DOGE Hearing on Real Estate

Ms. Greene (00:00):

… much of this real estate is actually being put to use or what it's worth on the open market. Here's what we do know. Taxpayers spend about $10 billion annually just to operate and maintain all of it. American taxpayers have been drowning in debt, inflation, unaffordable grocery prices, high interest rates, and have been suffering to get by, all while the federal government is pouring billions of dollars into wasteful empty office buildings and luxurious high-end furniture, which they, the American taxpayers, can't even afford themselves. It's quite a hypocrisy.

(00:42)
These buildings sat largely empty during the entire Biden administration, which kept federal office workers at home long after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. By the way, truck drivers, first responders, so many people worked during the pandemic, but federal workers could stay home and these federal buildings set empty. Here in DC, GAO found in 2023 that the vast majority of federal agency headquarter buildings were less than 25% occupied, some much less. Meanwhile, from 2022 to 2024, the backlog of deferred maintenance on the aging buildings the government owns, grew from $216 billion to $370 billion. That's more than one-third of a trillion dollars it will cost to restore them if we don't sell them.

(01:39)
What's worse, aside from paying for useless leases and allowing federal buildings to decay, the Biden administration spent billions on high-end furniture for empty buildings during the pandemic. No one was sitting in those chairs or at those desks. Our witness from Open The Books will testify to that. It is only now under the Trump administration that we see a light at the end of the tunnel. This administration is taking historic action on reducing the size of the government, and with it, a significant reduction in the useless office space that is claimed to be essential for the government to operate.

(02:23)
GSA has established a goal to reduce the size of the federally-owned real estate footprint by 50%. This is a massive real estate auction. The president issued an executive order instructing agencies to update their property inventory and to determine which of their government-leased or government-owned spaces they don't need. In just the few months since Inauguration Day, DOGE and the General Services Administration have sold off several federal properties and worked with agencies to eliminate hundreds of unneeded taxpayer-funded office leases. More specifically, they've canceled nearly 700 federal leases of 7.9 million square feet of space, saving taxpayers around $400 million.

(03:16)
One of the canceled leases was a nearly quarter of a billion dollar 15-year lease at a luxury office building on Pennsylvania Avenue to house Voice of America and the United States Agency for Global Media. The Biden administration signed the lease late last year, sticking taxpayers with the tab. It's one of the fanciest office buildings in the city. You can see of the building on this poster board. Incredible. Furthermore, this beautiful building had zero broadcasting capabilities, a capability one would think would be essential for a broadcasting media agency. The cost of taxpayers to build out the building with broadcasting capabilities, $130 million. The Biden team wanted to move USAGM and Voice of America from this building that we are sitting in today into that luxury space. Instead, the president is shutting down the whole state-run media operation, and taxpayers will be spared a quarter billion dollars lease and millions more for renovations and security measures.

(04:38)
This is just one example of countless egregious abuses of leases and contracts being paid out across the federal government. Another egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars regarding federal property was the $200 million the FBI received last year for a new headquarters in Maryland. While the FBI was going after the American people, parents at school board meetings and many others, our federal government gave them hundreds of millions of dollars of American tax dollars for a brand new beautiful headquarters. Federal agencies shouldn't be maintaining empires at taxpayer expense. That's why GSA, the federal landlord agency driving this reform process plans to lead by example. Imagine that. It intends to vacate its current headquarters, building in downtown DC and co-locate with another agency. Then, it will sell the GSA headquarters.

(05:45)
Before I close, I'll note that Congress also acted on this front in January. We passed a law requiring federal building occupancy to be tracked and for low-occupancy buildings to be sold, but it will take a willing partner in the White House to implement that law and to take other steps to shrink the federal real estate empire. We now have that partner and I look forward to working with the Trump administration and DOGE to finally right-size the federal real estate footprint. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for her opening statement.

Ms. Stansbury (06:24):

All right. Well, good morning. I always enjoy a field hearing and it's nice to be out in the field here in Washington DC. I'd like to thank the chairwoman for holding this hearing focused on properties that the federal government manages. The General Services Administration, or GSA, manages roughly 9,000 federally-owned properties and private sector leases in all 50 states and territories. Federal real estate is what makes it possible for the civil service to serve the American people. This is programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, care for our veterans, and all of the programs and services that are so vital to our communities, But unfortunately, as we know, are currently under attack.

(07:09)
For more than two decades across both Republican and Democratic administrations, the Government Accountability Office identified federal property management is a significant challenge, including problems of excess and underutilized space and poor building conditions. All of that is to say that this is a longstanding issue that many administrations have worked on, and it certainly isn't something new. My colleagues and I have consistently worked to improve stewardship of federal real estate so it can better serve the American people, and that is why I would love to make this a bipartisan hearing about how we address the needs of this country and best serve the people of this nation.

(07:49)
The last administration disposed of property, saving nearly $2 billion for American taxpayers. And recently Congress worked together to pass bills for additional tools to reform and consolidate the federal property inventory. These efforts also directed the sale of four federal buildings, including the one we are here in today. The Inflation Reduction Act also helped to facilitate property consolidation, including reducing the Department of Homeland Security footprint by over a million square feet and saving taxpayers over a billion dollars over 30 years. But instead of building on these successes and continuing to do what could be characterized as the tedious analytical work on behalf of Americans, the Trump administration is currently taking a fire sale approach of looting the federal government and stripping it for parts to pay for tax cuts that we know will come up in their reconciliation deal.

(08:47)
Let's be clear, Republicans are trying to pass legislation right now that would give billionaires permanent tax breaks on the order of $37 trillion over the next three decades, and in order to pay for that, they are looting the federal government and taking a page out of the playbook of private equity. Take public assets, privatize them, sell them for profit, lease them back, help your buddies make money, and that is exactly what we're seeing here today. And unfortunately, we've seen this across the federal government since the Trump administration took office. In fact, we have been deeply concerned that the entire DOGE effort has been a front to help support billionaires who are trying to privatize public services. And just this week we have seen as Elon Musk is on his exit out of the federal government, he has secured billions of dollars in new contracts across the federal government. Conflict of interest? Yes, absolutely.

(09:47)
It appears that he has recently secured contracts and promises for contracts at the Department of Defense, NASA, he has installed Starlink at the White House and is asking to install it at other federal agencies, and we understand that there is the potential to potentially deploy his AI technology across the federal agencies to replace the tens of thousands of federal employees that have recently been illegally fired. That is why we are deeply concerned about the non-data driven fire sale that the Trump administration is proposing for federal properties, such as the one we're in today.

(10:26)
So, I am deeply distraught and dismayed that we do not have an administration witness with us here today, the GSA is not here to answer questions, that yet again, Elon Musk is not in front of this committee. And unfortunately, we have yet to see a single Trump political appointee in front of this committee or the oversight committee. So, we will continue to do our jobs to elucidate what is happening inside the federal government. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and I look forward to talking about how we can actually manage federal properties and the federal workforce to continue to provide the vital services that are needed for the American people.

(11:09)
Finally, I just want to say that it is quite rich to talk about the abuse of federal properties after Donald Trump used the historic Postal Service Building just down the street during his administration to make millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments while they came and visited him in the Oval Office. So, let's make sure that we are doing right by the American people and doing things in a way that is transparent, and also in the interest of the public. And wit that, I yield back.

Ms. Greene (11:40):

Without objection, Rep Brown from Ohio is waived onto the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's hearing. I'm pleased now to introduce today's witnesses. Mr. David Marroni is a director in GOA's physical infrastructure team. He oversees work on federal real property management and the US Postal Service. Mr. Marroni joined GAO in 2004. Mr. John Hart is CEO of Open The Books. Mr. Hart is a veteran of Capitol Hill, having served in the late US representative and Senator Tom Coburn's longtime communications director and co-author, Mr. Hart helped enact landmark transparency legislation to put federal spending online. Mr. Ron Kendall is the executive chairman at the National Federal Development Association. He previously served in senior roles in the federal government, including within GSA's Public Buildings Service. Again, I want to thank you all for being here to testify today.

(12:48)
Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Speaker 1 (13:08):

I do.

Speaker 2 (13:08):

I do.

Mr. Kendall (13:08):

I do.

Ms. Greene (13:08):

Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may take a seat. We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you, so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin speaking… Well, this one may be different. Is it the same? The light will blink?

Speaker 3 (13:46):

Yes, ma'am-

Ms. Greene (13:46):

It will? Okay. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired and we would ask that you please try to wrap it up. I now recognize Mr. Marroni for his opening statement.

Speaker 1 (14:08):

Thank you, Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the subcommittee. I'm happy to be here today to discuss GAO's perspectives on how to make federal property work better for the American taxpayer.

(14:20)
For more than 20 years, we've identified the management of federal property as a high-risk area in need of substantial transformation. The federal government has held onto too much space and has been too slow in re-shedding underused properties. Federal buildings are often in poor condition and not well-configured for the modern workplace. And the data needed to make good real property decisions has often been unreliable, and in some cases, non-existent.

(14:48)
The pandemic shined a spotlight on these problems and created a unique opportunity to rightsize the federal government's property holdings. While there have been important actions in recent years to take advantage of this opportunity, progress has been slow. Agencies were in a wait-and-see mode for too long. Since January, there has been a notable shift in momentum. GSA is now rapidly moving forward with plans to terminate leases and dispose of large amounts of federal property. This has disrupted the longstanding inertia that has slowed previous efforts to reshape the federal government's real property holdings. There is a risk of moving too fast. Most buildings have active tenants and relocating them could be costly. As a result, as GSA and other agencies move forward, it's important that they bounce the goal of speedy reductions with the need for deliberate planning. This will best ensure the most efficient and effective result for the American taxpayer.

