mr. perry: thank you, madam chair. h.r. 6276, the use it act of 2023, is commonsense and reasonable space occupancy standards to get federal employees back into the office or the agency will have to lose, unused space. as a recent government accountability office review of how agencies were actually using their headquarter space here in washington, d.c., found that 17 of 24 agencies, t g.a.o. re-- that g.a.o. reviewed used 25% or less of their space. 17 of 24. 25% or less of their

one agency even admitted that if 100% of their employees showed up, every single one of them showed up, they boo sti only usf their own building. even more troubling is some agencies were using only 9%, they can't even make double digits, of their space, 9%. and to be clear, we're not just paying for space to sit empty. but throughout the whole time we're paying for utilities and services such as heating, cooling, lighting. regular power, maintenance, security for the entire space that no one is in. empty federal buildings are not only a drain to the federal taxpayer, but they also don't produce investments needed for local economies. because nobody's in the building. there's nobody there to go out to lunch. the bottom line is agencies should bring federal workers back to the office. but the reality is underutilized space has been a chronic problem

in federal real estate and is one reason federal property has been on the g.a.o.'s high-risk list since 2003. so this is 20 years on now that this problem has been identified and remains existing. in order to address the issue, h.r. 6276 -- >> the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, madam speaker. in order to address the issue, h.r. 6276 would use similar metrics to those used byeral agencies to report on their actual utilization rates. set a target utilization of not less than 60%, not less than 60%, so it's very reasonable and require the general services administration to report to congress if any agency fails to meet that standard. agencies will be given time to meet the 60% utilization standard, but if they fail to dr

give up their excess space. give up their excess space. ultimately the result will benefit not just the federal taxpayer but also allow unused federal buildings to be put to better use for theoc communities. i urge support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserve -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. h.r. 6276 directs the g.s.a. to establish standards for measuring occupancy in federal buildings. the bill directs the g.s.a. and federal tenants to use sensors to measureupancy, requires the heads of federal agencies to report occupancy and utilization data, and directs the g.s.a. to notify agencies and congress when occupancy in a federal building falls below 60%, at which time g.s.a. would be permitted to consolidate tenants. the bill further requires o.m.b. and. to develop a plan to

consolidate agency headquarter buildings in the national capital region that result in the utilization rate of 60% or more. now, i agree with representative perry's goal to reduce agency costs by giving up unneeded space and i consistently made that point to him and others on the committee. i am opposed to this bill. the bill defines occupancy as the total number of employees physically working from their offices at least five days per week. many federal employees may not sit at their desks all day every day, including federal firefighters, disaster responders, law enforcement officers, border patrol agents, food safety inspectors, t.s.a. service rangers and more. these employees would not be included in occupancy counts required by this bill. federal employees who work alter -- alternative work schedules. federal law grants the office of personal management authority to promulgate regulations, to

minister programs and permits agencies to allow the use of flexible schedules. this authority extends to employees of any executiveilitat and the library of congress. to have an accurate picture of a space needs in federal buildings, all federal employees ocin full-time employee with an approved work schedule is still a full-time employee. and this bill fails to consider that fact. i have concerns with the bill because it does not adequately concern the complexity of the federal leasing process, a process that is frankly far too complex. directing the o.m.b. and g.s.a. to reduce space if occupancy falls below 60% sounds fiscally responsible but at most currently leased locations if agency space is reduced, the government would still be on the hook for the original cost in the leased contract because most existing lease con include partial termination rights. partial termination rights would increase the costs of leases for the government. again, i want to work with the

chairman, we want to work with the chairman and the committee to resize the federal estate footprint and reduce costs, not unnecessarily increase those costs. but here again, that bill -- this bill falls short. after this period of general debate, we're going to move on to a debate on seven amendments made in order by the rules committee. i will not be opposing any of those amendments, but unfortunately the seven amendments do not fix■g underlying defects in the bill so i will still oppose final passage. i'm disappointed as well the rules committee did not make in order the amendment that representative titus offered that would have adjusted the calculation of the occupancy rate to include employees with approved alternative work schedules. this fix would have gone a long way toward alleviating my concerns with the legislation, but not even allowing a vote on this amendment is a really missed bipartisanship on this bill. so with that, madam chair, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington ■grvves. the gentleman from pennsylvania

is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, madam speaker. to my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, the current administration doesn't even count every single employee in the federal system. and this bill, as he knows,oes not effect flex schedules or telework schedules, has nothing to do with that. so we can in this case have our cake and eat it bill, we can get our occupancy rate up to 60%. amendment that myself andnzf representative awken class have worked together on and is in ordernd right-size the people who show up to work while acknowledging in the federal system that not everybody has to be in the office. but with that i want to yield three minutes to my good friend from louisiana, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, madam

