under

development. once identified as candidates for housing or other purposes va uses its enhanced authority. this authority provides benefits like enhanced service to veterans, operation and maintenance savings, private investment and long-term revenue and importantly for the local community job creation, additional tax revenue for local and state sector. since the tea you process started ten years earlier week awarded six project this way, 18 specifically for homeless housing but also other facilities. from 2006 to 2010 to give you an idea of what these properties have brought in to the government leader in $260 million in consideration which provided these properties in efforts. i would like to just slightly to quick examples of this. invoking the enhanced lease

property. in chicago to cleveland released four acres in chicago, also 100 acres in suburban cleveland area. the a received $600 million in payments from failed proceeds in chicago and in cleveland receive $12 million in consideration and $10 million in costs savings why we access 110 acres with 35 buildings on them. currently the a has 19 projects under way to provide 2200 units for housing for homeless. at this point in the process the a's authority expires at the end of the year and we will see reauthorization of this. we welcome potential addition of civilian property realignment act and we view this as one more tool. if there is not one single thing that will file this problem will be different tools used