(15:45)
There are a lot of moving parts right now that will shape federal property for years to come. First, the Trump administration's return to office policy and its reductions in force are still relatively early in their implementation. Second, agencies will be measuring building utilization across all their owned-and-leased space for the very first time starring the summer. Third, it's going to take time and money to move out of properties and consolidate into others, so agencies will need to prioritize. The administration will have better information on each of these data points by this summer to help inform its efforts.

(16:20)
GSA and other agencies should use that new information to sequence real property reductions in a way that makes the most sense. GSA's recent decision to take an incremental approach to property disposals by starting with own buildings that are clearly not needed is a positive step in this direction. Taking a deliberate and strategic approach to real property reductions could generate substantial savings for the taxpayer and mitigate the risk of costly mistakes and unexpected mission impacts.

(16:47)
In conclusion, right-sizing the federal government's real property holdings is long overdue. As the administration moves forward with reductions, they should do so deliberately, in a way that balances speed with planning. Doing so will best position the federal government to achieve the most efficient and effective result for the American taxpayer while ensuring agencies have the right space to successfully carry out their missions. Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my opening statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Ms. Greene (17:14):

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hart for his opening statement.

Speaker 2 (17:19):

Madam Chair Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury and distinguished members, thank you for having me today at this hearing. As we gather in this cavernous auditorium, we have an opportunity to reflect on not just the costly problem that Chairman Greene described in our opening statement, but its root causes. Today's expansive, excessive, and sometimes opulent federal real estate portfolio is both a monument to the administrative state and a mausoleum of lost dreams, opportunity, and freedom for American taxpayers.

(17:49)
In the early 20th century, progressives like Herbert Croly dreamed of managing a complex new world with a managerial class. Croly believed in, quote, unquote, increasing control over property in the public interest. He would no doubt be pleased to see this auditorium and the administrative state's impressive portfolio of office space. So, this hearing is an opportunity for Congress to turn away from this failed policy of the past and reestablish our founder's timeless vision of limited constitutional government and transparency.

(18:22)
At Open the Books, we view transparency as a first principle in a free society. Our work was in part enabled by landmark bipartisan transparency legislation, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, or the Coburn-Obama Bill that I helped craft when I was working for then Senator Tom Coburn. And that bill created usaspending.gov and put all federal spending online for the first time. Our founders wisely prioritized transparency and wrote it into the Constitution. Article one, section nine, clause seven says that, "A regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." Note that these words precede the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and our right to free speech itself. In the public square, transparency is like oxygen, we can't speak if we can't breathe.

(19:16)
So when we had opened the books, looked at the federal real estate portfolio, we discovered the high cost of decorating and redecorating the administrative state. And to taxpayers, today's hearing is quite literally a kitchen table issue. Every family can relate to the cost of furniture, and that's why taxpayers are so incensed when they learn that federal agencies are freely spending billions of dollars every year on high-end pieces. Since fiscal year 2021, executive agencies have spent more than $4.6 billion on furniture alone. That amount could buy 9.2 million American families a modest $500 kitchen table. And of course, workplaces need desks, chairs, and meeting tables. And it's true that beautiful spaces can make us more productive. But beauty at what cost and on whose dime?

(20:08)
Do federal employees need seven figures worth of abstract modern art to make government run? The State Department spent $1.4 million on artwork for various embassies, including $200,000 to procure a pair of custom paintings from a contemporary abstract artist. Do they need high-end leather recliners worth thousands of dollars each? Our embassy in Islamabad is a place where you can put your feet up thanks to 40 Ethan Allen chairs, which cost taxpayers $120,000. During the peak years of the COVID emergency from 2020 to 2022, agency spent $3.3 billion on furniture, even as work migrated to Zoom. The SEC managed to spend $700,000 furnishing a single conference room in New York. And social distancing guidelines failed to keep even the Centers for Disease Control from buying solar-powered picnic tables with charging ports, that by the own rules should have sat unoccupied.

(21:07)
And an added burden for taxpayers is that many spaces are in long-term disrepair, as we mentioned before. Federal buildings need $370 billion in fixes. All in all, we have an incomprehensible amount of physical space and furnishings. Too much of it inefficiently, procured, leased, and maintained. At Open The Books, we believe taxpayers are demanding transparency and accountability. Instead of expanding federal agencies, they want Congress to expand their agency and their right to pursue happiness on their terms with their own resources. Thomas Jefferson wisely said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Every dollar saved in Washington is a dream realized somewhere in America, the administrative state's well-decorated real estate portfolio is a worthy place to start. I look forward to your questions.

Ms. Greene (22:02):

Thank you, Mr. Hart. I now recognize Mr. Kendall for his opening statement.

Mr. Kendall (22:10):

Thank you, Chairwoman Greene, Ranking members Stansbury, other members of Congress, staff, guests. Good morning to all. My name is Ron Kendall. I'm the executive chairman emeritus of the National Federal Development Association, that is a trade association comprised of owners and developers of real estate that is leased to the federal government, along with various service providers, financiers, attorneys, brokers, and so forth.

(22:48)
My relevance to this committee's inquiry today is twofold. First, 24 years ago when I served as the chief asset officer of the Public Building Service, I wrote a paper called The Portfolio Restructuring Strategy. It bears very closely to what the administration is doing today in terms of disposal of federal buildings. I want to explain that a bit. It's based upon three key findings. Number one, that the PBS-owned portfolio had significant accrued depreciation in terms of physical needs for the properties, billions of dollars, just as it as so today.

(23:35)
Two is the recognition that GSA was never going to receive appropriations sufficient to be able to cure that depreciation, all the repairs and replacements that the buildings needed. The third is a critical point. What we did when my analysts worked to look at the portfolio's performance, we noticed something very interesting. 15% of the buildings in terms of building number, 250 roughly out of 1,750 buildings produced 95% of the financial, what's called FFO, funds from operations, a term borrowed from REIT Industry. The profitability of the Federal Buildings Fund depended upon 250 buildings. That's a small number, less than 15%, but it constituted 55% of the square footage.

(24:31)
So, the portfolio strategy was very simple. Take and direct the scarce capital resources that GSA would receive by appropriation to those buildings, because those are the ones that are keeping you going. And sell off the balance, but only when you need to. When the buildings fall into decrepit states or when fire life safety issues are pressing and you need to vacate. There's no need to get out before then. Now, some may construe that this strategy as being very GSA-centric in terms of the profitability of the Federal Buildings Fund, but that's a mistaken apprehension because it is really good government GSA's core portfolio, that's how we defined it back then 24 years ago, is a portfolio of well- occupied, high-rent buildings in major metropolitan areas. And so, by having those buildings in the inventory, you avoid paying high lease costs to the private sector. So, it is really benefiting the American taxpayer.

(25:46)
Now, my concern today is that the DOGE-led disposal group, the non-core buildings that were posted briefly and taken down after day, 440 something buildings consisted of buildings that shouldn't be on that list. Buildings that are brand new, like the Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Brand new. It won't need major repair for 15 or 20 years. The main justice building was on that, that is a core property. So, my concern is that this is not being done judiciously. The list of core properties is pretty easy to figure out and needs to be protected. So, disposal is not the enemy, it's how it is done and it must be done carefully with deliberate study.

(26:41)
I'm about out of time. I simply want to talk quickly about leases. It looks to me that there's a list of leases that are being terminated purely because they're soft-term.

Mr. Kendall (27:00):

Agencies still have needs for that space. So my concern is that we are not looking at agency mission when terminating soft-term leases. It's very important to maintain the viability of agencies to execute their mission. I'm amount of time. I look forward to questions.

Ms. Greene (27:24):

I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. And I thank the witnesses for their testimony. Mr. Marroni, the title of your testimony is Reducing the Government's Holdings could generate Substantial savings. And I agree with that and thanks to the Trump administration, we're finally seeing some savings. 400 million on leases according to the administration. Do you think the government's excess properties exist in part because federal agencies and the bureaucrats who run them have no incentive to move or to give up their space. Just why won't these agencies co-locate and downsize?

Mr. Marroni (28:02):

So there's a number of reasons, but certainly cultural reticence to sharing space is something we've identified in the past. Also, inertia, for lack of a better word, it's a space you've already had and there isn't as much incentive to move. It costs money to move out of space at times and agencies haven't always put that up front. There's a number of other reasons possibly too, but certainly those are both valid reasons that they've brought up before. Those are reasons that have been brought up before.

Ms. Greene (28:24):

Right, except their actions are different. They certainly were ready to jump out of this building and lease a very expensive building on Pennsylvania Avenue. Recent presidents couldn't overcome that bureaucratic inertia, yet President Trump and DOGE ended almost 700 leases in just a few months. That's unbelievable. Has any other administration acted so quickly to reduce the federal footprint that you know of?

Mr. Marroni (28:50):

Not that I'm aware of.

Ms. Greene (28:53):

Yeah. Much needed though. Mr. Marroni, your testimony states that a GAO covert operation last year was successful about half the time in sneaking prohibited items past the guards and into federal buildings. I'm really interested in that. What sort of items did you sneak in? What dangers does this vulnerability pose?

Mr. Marroni (29:17):

Right, so we snuck in three different items, a multipurpose tool with a knife, a baton, like a baton you could use to attack someone with and pepper spray. All those are prohibited items. All those are things you could cause real harm if you wanted to. And like you said, about half the time we were able to get that through. So that raises concerns. We only did 27 tests and got through in half the time. That suggests other items could be getting through at a greater level.