chair. madam chair, i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for promoting this legislation, for carrying it through the committee. let me provide a little bit of background because i think there's been some confusion here. if we look at occupancy rates of federal buildings from pre-pandemic to current, then 54% of the buildings are occupied as compared to pre-pandemic. let me say this again. if you look at pre-pandemic occupancy and compare it you has compared to what would have been 100% at the time. so what this legislation does is it says that if leases are occupied 60% then the government needs to give up those leases. so my friend from washington has brought up the fact that you have folks who do telework and flexible schedules and things

along those lines. there is a 40% cushion, number one. number two, i thinking is that is incumbent upon -- i think something that is incumbent upon folks who are using public money to pay for this, let me say it again, $2 llion and maintain, $5 billion a year to pay for leases, it's incumbent upon these folks that are managing this to make sure that you're properly coordinating schedules. if people are teleworking or flexible schedules or whatever, that's fine. just manage maximizes the use of the space. look, this is ridiculous what's going on. $7 billion a year. the congress and asked members of congress, do you have something in your district that needs funding and you've been unable to get funding for? every single one of us could spend $7 billion, we've been trying to fight for a new bridge crossing the mississippi river for years and years now. it should have been done 40 years ago. so let's be clear.

it only requires divestment or elimination of the lease if 60%. what private business would even do that? i think it actually should be a higher standard in an ideal situation. as chairman perry said, according to a government accountability office study that federal agencies and 17 of the 24 only used 25% of the space. this is insane. there's better uses of taxpayer funds. and in closing, madam chair, i want to remind everyone here, our current government debt is approximately $34.5 trillion. each individual taxpayer's share of tha is around $257,000. i couldn't afford that. i don't think we need to be irresponsibly and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars in

this environment or ever. i commend my friend from pennsylvania for pushing this legislation. i urge adti yield back. mr. perry: i thank the gentleman from louisiana. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. mr. larsen: thank you, madamn is chair. i want to yield three minutes to the representative from virginia, representative buyer. the chair: the gentleman is roz -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: i rise in firm opposition to this bill. the utilizing space efficiently and improving technologies act. contrary to what the title would suggest, this bill is an irresponsible, partisan effort that would seriously harm not only our federal work force located in the national capital region, but simply ignores the practical realities of federal jobs. while i agree that we should always help our agencies run more efficiently and decrease spending where we reveals ignorance of the current process that g.s.a. undertakes when it comes to contracting, evaluations and consolidations. further, the bill exempts warehouses and laboratories from

space restrictions, but doesn't name secure classified information facilities as an exempted category. i'm concerned that this would cause negative implications for local facilities that have been designed specifically for use of scifspg and for our national defense work broadly. finally, this bill offer noes consideration for work -- offers no consideration for workers with alternative schedes those who have telework arrangements. don't get me wrong. many of our colleagues and i support the idea of r deral agencies consolidang■ spaces to repurpose parts of their budgets. they've already done that with the patent and trade office in my district. or to decrease spending. but this bill actually does the opposite. by cutting short contracts, we increase spending. g.s.a. already has agencies with consolidating unused spaces. if you take outheg.s.a.'s alreas easy to read this as just a partisan employ to -- ploy to move agency headquarters out of the national capital region and employees. there's no need to introduce the bill to mandate work that g.s.a.

already does and to threaten to remove agency workspaces arbitry rates. madam speaker, i have invested and managed real estate for many decades. this bill doesn't offer an appropriate metric to evaluate space usage, need or work productivity. i considered places in my car stores that we occupied by cars instead of people as wasted space. it's a matter of appropriateness. any member here who would allow their staff to work from home would be a hypocrite to oppose this bill. we need the best and brightest to want to work for the federal government. and we want to utilize telework and nontraditional hours or days where it's apprafter all, we wat productive and effective federal work force and imply -- applying a 1950's mentality of butts in seats five days a week doesn't reflect the actual work that most americans do. what if they need to spend every day in a scif or site visit? for these reasons i'll offer a motion to recommit this bill

back to committee. if rules would have permitted i would have offered a motion with an important amendment to this bill offered by representative titus this. amendment would ensure that all federal employees, including ones using alternative work schedules, are a utilization rates of federal buildings. this amendment would significantly alleviate some concerns coming from workers who use alternative work schedules and has access to r■ele workspaces would be threatened by this bill. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion i yield. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, madam speaker. historically for 20 years while this problem has been identified, these have historically been bipartisan. it was former president obama that advocated agencies to that agencies had far more space than they needed.