Ms. Greene (29:41):

But you got through half the time in 27 tests?

Mr. Marroni (29:44):

Correct. And that also comports with FPS' the Federal Protective Service's own covert testing program.

Ms. Greene (29:49):

Wow, that's definitely terrifying. Thank you for that. I have a lot of death threats and several people have been convicted and served time in prison for planning to murder me. So I always appreciate the efforts on every single aspect of security to make sure that people that work within the federal government and the capitol and visitors as well are safe. So thank you.

(30:14)
Mr. Hart. I appreciate the work your organization has done in making the American people aware how the government spends Americans hard-earned money, including this chart behind me here. Shows a disgusting amount of federal spending on furniture, which is what you talked about. So how did you go about finding the Biden administration spent about 1 billion per year on furniture while federal buildings set empty during covid and federal workers work from home.

Speaker 4 (30:46):

Yeah, what we do Chairman, is we have access to all federal spending through usaspending.gov and that's a bill that I helped pass back in 2006. So we are able to do keyword searches and look at furniture, look for vendors even, and identify and keyword search things like recliners to identify and understand how much the federal government is spending on furniture. And it's really a scope of government problem issues I mentioned in my opening statement is that when we decide-

Ms. Greene (31:15):

Yeah, it's a big scope of-

Speaker 4 (31:15):

… when we decide to have a large scope, there is going to be a big cost of furniture. But it's a very useful way to think about and assess whether we ought to have this number of federal buildings in the first place.

Ms. Greene (31:26):

Yeah, Mr. Hart, we appreciate those efforts. In 2021, the CDC spent almost a quarter million dollars on solar-powered picnic tables. The CDC at the time was telling people to socially distance with mask and basically forcing a vaccine that many Americans didn't want. So what use would its employees have for this new picnic table that has quite the price tag?

Speaker 4 (31:52):

Yeah, it's quite expensive. And the social distancing guidelines suggested they shouldn't be seated at that table while they were spending $ 237,000.

Ms. Greene (32:02):

Look at those seats. That's not social distancing.

Speaker 4 (32:05):

No, they're quite close. There's a close proximity of those seats to the other person. [inaudible 00:32:09]

Ms. Greene (32:08):

Yeah, real quick first I've just got a short amount of time yet. I'd like to ask just basically, just for the general audience, is 238,000 spent on solar-powered picnic tables at the CDC appropriate? I think the American people think that's disgusting. Is 700,000 spent by the SEC for their New York regional office conference room appropriate of taxpayer dollars? I don't think so. What about 6.5 million spent on high-end furniture to redecorate the E.P.E office? No. And then 284,000 and Herman Miller Furniture for FEMA's headquarters conference center and appropriate use of taxpayer dollars? I would argue not. I'm definitely over time, so thank you gentlemen. I now yield to the ranking member Stansbury for five minutes.

Ms. Stansbury (33:00):

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Marroni, I'm grateful that you're here. I know in the report that GAO has published that real estate of the federal government has been on the high-risk list since 2003 and part of that is that we're not disposing of it and taking care of it and as quickly a process is needed. So I think this is an issue that we have bipartisan agreement on. Certainly if you've over invested in assets, it's something that you need to deal with as a business. But I'm a former OMB employee. I was a nonpartisan federal official and I worked on the Department of Interior's portfolio. And one of the things that the American public may not realize is that when the federal government is trying to figure out how to reconfigure its federal property footprint, there's a whole planning process that begins. So you first work with the federal agencies, you identify are they going to change the configuration of how they're using space based on sharing of desk space, if there's laboratories needed?

(34:04)
Do they need to be physically located in certain spaces? This is what any company does, right? They try to figure out where their employees are going to be located. Then there's a planning process with the actual real estate itself because in many cases you can't dispose of your leases without investing in construction and improvements because of the terms of a lease, if it's a lease or if you're trying to dispose of the property and get fair market value. So what I really want to highlight here is that we need an expedited process, but any private company or public entity would have to go through an extensive planning process to do it in a way that would get a fair shake for the taxpayers. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Marroni (34:46):

There's certainly planning steps you want to take.

Ms. Stansbury (34:48):

Absolutely. So the idea of just putting out a list of hundreds of federal properties, including some of the most valuable real estate in Washington DC on the Federal Mall, including the headquarters of every major federal agency, is not a planning process. That is a fire sale of some of the most valuable real estate properties in Washington DC. Now we all know that Donald Trump is a real estate developer. Let's not lose sight of that. And certainly he understands the significance of the disposal of properties in the most valuable real estate in our nation's capital. So I think it's important that we keep that in mind as we're thinking about is the intentions of what DOGE is doing, are they actually in the public interest?

(35:34)
And Mr. Marroni, I want to also go back to the bigger economic context, because I think it actually relates to the issues that we're dealing with this week in the house. In fact, Donald Trump has put into place tariffs last week that are causing the markets to tank. Right now the economy is in complete free fall and House of Republicans are whipping votes to try to get this new package across the finish line that would give permanent tax breaks to billionaires and the markets are completely shook by it. And I know this is outside your purview, but the issue here is that anyone who works in real estate right now knows that this is not a good time to sell real estate. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Marroni (36:18):

It is a challenging time, particularly commercial offices.

Ms. Stansbury (36:19):

Absolutely. So that's the point I want to make. If we're talking about actually getting value for the taxpayers, then doing a fire sale of federal properties and then putting into place expensive leases where the federal government would spend federal taxpayer dollars to lease back from private entities at this moment, as the market is in free fall and the real estate market is in complete tanking at the moment, is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. This is a terrible idea at this moment and it needs to be done through a sane process. Now Mr. Hart, I was interested in your testimony and I actually just want to follow up. You used in your testimony a bunch of times this concept of dismantling the administrative state. And so I'm just curious, do you view the disposal of federal real estate as part of dismantling the administrative state?

Speaker 4 (37:16):

No. I view it as empowering taxpayers and transferring wealth from Washington to individual Americans. So I think it's probably one of the best economic stimulus programs you could have. Just to shift tax dollars from [inaudible 00:37:28].

Ms. Stansbury (37:28):

May I ask Mr. Hart, is your agenda to dismantle the administrative state?

Speaker 4 (37:31):

My agenda is transparency. And to give-

Ms. Stansbury (37:34):

I'm sorry, Mr. Hart. I understand. I just listened to your five minutes of testimony. I think it's very clear that part of the agenda here is really about dismantling the administrative state and using real assets of the federal government to do that. I mean no disrespect, but I wanted to reclaim my time. So the point here is that things are not always as they appear in Washington DC, and I think it's very clear that this is not about the federal taxpayers and the American people. This is about disposing of federal property and a fire sale to make the wealthy more wealthy. Thanks. I yield back.

Ms. Greene (38:11):

I had like to point out that the market's up about 1400 points. With that, I now recognize Mr. Fallon for five minutes.

Speaker 5 (38:18):

Thank you Madam Chair. You got to love the hyperbolic accusations in class warfare all in one sentence. We have 1500 federal buildings, we have 7,500 leases of other locations, 511 million square feet of office space and it really comes down to need and want. There might be some people that want all of that space, but do we really need it? And clearly when you read government reports, even pre-COVID, we didn't need the space that we had. We had too much. Then Covid exacerbated the surplus exploded. Now in 2022, Joe Biden and State of Union address and I quote said, "The vast majority of federal workers will once again work in person." Mr. Kendall. Do you believe Mr. Biden achieved his goal?

Mr. Kendall (39:04):

Mr. Fallon, I believe that he made a directive which was tempered by agency input. There was a lot.

Speaker 5 (39:15):

Mr. Kendall, sorry, I have five minutes. So do you believe he achieved that goal? Yes or no? We can talk about [inaudible 00:39:20]-

Mr. Kendall (39:20):

To some degree he did.

Speaker 5 (39:21):

To some degree. Okay. 2023 GOA report found that 17 of the 24 largest federal agencies used only 25% of their headquarters capacity. And in all 24, not one of them reached over 50% and we're talking big ones, Defense, State, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, et al. This much space, when you're talking about operation and maintenance, bills are going to be in the billions. Leases, $7 billion just on leases, and then there's a backlog, deferred maintenance, which is now estimated… And these aren't our numbers, these aren't Republican numbers, these are numbers from government agencies. It's $370 billion. So 17 out of 24. 71% are under 25% and all of them are under 49. We clearly have to take some of this off the books so we can't be accused of nefarious intent.

(40:08)
But the point, the fact of the matter is we are looking out for the American taxpayer. Now you're talking about very expensive real estate in Washington, D.C, New York City, San Francisco, and to alleviate some of our friends concerns on the inside of the aisle, there is something called strategic sequencing to prevent the flooding of the market. And I would trust somebody that has real estate experience.

(40:31)
The Biden administration, when we're talking about 1500 buildings, 7,500 leases, 511 million square feet of office space. What did they do? Did they take action? Fact matter is they did not. And it is time and it's high time, 20 years in the making to take some action. The U.S. Center of Disease Control, as Madam Chair pointed out, spent 230 grand on solar picnic tables. That a good use of government funds. Mr. Kendall, do you think?

Mr. Kendall (40:59):

I just wanted to respond to something you just said. When I did this portfolio restructuring strategy, it's 197 million. It's now it's 183, so-

Speaker 5 (41:08):

Madam Chair, [inaudible 00:41:09].

Ms. Greene (41:09):

The witness is not recognized.

Speaker 5 (41:12):

Thank you. Reclaim my time. Mr. Kendall, you're a witness. You are here of your own volition. Could you answer my question? Do you think that 230 grand for solar picnic tables at the Center of Disease Control is a good use of taxpayer money?

Mr. Kendall (41:28):

I have no opinion. I don't know.

Speaker 5 (41:30):

Okay. How about State Department. High-end furniture, 120 grand of leather furniture in Islamabad Pakistan. Do you think that's a good use of taxpayer money?

Mr. Kendall (41:37):

I would like to examine-

Speaker 5 (41:38):

So no opinion again. How about the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation spent $14.4 million. About 14,400 per employee on brand new furniture. Is that a good use of taxpayer money?

Mr. Kendall (41:51):

Did it include IT? Does it include computers and so forth?

Speaker 5 (41:56):

It's furniture. So again, yes or no? No.

Mr. Kendall (41:58):

I don't have sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Speaker 5 (42:02):

Okay, thank you. The Biden administration essentially did nothing, and what we've had with new leadership with DOGE is terminating 700 federal leases already 10%. That is a chunk, that is a good start. Any building that has national security implications is going to be unaffected. And now they're moving on to sell and we're going to do again with strategic sequencing as well. I think it should be noted that Democratic Witness works for and a trade association that represents real estate owners who lease space to the federal government. Is that a fair assessment Mr. Kendall?

Mr. Kendall (42:35):

That is true.

Speaker 5 (42:36):

Okay, thank you. Then we've got something in the research that we were doing, the McKinney-Vento Act in 1987, I was shocked to find Madam Chair that homeless assistance providers have right of first refusal on any sale of any federal building. I think the American people should know that and legislation should be drafted and our office will be doing so to repeal that, to give the federal government more flexibility to properly sell and unload these buildings to save the taxpayers, not the super rich evil people, the taxpayers of this country some money. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Ms. Greene (43:14):

Thank you Mr. Fallon. I now recognize Ms. Norton from the District of Columbia for five minutes.

Speaker X (43:21):

Good luck, man.

Speaker 6 (43:24):

I strongly oppose OMB and OPM's recent directive to federal agencies to quote "Propose relocations of agency, bureaus and offices from Washington D.C and the National Capital Region to less costly parts of the country." I also strongly oppose the many bills that have been introduced this congress to relocate the headquarters for federal agencies in the National capital region to outside the National Capital region. These relocations, as we saw during the first Trump administration, would harm the operations of these agencies and waste taxpayer dollars. They would also harm the economy of the National Capital Region and up in the lives of federal workers, many with kids who love their homes and schools. Last month I introduced a bill to prohibit such relocations. However, there are specific federal buildings in DC that GSA should dispose of in an orderly manner and move the employees from those buildings into other buildings in DC.

(44:50)
These disposals would save the federal government money and could generate tax revenue for DC, increase housing supply and create new mixed-use neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. There is precedent for orderly disposals of federal property in DC. Congress has passed many of my bipartisan bills to transfer unused or underutilized federal buildings and land in DC to the DC government or the private sector including the Webster School, the development of the wharf and the yards, and most recently the RFK Stadium campus.

(45:39)
Mr. Kendall. I believe that there needs to be an orderly process for disposing of federal buildings in DC as opposed to putting many federal buildings up for sale at the same time. How would putting many federal buildings in DC up for sale at the same time affect the price the federal government could get for the buildings and the value of commercial real estate in DC generally?

Mr. Kendall (46:18):

Congresswoman Norton selling into a down market is not a sagacious plan. As Ranking member Stansbury said, that's a kind of fire sale approach vacancy in the office market in Washington DC, and I've been here for 47 years, it's the highest rate of vacancy in four and a half decades. You don't sell into a down market. It's folly. You're going to get the lowest price possible if you can move the assets at all. I mean, there is a course McKinney-Vento as the congressman just made. Some could go the homeless way and others might be public benefit discount conveyances and you get nothing. But the point is you're loading up a market that's already under distress, so it's cataclysmic.

Speaker 6 (47:20):

Well, three months ago, Congress passed the Bipartisan Water Resources Development Act, which established a clear federal standard requiring GSA to identify buildings for potential consolidation or disposal, specifically any with an occupancy rate below 60%. However, I'm concerned that GSA is trying to dispose of federal buildings without looking at data to judge whether the buildings are needed or not. Mr. Marroni, based on the timeline established in the recent law, when do you expect the GSA would have the information needed to make more informed decisions about property disposal?

Mr. Marroni (48:08):

Agencies are supposed to start collecting that data in July, and then they're supposed to report in January.

Speaker 6 (48:14):

Thank you very much. I yield back.

Ms. Greene (48:18):

The gentelady yields and I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for five minutes.

Speaker 7 (48:24):

Thank you all for being here. Appreciate you Chairwoman for holding this hearing on this topic. It's certainly one that we've talked about before, but one that we've seen very little action on. One of the reasons and discussion points surrounding those who were proponents of teleworking were that we would save all this money on not needing these federal buildings. And yet what we've seen was in the business world, what you would do is you'd lose a little productivity with people maybe working remotely, but you would gain that from less cost and overhead of maintaining buildings and facilities. But of course, in the nature of the federal government, we sent people home, we got less productivity and we continue to grow our assets and property portfolios and now are maintaining empty buildings to the tunes of millions and millions and millions and billions of dollars even.

(49:19)
Biden had, as Mr. Fallon mentioned, committed to getting the workforce back to work in person in offices. And of course we know that didn't happen. This has really been a bipartisan issue. Even Obama in 2011 in the campaign to cut waste, laid out what would've you could almost describe as the goals of DOGE, but we saw very little progress over that. And so our friends in the left right now are kind of complaining about how this is being done. But one would have to ask them. They had the House, the Senate and the White House just three months ago. Why didn't they do anything about it then?

Speaker X (49:56):

[inaudible 00:49:57].

Speaker 7 (49:58):

And so now we continue to… I'm sorry, you're right, a couple years ago. But nonetheless you had it a couple years ago and didn't do anything with it. And so now we find ourselves to the point where President Trump and the Trump administration is finally doing something about this, and this is good for the American people.

(50:18)
We must find savings for it. As Mr. Fallon mentioned, the vast majority, I think 17 of 24 agencies were almost vacant, it seems, using 25% less. And then we have a backlog of 370 billion in maintenance costs backlogs. And so we have to do something about this. And I think it's worthy to note you keep mentioning selling properties in a down market. Who would benefit from that? Well, that would be the American people who are buying it. These businesses who could buy it up and turn it into a profitable asset, create a property that would bring tax flow to Washington D.C, for example, income as opposed to a vacant building sitting there being a burden on the American people. So there's a lot of reasons to continue to move forward on this. Of course, we want to make sure this is done the right way.

(51:08)
Mr. Marroni, could you speak to the decision-making process that you look to bring? First of all, thank you for being willing to take up this fight that so many administrations have been willing to talk about and bring little action to. But could you talk about your decision-making process and apparatus as we continue to look forward and how you'll evaluate what properties are valid and which ones are not for sale or leasing.

Mr. Marroni (51:33):

For owned properties, GSA and the administration in general should take a look at first sequencing makes sense. Take a look at the properties. There are already a number of properties that have been previously identified as properties that should be gotten rid of. Oftentimes these are buildings that are underused, have been for a long time and have large deferred mains liabilities. So it makes sense. Start with those. Get those out the door as quickly as you can and get those savings. And then as the new data that we're going to have on utilization, which is going to start rolling in July comes in, you can use that to further assess where are there additional properties that are underused.

(52:06)
We'll have that data for the first time for many buildings and assess what makes the next sense in the next tranche to sell off and consolidate. This all is going to take money. It does take money to move out of spaces, to build out consolidations, to reconfigure spaces, but at the end of the day, you save, not only do you potentially get proceeds from the sales, but you also save the operation and maintenance costs, which have a very long tail and save a lot of money over time by getting rid of buildings that are just too costly to maintain now

Speaker 7 (52:36):

More than half of GSA's leases, I think it's 4,108 out of 7,685 are set to expire between, well, 2023. But in 2027, how much of the federal government can say by allowing these leases to expire that are not needed using properties that we already own?

Mr. Marroni (52:57):

Right. Well, from a pure financial basis, we spend about $6 billion on leases each year. So if you're reducing whatever the math is, I can't do the public math, but it's a substantial amount you can get from lease savings. You just want to make sure you know what your end state is going to be. How much space are you aiming for at the end to make sure you're sequencing things in a way that makes sense.

Speaker 7 (53:17):

I only have eight seconds left, so I will yield back to the chairwoman. Thank you.

Ms. Greene (53:20):

The gentleman yields and I now recognize Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts for five minutes.

Mr. Lynch (53:26):

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I would just suggest that if this committee were truly concerned with delivering on government efficiency, we might examine the devastating impact of President Trump's recent trade tariffs on the financial security of the American people. In just the two days of the President's tariff implementation, US stocks have lost more than $6.6 trillion in value. The market turmoil

Mr. Lynch (54:00):

… has already placed the retirement savings of millions of Americans at risk with more than $44 trillion of US retirement assets tied to the stock market, the 401k plans and other retirement accounts. I know that President Trump has recently stated, "I haven't checked my 401k." Well, Americans, retirees and workers that are approaching retirement have certainly been checking theirs, and I can tell you they're alarmed. They're alarmed by the extent to which the President's trade war is pummeling their retirement investments.

(54:35)
So for the average American who's approaching retirement, who has about 500,000 in a 401k, that American worker lost $35,000 in their 401k in the last two days of Trump's tariffs. So, I've heard from one of our witness says, "If every dollar saved is a dream realized, then this is really a nightmare for the American worker, especially for those who are approaching retirement." And while the President made great promises in reducing the cost of groceries, food, housing during his campaign, I really would like him to get around to that, if he could, at some point.

(55:26)
So, Mr. Kendall, the suggestion here is that we're supposed to move away from a situation where the government owns the buildings. Instead, we're going to move to the private equity model where we sell the building that is home to a federal agency, and then we're we're going to pay rent to a private equity firm to rent that same space out. In Massachusetts, we just had a situation like this with one of our hospitals, actually eight of our hospitals. So, those hospitals were receiving a lot of money from Medicare and Medicaid, okay? They sold the building to a private equity firm. The private equity firm drove up the prices. The CEO of the private equity firm bought two yachts. He's got one of them off the coast of Ecuador. But at the end of the day, the federal taxpayer money, the money that was going to that hospital through Medicare and Medicaid, was now going in the pocket of a private individual who could spend it on whatever they want. They introduced the profit motive into the ownership of those buildings.

(56:44)
So, how does that work for these government buildings that are now are going to go to Elon Musk's pals who are in private equity, and they're going to have to get profit in addition to just covering their bills?

Mr. Kendall (57:00):

Well, Congressman, while my trade association always feels that there will be adequate leasing, the truth is leasing does cost more than a federally owned space. And I make it very clear, the cost to the federal government to borrow long-term is about 2%, two to 3%. There's a 500 basis point premium to have space that's leased. That's what the market charge is. So, to bring it home to everybody, would you rather have a 2% mortgage on your house or a 7% mortgage? Obviously, 2% is a lot cheaper.

(57:37)
So, it behooves the government when it can afford to own space to own it, and you only lease in the alternative. It's a stark world you have to lease because you don't have the sufficient capital to own enough buildings. But it is a mistake, if you have a choice, to lease, and to sell off buildings and now pay for them to pay private sector lessors, it's going to be more expensive.

Mr. Lynch (58:11):

If you have a unique facility that is designed to provide veteran benefits or some other public service, it makes it tougher for the government to move, right?

Mr. Kendall (58:23):

That is correct.

Mr. Lynch (58:24):

Okay. I yield back, Madam Chair. If I could, I'd ask unanimous consent, a press release from GSA dated December 4th, 2024-

Speaker 8 (58:32):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Lynch (58:33):

Thank you. And a press release from the Biden-Harris White House titled, "President Biden announces new actions to ease the burden of housing costs."

Speaker 8 (58:40):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Lynch (58:42):

Thank you.

Speaker 8 (58:43):

I now recognize Mr. Timmons from South Carolina for five minutes.

Mr. Timmons (58:47):

Thank you Madam Chair. We're here because this country faces an existential threat. $36 trillion in debt, a $1.8 trillion annual deficit. And we're trying to find common sense solutions to address unused space and how we can be more efficient with taxpayer dollars in that regard. And this is really a whole of government approach. We have to right size our fiscal ship in order to have a country, long term.

(59:16)
So, I guess this is just one small part of that endeavor, and it really is just common sense. And I'm going to tell you a story about my time in office. I got elected seven years ago, and my predecessor had two offices. They were spread out in my district. I have a fairly small district, and they were in some of the highest costing office space in my district. And we only had three employees and we had two offices. One was in Greenville, one was in Spartanburg. And I just said, "Well, that doesn't really make sense."

(59:49)
So I went to a wonderful municipality that is up and coming and I got this fantastic office space. It's actually more square feet than I had between the two, but it is drastically nicer and it costs less than half as much. So just in my one little congressional office, we're probably saving 60 to $70,000 a year.

(01:00:12)
So, that is just pretty straightforward, and we're going to basically do the same thing across the country. We're going to figure out what we need and what we don't need, and then we're going to dispose of what we don't need by either selling it or by not renewing the lease. So, Mr. Marroni, the Department of Government Efficiency has already terminated close to 700 federal leases. What financial impact has that created for taxpayers?

Mr. Marroni (01:00:43):

That once the leases are drawn out, there's about 90, 120 days, but there'll be these lease savings, you won't be paying that lease rent anymore.

Mr. Timmons (01:00:50):

And I mean, 700 leases, that's likely hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean-

Mr. Marroni (01:00:55):

Depends on the [inaudible 01:00:56] right.

Mr. Timmons (01:00:56):

…. depends on the properties. And I know we're complaining about a property in DC that we own. So this building is likely to be sold in the next couple of years. Do you want to guess at what… I mean this is probably, what, three acres? How much is three acres worth four blocks from the Capitol?

Mr. Marroni (01:01:14):

I would imagine quite a lot.

Mr. Timmons (01:01:15):

That's at least tens of millions of dollars. And you know what we really need in this area, we need housing. And so I guarantee you that a developer, a big bad developer is going to come in… And what's funny, the DC city code is going to require them to do 30 or 40% of it as affordable housing. So, that'll make some of my colleagues across the aisle happy, but they'll probably be, I don't know, a thousand, 2,000 units to address the housing crisis in this area. Because, what, this is crazy, the highest and best use of this property is not what is currently being used and we are going to transition it to that. And the best part is, when they build this massive building and put housing in it, they're going to pay taxes.

(01:01:53)
So, we're going to take a building that is currently using taxpayer dollars to be maintained, but not very well, and we're going to then sell it, get tens of millions of dollars and we're going to turn around and create a highest and best use for this property, which is then going to result in it paying taxes. I mean, that's the whole theory. And while we can look all across the country for areas that we can save money, I mean this is just common sense.

(01:02:25)
I do have a question. Mr. Marroni, why is this so hard? What is wrong historically that has created this problem where we use such a small percentage of property that we lease and that we own? And what are the structural impediments to really turning this problem upside down and solving it?

Mr. Marroni (01:02:49):

Yeah, I'll point to a couple. There's multiple reasons. But the biggest challenge is we're typically talking about underuse. It's not a lot of properties that are just purely vacant and empty, and there are some, but the bigger issue is agencies having space where only a portion is being used. And so, a couple of problems. One, agencies typically haven't had the incentive to move off of properties that are underused but not completely vacant. It costs money for them to get the buildings ready for disposal. Another reason is reticence, inertia. You've been in this space for a long time, you're familiar with it. Recent years, there's been some uncertainty, right? How many people are going to be in the office versus not? Do we get rid of the space and have to get back new space [inaudible 01:03:28]

Mr. Timmons (01:03:27):

I'm running out of time.

Mr. Marroni (01:03:27):

Okay.

Mr. Timmons (01:03:28):

I want to close with this. President Biden and his State of the Union address talked about how he was bringing people back to work. He didn't do that because he actually wanted to, he did that because the city of DC was crumbling without the federal workers coming and supporting the businesses that they previously supported. So, I know that my colleagues across the aisle do not like this effort, but when this building becomes 2,000 apartments, those people are going to then spend money in Washington, so it will actually help the economy. With that, I yield back.

Speaker 8 (01:03:59):

The gentleman yields. I now recognize Ms. Crockett from Texas for five minutes.

Ms. Crockett (01:04:03):

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I can tell you one thing that is crumbling for the city of DC was that continuing resolution that defunded approximately a billion dollars from them. But I will focus on today's hearing. The Republican's recklessness and chaotic approach to reducing the size of government has shown us what we've already known. Concepts of a plan don't work. This is the committee's fourth hearing, and still no one from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has testified before this committee about their plans to break the federal government. Because, as it turns out, breaking the federal government doesn't just hurt people you don't like. It's not just going to be Democrats who miss out on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, or only Democratic veterans who will miss out on their VA benefits. Their approach will negatively impact all Americans.

(01:04:56)
So, it's unfortunate that Republicans have taken a seemingly bipartisan issue and included it as part of their scam to subsidize tax giveaway for billionaires. They haven't proposed anything that will improve the efficiency of the government. Instead, they have put the country on a path to a recession and implemented the largest tax increase on Americans in decades through Trump's tariffs.

(01:05:19)
This hearing is their latest attempt to try to convince the American people that dismantling public facing agencies will somehow improve government efficiency. Let me tell you, it won't. There's nothing efficient about terminating leases for IRS taxpayer assistance centers during tax season nor dismantling farmer support offices in rural communities while farmers are trying to survive Trump's tariffs. And just like their trade policy, there isn't any logic or strategy behind the Trump administration's reductions in force or accelerated disposal of federally owned property.

(01:05:55)
It has been discussed that managing federal property has been on GAO's high risk list for more than two decades. Currently, GAO has almost 60 recommendations that the administration could fully implement but decided to ignore it.

(01:06:08)
And I'm going to veer off for two seconds because all I kept hearing was fire. Fire, fire, fire is what I heard. And as I heard fire, it seems like we are talking about an administration that has been hell-bent on firing government workers. They are hell-bent on engaging in fire sales of our government buildings. And while we are at it, they are lighting the Social Security on fire, Medicaid on fire, Medicare on fire, 401ks on fire, Department of Education on fire. And instead what we need to light on fire are Trump's tariffs. In fact, we could probably go a little bit further and fire this incompetent administration.

(01:06:52)
But if we are going to talk about efficiency and worry about some solar paneled whatever's, let's talk about the fact that as of March 30th, Trump's golfing has cost us approximately $26 million. And the last time I checked, we are not getting anything in return for that.

(01:07:12)
So, I will get back on my remarks, but I just wanted to point out that maybe we need to talk about the President and his golfing habits. In fact, he decided that he was going to golf as the markets were tanking, he decided he was going to golf instead of receiving for heroes who died serving this country. He has decided that he wanted to play games while the rest of us are really trying to make sure that we can serve the American people.

(01:07:39)
So Ms. Marroni, you were quoted in the New York Times article dated March 17th stating that it is important for officials to have a plan to generate the most savings and that, "All of these moving parts point to the need for some deliberate planning." Did the administration consult with GAO regarding their plans to dispose of hundreds of federally owned buildings?

Mr. Marroni (01:08:00):

No.

Ms. Crockett (01:08:02):

In your testimony you highlight that one of the core issues associated with managing federal property is the lack of reliable data to support decision making. Is that correct?

Mr. Marroni (01:08:11):

Yes.

Ms. Crockett (01:08:12):

Would reducing GSA's workforce by 50% improved data gathering and analysis?

Mr. Marroni (01:08:20):

I cannot say. They're not [inaudible 01:08:22]

Ms. Crockett (01:08:21):

That's perfectly fine. We know that we need experts and not idiots, but Mr. Kendall, we will move on. In your written testimony, you state some of the actions of this administration suggest that the administration is not following a strategy designed to save taxpayer money and that the administration seems to ignore agency's mission integrity. Why do you think that?

Mr. Kendall (01:08:41):

In the list of-

Ms. Crockett (01:08:42):

You got 20 seconds, and I'm giving it to you.

Mr. Kendall (01:08:44):

In the list of projects, there were a couple score, Social Security offices, IRS taxpayer service offices, which those agencies, those end user agencies wanted. And yet the administration is canceling those leases. So, it does imperil mission accomplishment.

Ms. Crockett (01:09:04):

Thank you so much. I yield back.

Speaker 8 (01:09:06):

The gentlelady yields. And I now recognize Mr. Burlison from Missouri for five minutes.

Mr. Burlison (01:09:13):

Thank you Madam Chair. I first want to acknowledge these amazing chairs that we're sitting in. I looked them up. These chairs retail for $2,900. This is the nicest chair that I've set it. And I've worked at a lot of Fortune… I've worked at Fortune 500 companies, worked in the private sector, never had a chair this nice in a building that's empty. I'm speaking to you from a microphone that I looked up right now it's over $1,600 for this very nice microphone that apparently needs video. This is why we're here.

(01:09:47)
We're in an empty building from an agency that decided this wasn't good enough, so they decided to spend $250 million more over a 15-year period for a more luxurious location than this. And with that, I want to say thank you chairman-

Mr. Lynch (01:10:07):

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Burlison (01:10:09):

… for this hearing.

Mr. Lynch (01:10:09):

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. Burlison (01:10:11):

When it comes to… I have very limited time, I don't want to yield.

Mr. Lynch (01:10:14):

Okay. Okay, I understand. I'm just asking. Thank you.

Mr. Burlison (01:10:16):

So, the solution is quite simple. Reduce the budgetary burden of the national real estate portfolio by disposing of federal properties like the one that we're in today. It could be repositioned, it could find a better purpose, as was mentioned before. So, I want to ask Mr. Marroni, how many properties in the federal portfolio, how many are there?

Mr. Marroni (01:10:37):

So, there's about 277,000 buildings, but that's everything.

Mr. Burlison (01:10:41):

And how many of those have, approximate utilization, they're at full capacity or at 75% or above?

Mr. Marroni (01:10:47):

There's just not good data.

Mr. Burlison (01:10:48):

Okay.

Mr. Marroni (01:10:48):

We don't have data.

Mr. Burlison (01:10:50):

How many are below 15%?

Mr. Marroni (01:10:54):

Same thing there, we only know for headquarters.

Mr. Burlison (01:10:56):

So I want to show you, the America people, a chart that we found where there's a list of a number of buildings. And on this list you've got, for example, the James Forrestal building, which is estimated capacity of almost 5,000 people. There are eight people occupying that building today. We have the Wilbur Cohen building, which could house almost 3,500 people, but there's 72. This entire list. It goes from the top to the bottom. At the very bottom, the GSA headquarters is 14% occupied.

(01:11:36)
So, this is where we stand. Milton Friedman had a great quote that I wanted to mention.

(01:11:42)
… say that you're committed by making every dime of the government spending accessible in the public, which I can mitigate for what you're doing. Transparency is exactly what we need from our government. More than half of the current leases that GSA maintains are set to expire between and 2027. How much money could the American people save by not renewing these leases?

Mr. Hart (01:12:52):

Well, I can speak to the cost of furniture, which is going to be about $1.1 billion on just furniture, and I'd have to get you the figure on leases. But it illustrates again, is that when you decide to have a massive expanse of federal agencies, it's very, very expensive to decorate and redecorate these agencies and buy chairs like the one you're sitting in right now.

Mr. Burlison (01:13:16):

Apparently my $1,600 microphone-

Speaker X (01:13:18):

Right? Failed.

Mr. Burlison (01:13:19):

… wasn't working.

Mr. Lynch (01:13:26):

You got the $800 one.

Mr. Burlison (01:13:26):

So, I want to put into perspective a report that we uncovered from the Public Buildings Reform Board's report to Congress. Instead of using what was the accounting that was given to them, they used available cell phone data. And in 2023, the cell phone data indicated that approximately 441 people occupied the Francis Perkins building on an average day, costing the American taxpayer approximately 182,000 per employee each year in operating and maintenance expenses and rent paid. Mr. Marroni, is that a reasonable expense from the American taxpayers, 182,000 per employee?

Mr. Marroni (01:14:06):

You certainly don't want to spend more on real property than you need.

Mr. Burlison (01:14:09):

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.

Speaker 8 (01:14:13):

The gentleman yields. And I now recognize Ms. Brown from Ohio for five minutes.

Ms. Brown (01:14:17):

Thank you, Chairwoman. I wanted to wave onto today's hearing because the General Service Administration is rushing to sell a piece of federal infrastructure in my district, the Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building in downtown Cleveland. Let me be clear, this isn't just the sale of a building. It's a reckless decision that could destabilize essential services for my constituents, displace some 4,000 federal employees and deal a blow to the local economy. The Celebrezze houses the IRS, the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Defense Finance and Accounting Services, DHS, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These are the people ensuring tax seasons run smoothly, our veterans get their benefits, and military payroll is processed accordingly.

(01:15:05)
Selling this building, especially on an expedited three-year timeline compared to the usual 10 years this takes is short-sighted and misguided. And what it really represents is another example of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's chaotic and careless approach to cost-cutting. In fact, cost-cutting is too generous. What they are really doing is looting the federal government and stripping it for parts.

(01:15:31)
This sale could result in reduced public access to services, lower job security for thousands of workers, and a ripple effect throughout Cleveland's downtown economy. Local businesses, public transit and city revenues all depend on the federal footprint of this building. The administration promises to relocate workers to other spaces in Cleveland. That's great, but how can their word be trusted? They are selling a building while forcing workers to return to the office. They claim they will look for new lease space as they simultaneously cancel leases nationwide, and they are firing federal workers that provide my constituents and the American people with critical programs and services.

(01:16:14)
So, what assurances do we have that they'll actually maintain staffing levels and secure new space for the agencies affected? Or is this just another slash-and-burn strategy, a thinly-veiled attack on the federal workforce under the guise of reform?

(01:16:28)
This building is an anchor for downtown Cleveland. Removing this presence will not only leave a void in the heart of Cleveland, it will undermine the progress that we've made in revitalizing the city. There is a responsible way to reduce and consolidate the federal government's real estate portfolio, but this hasty decision is not it.

(01:16:47)
So, Mr. Kendall, can you tell us how does GSA balance the social and community impacts, like job loss, transit disruption, and economic disinvestment with the needs of the agency?

Mr. Kendall (01:17:02):

That's a difficult question. GSA defers to end-user agencies in terms of what their space needs are. They really are a reactive organization in terms of finding space. Typically, the rule is to use own space, and if that's not available, to lease space. The Celebrezze building, I don't know the particulars of it. If there's not an exigency about selling it because it constitutes a life-safety threat to the occupants, it doesn't have to be moved.

(01:17:37)
I mean, part of the argument here today is that federal workers are being put in opulent space, lease space and incurring rate costs, but they could be retained in maybe class B or B-minus federally owned buildings and avoid lease costs. GSA is all about avoiding lease costs.

(01:17:57)
So, I don't know specifically about the mission needs of the agencies that are housed in that building, but my sense would be GSA is deferential to those concerns.

Ms. Brown (01:18:13):

So, given your experience at the GSA, how would you characterize the administration's rushed approach? Would their rushed approach to decision-making and shortening disposal timeline lead to more efficiencies or less?

Mr. Kendall (01:18:25):

I think that there is a lot of haste going on today, and I think it is ill thought through. I think a much more deliberate approach should be taken to deciding what buildings to retain and what to get rid of. I also think that the staffing levels are endangering GSA's, the reduction in staffing. I understand 63% of PBS employees are to be terminated. That's three out of every five. I don't know how it was determined, how they reach that number in consideration of what mission needs are and what types and numbers of employees you need to execute. So, I'm concerned.

Ms. Brown (01:19:13):

So, the last thing I want to get, before I run out of time, this question in is the list reported that building utilization is a contributing factor to the need for management of federal property. How has the President's return to work impacting GAO's analysis of federal real estate? Sorry, thank you.

Speaker 8 (01:19:27):

The gentlelady is out of time. I now recognize Mr. Jack from Georgia.

Mr. Jack (01:19:32):

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for convening this hearing in an underutilized federal office building. To establish context for those watching at home, our federal government owns roughly 511 million square feet of office space, and that does not include large swaths of military bases. So, again, to establish context, if you, like me, watched the National Championship last night and saw how massive the Alamodome looked, the 511 million square feet of federal office space represents 3, 200 Alamodomes. If you're watching this hearing at home, the average square footage of an American home is about 2,000 square feet, which represents 255,000 average American homes. So, that's the scale with which we're dealing when we discuss federal office space.

(01:20:21)
And if I could start with Mr. Marroni, I'd like us to look into the 2020 GAO that just describes how inaccurate the database is that monitors all this federal government. Are you familiar with that report and could you share a little bit about its findings?

Mr. Marroni (01:20:38):

Right. We found that the Federal Real Property Profile, which is the database for federal real inventory had significant [inaudible 01:20:46] liability problems, including something as simple as address information.

Mr. Jack (01:20:49):

And if I'm not mistaken, that report demonstrated that of the 511 million square feet of federal office property, 67% of the addresses and accounting for it is inaccurate.

Mr. Jack (01:21:00):

… accurate, is that true?

Mr. Marroni (01:21:01):

That was the case in 2020. There has been some improvement.

Mr. Jack (01:21:04):

One of the things that we've highlighted throughout this hearing thus far is just how underutilized this office space is. And could you walk us through GAO's survey? I think there were 24 agencies surveyed, just how much underutilization is there today?

Mr. Marroni (01:21:18):

Right. Well, in 2023 when we did that, there was significant underutilization in headquarters buildings. None of the agencies were using more than half of their office space in the DC area for headquarters. And about 17 of the 24 were using less than a quarter. So it was a significant issue. That was two years ago. We don't know what the picture looks like today because there isn't good data, that should be coming this summer.

Mr. Jack (01:21:39):

And I'm just curious, within those 17 to 24 agencies that use 25% or less of federal office space, which agency was the most egregious, if you will, at underutilizing office space?

Mr. Marroni (01:21:51):

So the lowest agencies were HUD and SSA for their headquarters buildings. But I'll say no one had a great track record in terms of the utilization.

Mr. Jack (01:21:58):

Thank you. And in your assessment, how much taxpayer money could have been saved if the federal government had begun right-sizing its property portfolio shortly after the pandemic shifts to telework became apparent?

Mr. Marroni (01:22:10):

So certainly it could get substantial savings. It's about $8 billion a year on owned and leased office space. So any reduction is going to generate a lot of money.

Mr. Jack (01:22:17):

Thank you. If I could ask some questions, Mr. Hart? First off, I appreciate your opening testimony and just for the American public, I'd love for you to walk through usaspending.gov, walk through the parameters of it, how can we use that?

Mr. Hart (01:22:31):

Yeah, thanks for the question. So usaSspending.gov was created through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. That was a bipartisan bill that Coburn and Obama wrote. And what that bill did is that for the first time, it took all of the disparate databases among federal agencies and put them together so that the American people could see how Congress is spending their money. And again, this is a foundational first principle of American society is that taxpayers have the right to inspect the government's checkbook, the government does not have the right to inspect their checkbook. So transparency in the Founders' vision is not a two-way street. It's that we have tools to help hold government accountable because it's their money, it's taxpayers money.

Mr. Jack (01:23:12):

Well, in that vein, in the last minute of questioning, I was alarmed as I think some of our colleagues were in your opening testimony about some of the expenditures you walked through. There were egregious examples of wasted taxpayer money. In your findings over the course of your work, what was the most egregious expenditure that you saw? And at the same time too, we would love recommendations from you as how best we can correct that at home.

Mr. Hart (01:23:35):

Yeah. Well, it's a very target-rich environment. I think the totality is quite egregious where you're looking at a billion dollars spent on furniture. We talked about the picnic table is one where the CDC told the American people they can't sit together, but yet they're spending $230,000 on a picnic table that violates their own standards. That rubs the American taxpayer the wrong way in every way imaginable. So I think what you could do is really reorganize federal agencies, is that the perfect political moment to cut spending is always a mirage over the next election horizon. But this body has the opportunity to do an agency reorganization bill that will solve all of the problems we're talking about because it's a scope of government question. And to the question before is that we spend about $80 million a year on leases and that's not as much as the owned property. That's a larger number. But there are incredible opportunities for savings that could be produced by having a smart, strategic agency reorganization. Thank you very much. I'll yield back

Ms. Greene (01:24:40):

Gentlemen yields. I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California for five minutes.

Mr. Garcia (01:24:45):

Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you to our witnesses. I think we're again here at another hearing where House Republicans are trying to help Elon Musk get cover for looting our federal government. DOGE and so far this committee has not been about efficiency or better services. It's been attack on programs that we rely on from public health to Medicaid to the Department of Education and of course now to office space. And we all know that Elon Musk and Donald Trump are attacking all the safeguards designed to make sure they just can't sell our government assets to their own companies, but they can also sell them to their friends. Our committee is ignoring the biggest threat from the Trump administration so far, and that is their horrific economic plan, MAGAnomics. Now Mr. Kendall, we've been hearing testimony complaining that the federal government spent $4.6 billion on furniture since 2021. Do you know how much the US businesses will pay every year in tariffs under Donald Trump's plan? Any idea?

Mr. Kendall (01:25:44):

No, sir, I do not.

Mr. Garcia (01:25:45):

Okay. Well, the US businesses will be paying $654 billion a year and that number will rise. And that's just in one year. That number of course is enormously much larger than anything that we ever spend in furniture. We're looking at the biggest tax increase in over 50 years. Now, Mr. Kendall, the total value of all property held by the federal government is about $330 billion as stated. Is that correct?

Mr. Kendall (01:26:12):

I have no basis to challenge that number.

Mr. Garcia (01:26:14):

Okay, great. So do you know how much wealth has been wiped out from the stock market in just two days after Donald Trump's tariff announcement? Any idea, Mr. Kendall?

Mr. Kendall (01:26:21):

It's in the trillions, but I don't know the number.

Mr. Garcia (01:26:24):

Around $6.6 trillion. So I want to make sure what people should be understanding here. Last week we had the largest two day stock market fall in history. We're talking about furniture and office space while people are losing their retirement accounts, while the stock market is crashing, while Medicaid is under attack, while healthcare costs are going up. We know that retirement accounts are being wiped out right now as we're holding this hearing. Companies, many of them are no longer able to invest. People are losing their jobs. And we are talking about furniture while Donald Trump is destroying the economy. We also know that predicting a recession, which many are now doing, is looking more and more likely, which we hope of course doesn't actually happen. And while all this was happening and Donald Trump was imposing his tariffs plan and the prices of almost everything, groceries, housing, clothing, computers can be expected to go up, Donald Trump, of course, the next day left to go play golf. Now, Mr. Kendall, were you aware that as markets were crashing, Donald Trump the next day went out to play a few rounds of golf?

Mr. Kendall (01:27:33):

I do read the paper, so I did know that.

Mr. Garcia (01:27:36):

And perhaps maybe instead he should have been working with world leaders or allies to actually work on the tariff crisis. But instead of course he was of course on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, which is a very conservative paper as we know. I think it's clear that Donald Trump could care less about the harm he's doing, doesn't care about American workers or the community. And unfortunately Republicans in Congress want to debate office space and furniture while the president torches our own American economy and the global economy. We have businesses right now back in my district and across the country that are getting hammered and suffering and firing employees. But instead we're continuing to have these really unfortunate, I think, hearings. It's crazy, it's cowardly, we should stop the tariffs now. And with that, I yield back.

Ms. Greene (01:28:25):

The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.

Mr. Burchett (01:28:30):

Thank you, Chairlady. Thank you for the indulgence in allowing me to be on this committee. I come in here usually ticked off and I leave in worse condition, so thank you for that.

Ms. Greene (01:28:38):

You're welcome.

Mr. Burchett (01:28:40):

If I ever have a counselor, I'm going to send you the bill. Mr. Hart, do any members of Congress, their spouses or their immediate family have any property ownership rights to this property or any federal land?

Mr. Hart (01:28:58):

Congressman, I don't know the answer to that question off the top of my head.

Mr. Burchett (01:29:01):

Okay. Do spouses of members of Congress own real property and lease it to the federal government? And how would we find that out? Because I think I know what you're going to say.

Mr. Hart (01:29:10):

I believe the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Burchett (01:29:13):

You do?

Mr. Hart (01:29:14):

I do believe that.

Mr. Burchett (01:29:17):

Is there any way we could verify that information?

Mr. Hart (01:29:18):

Well, you go to USAspending and search, open the books, our website, and you can look up member's names, you can look up any person's name, and find that information.

Mr. Burchett (01:29:29):

All right. I suspect that's being done as I speak. Mr. Marroni, how much underutilized space does the federal government have?

Mr. Marroni (01:29:38):

I can't say, there's not good data. We just don't have data. There's going to come this summer, Congress has now required it. But prior to this, once you got outside of headquarters, there wasn't measurement of how much the-

Mr. Burchett (01:29:49):

I hate these studies, every day we vote on a new study and I suspect there's some warehouse like in Raiders of the Lost Ark at the end where they're putting this. And our top people are looking at it and there's these studies are just on these shelves in these vast warehouses. Would you agree with that assumption?

Mr. Marroni (01:30:04):

There are a lot of studies.

Mr. Burchett (01:30:06):

All right. Remember your… Whatever. All right. How much would the federal government save by allowing unneeded leases to expire?

Mr. Marroni (01:30:16):

Federal government spends about $6 billion on leased office space. So depending on how many you let expire, you'd get substantial savings.

Mr. Burchett (01:30:24):

As I sit up here, people chastised the thought of making a profit. To me, that's not an evil thing, that allows for more people to be employed. It seems that we have forgotten exactly who we work for and it's the people back home who are struggling. When I was mayor of Knox County, one of the first things I did was I said, "Get me a list of all the property we own in Knox County." And it was amazing to me, we had property in neighborhoods, some of it was obviously undevelopable. So one was on the corner of a small airport, but it was all over. We had something listed as a park and it was nothing further from a park.

(01:31:10)
Ad we ended up selling a lot of this property and we paid cash for schools, crazy things like that. We didn't stay in debt. And to me that just seems like the model that the federal government should adopt. We should have a listing of the property and the people ought to be able to review that and make better assumptions. Because I think they're a lot more smarter than we give them credit for. And I suspect that's part of the problem, they don't want to let them look behind the curtain, so to speak. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Marroni (01:31:44):

It is important to have that kind of data. There is an inventory that's available online, but there are significant issues with this reliability.

Mr. Burchett (01:31:53):

Mr. Hart, would you care to address that?

Mr. Hart (01:31:56):

We would like to enhance the transparency of all of that data. I think it's one of the most important assets that taxpayers should be able to review the cost so that they can make good decisions. And again, the purpose of transparency is to empower taxpayers. Transparency is not a two-way street. The government does not have the right to inspect our checkbook, taxpayers do have the right to inspect the government's checkbook because it's their money.

Mr. Burchett (01:32:20):

Mr. Kendall, would you care to offer your-

Mr. Kendall (01:32:24):

I'm all in favor of transparency. No objection.

Mr. Burchett (01:32:27):

It seems our friends in the media always strive for that and we get pretty gutless up here. So I would hope in the future we would address that. I'll yield my 49 seconds back to you Chairlady. Thank you for your indulgence, ma'am.

Ms. Greene (01:32:45):

Thank you, Mr. Burchett. In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for their testimony today. I now yield to Ranking member Stansbury for closing remarks.

Ms. Stansbury (01:32:57):

Did you get a chance to? All right. Well, thank you very much Madam Chairwoman. I hope that in some ways this hearing has been elucidating. But I'm going to be honest, just listening here today, I've had trouble understanding the theory of the case. Now anyone who's in business knows that if you're going to go in front of a boardroom and present your case, you've got to have compelling data. You've got to have an analysis of what you're trying to accomplish. You've got to have an analysis of the money that you're going to save. And a proposal and a plan for how you're going to execute that. And I think the thing that is troubling about the entire DOGE exercise is that it doesn't seem to have a coherent theory. It doesn't appear to have a plan. It doesn't appear to be utilizing data. And it doesn't appear to be executing on any kind of coherent theory of how we're saving money for the federal government.

(01:33:54)
Because as we learned here today, it will actually cost the federal government more money if they sell these vital assets to private companies who will then lease them back to federal agencies for more money. So it's troubling to try to understand. And I think it goes along with the troubling theory of the case that Donald Trump seems to have about the economy overall. Because as my colleague pointed out, we're sitting here talking about microphones and furniture and an office building while the economy is tanking and trillions of dollars in losses are happening and we know that the potential for both a recession and costs are going to go up, which will cost the federal government more money. So what's the theory of the case here? I've also heard conflicting theories just about this very building that we're sitting in. Is this building too fancy or does this building need to be demolished to make way for housing?

(01:34:47)
It's not even clear what the argument is for this building that we're sitting in having this field hearing in. Now what I think is interesting about what we heard here today is that some of the quiet part was said out loud. In fact, what was stated by some of the other members on this panel was that they'd like to sell valuable real estate to private developers, potentially demolish federal buildings like this, sell them potentially to private equity and developers and then they can lease back and make money off of it. And that's exactly what this scheme is all about because this is what we're seeing across the entire DOGE effort and across the administration. And this is not really about public interest. This is, as we keep saying, the private equity model, privatize, buy low, sell high, make lots of money. This is what the DOGE bros are all about.

(01:35:37)
But we know that there is real data coming in July, as was stated, by the GAO that will help us take a data-driven approach. This is data that was demanded by Congress. It is bipartisan. Let's come up with a plan if we're actually going to deal with this bipartisan issue. Now I also want to point out some other ironies and inconsistencies that we heard here today. One of my colleagues quoted Milton Friedman, which I found actually quite funny because Elon Musk himself has also been quoting Milton Friedman over the weekend because he thought the international trade was good and tariffs were bad. Anybody? Donald Trump is crashing the economy over tariffs. We also heard my colleagues across the aisle talk about right-sizing and righting the fiscal ship, while they're literally about to try to vote tomorrow on a budget proposal that will increase the deficit by $37 trillion over the next 30 years.

(01:36:37)
This would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion just this year and would cost the United States the largest amount of debt ever in the history of its 250 years. So again, I don't understand the theory of the case. If what we're about here is trying to root out waste, fraud and abuse, make the government more efficient, save the government money, then why on Earth is Donald Trump trying to tank the economy? What are they trying to do with the sell-off and privatization of the federal government? What are they trying to do with downsizing and firing thousands of federal employees? So I'll close out by saying this, to my friends across the aisle and to the administration, hands off our Social Security, hands off our Medicaid, hands off our Medicare, hands off the VA, hands off our education and hands off our vital programs and the services and the federal assets that make them possible. With that I yield back.

Ms. Greene (01:37:36):

I now recognize myself for closing remarks. Thank you for our witnesses coming today. We greatly appreciate it. And thank you to the American people for tuning in into what is an extremely important issue. Your Social Security is not under attack. Medicare is not under attack. Veterans benefits are not under attack. But our very existence is under attack. And this has happened by dirty, greedy, lazy politicians and bureaucrats who have plunged you and chained you in $36 trillion in debt. You are under attack and you've been under attack by your own federal government. We're here today proudly to talk about how we can reduce this debt. And this is a bipartisan issue. Selling federal property and returning the money back to the American people is the right way to protect you. And as Republicans, we believe in this and we proudly stand with President Trump, Elon Musk and their DOGE efforts to reduce the size of the federal government, reduce the federal debt.

(01:38:46)
And we are so grateful and definitely America voted for President Trump to stand up for Americans, the American worker at American companies with tariffs that return the order back to America and defeat the globalist who have attacked American interest, stolen intellectual property from American companies, and have turned rural America into a graveyard of factories that have been shut down and American jobs that have been shipped overseas. So I want to say directly, thank you President Trump for standing up for us. And we will be so happy when you stick up for us and make it fair again through these tariffs. The federal government's management of its massive real estate portfolio has been problematic for decades. Everyone knows it. The United States is $36 trillion in debt and in fiscal year 24, the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in. And in fiscal year 25, the interest on our debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion.

(01:39:58)
Many Americans are suffering every day while the federal government continues to recklessly spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to foot. The bill of luxurious high-end furniture for offices or on the flip side carelessly waste billions on unused buildings and leases. Young people cannot afford to buy a house. For today's 27-year olds, only 33% own their homes, versus 40% of baby boomers when they were 27. From 2019 to 2024, housing prices in my home state of Georgia increased by up to 67%, as did areas all across the country. Everything went up. Life became unaffordable. Over the past four years under Democrats, overall inflation hit 20%. The cost of food increased nearly 34%. And the cost of energy increased nearly 33%. And credit card debt was up nearly 50%. As Americans racked up grocery bills, credit card debt and couldn't afford to buy a home, the federal bureaucrats recklessly spend their money without a care in the world.

(01:41:10)
In the last year, seven in 10 Americans completed at least one DIY project, do it yourself. And nearly 50% said it was because they couldn't afford professionals to do it. Americans are either renovating their own houses by themselves because they can't afford to hire a company to do it, or in many cases they will have to go without. What do federal bureaucrats do when they need to renovate a conference room or redecorate an office? They spend $700,000 and $6.5 million of your money to do it. American businesses can't afford these types of upgrades and the reality is that the federal government is $36 trillion in debt and can't afford it either. As we continue investigating waste, fraud and abuse, we can look no further, the unconscious unconscionable amount of spending that the federal government spends on empty buildings and brand new high-end furnitures and something as ridiculous as solar-powered picnic tables.

(01:42:19)
Every year, taxpayers have to spend about $10 billion just to operate and maintain it all. In addition, the backlog of deferred maintenance that is now up to $ 370 billion. In 2023, GAO reported that 17 of the 24 largest federal agencies used 25% or less of their headquarters building's capacity. And none of these agencies ever utilize more than 49% of the building's capacity in an average week. I just want to inform you that that all happened at the same time when homeless rates skyrocketed and veterans were kicked out to make room for illegal aliens. When you own property in the real world, if you reach a term of your mortgage agreement, you mismanage your finances or you miss payments, the lender will repossess your property and auction it off. While the federal government can't miss payments because they will just print more money, they have grossly mismanaged their finances and it is time for the American people to evict federal bureaucrats, repossess the properties and auction them off to the highest bidder.

(01:43:36)
Thankfully, the American people now have the president on their side. While the previous administration did little to address the problems laid out here today, we're finally seeing meaningful progress under President Trump. The early successes of selling off unused properties and canceling wasteful leases by the Department of Government Efficiency shows what can be accomplished with strong leadership. With Congress and the Trump administration working together, I'm confident we can finally resolve this decades-old problem and deliver the results and the money back to the American taxpayers.

(01:44:14)
With that and without objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses. If there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.