and to the gentleman that just testified, g.s.a. actually■- was to -- they want to do t they want to reduce the space. but the agencies won't allow t why would they? why would they? they get so much space, and they don't have to deal with managing it or not. they just get the space and they can continue on their other work with as much space as they need. sometimes 3,000 feet per employee. 3,000 square feet per employee. a lot of people in america would like to have a house that's 3,000 feet -- square feet for their whole family. and if they found out, if they knew if they were watching today and found out the federal government was paying for that, their taxes were paying for that when they couldn't afford it themselves, they won furious. the obama administration set a standard that agencies had to account for things like teleworking and actual space usage and planning for the space. an agency that may have 1,000

people assigned to a building, yet only a portion of those came to desks and space. what makes up for, it puts into consideration things like teleworking. the obama administration even proposed selling the department of labor building based on this type of space utilization and counting. more recently, i know the gentlewoman from the district of columbia has previously proposed legislation to move and sell the department of energy. folks say that republicans just want to kick federal employees out of their buildings, we don't. we would prefer they come backlo work, i think it's very reasonable for us to say that we want the building to be 60% occupied. 60%. that's, to me, a pretty good compromise with my friends on the other side of the aisle who are saying that, well, we just want to sell buildings and kick federal employees out of their

buildings. we don't. we want them to come to work. we want them to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. use the space efficiently. when you don't need it, like everybody else, give up that space to be utilized either by other agencies in the federal government or by the political subdivisions. some town or city where that building is locedve the advantage to use that space so that they can increase their tax rolls, so they can help their vendors on the street. so they can help their community. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chair. we have no further speakers. i'm ready to close if the majority is ready. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chair. i appreciate that. i do think that it is incumbent on me to characterize my

position and rize my friend's characterization of my position. which as i recall was to close buildings and kick out federal employees. that is not my position. in fact, in many ways i share the goals of the chair of the subcommittee that it's clear we have much more federally owned and leased space than is currently being used given the work schedules and changes that have taken place it is necessary for us to look at how best to consolidate that space. to right size that space given its usage. the problem i have is the hammer approach this particular bill takes by setting a hard and

fast 60% rule rather than rclooking at the flexibility necessary when you are considering agency by agency, division by division within those agencies and how that space can be used properly and most efficiently. we have worked in a bipartisan basis on a wide range of polici, including right sizing the federal real estate footprint. just yesterday we passed on suspension the fasta reform act, a bill that chairman himself sponsored that will expedite the disposal of excess federal property. when we work together, we can make some really good progress on this and other issues. but today's bill does by failing to take into account the complexity of the federal leasing process and using an incomplete and flawed metc l bu. i do welcome the opportunity to work with any member in good faith.

we have done that, again, many issues in the transportation and infrastructure committee. and we will all want to make genuine improvements on them. i do oppose this legislation. urge my colleagues to do the same. before yielding back the balance of my time, io enter in the record the statement of administration policy that the administration strongly opposes h.r. 6276. a letter from the afl-cio in its opposition to h.r. 6276. dated march 12. a letter dated march 11 there the farewell workers alliance, opposing h.r. 6276. and a letter dated march 8 from the american federation of government employees, opposing h.r. 6276. if i can enter those with unanimous consent i would appreciate that.'s

request is covered under general leave. mr. larsen: with that, mr. chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: mr. speaker, can i inquire to the time remaining. theminutes remaining. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to respond to my good friend from washington. i didn't meato mischaracterize his assessment or his comments. however, the speaker before you did essentially make those claims. while i'm here i want to characterize what the public seeing if they are reading the "washington times." here's an article from wednesday, december 6, 2023, the idea to fill empty federal buildings with illegal immigrants where d.h. headquarters is 69% unused, and social security offices are 93%

vacant. 93% vacantonder offices like mil with so many constituent calls when they can't get answers from the social security administration. we come back to work, but if they are not going to come back to work, my goodness, could we stop having everybody, including social security recipients, pay for the empty building? then there is another one from the "washington times" here dated thursday, september 21, telework's empty buildings opens the door for legionnaires' disease. isn't that wonderful. won't that be ghraib breakwhen the source of an outbreak comes from a vacant federal building we are paying for. here's another one, the i. to investigate federal offices left vacant by telework policies from the "washington times." the date is wednesda o 18, 2023. finally, ghost towns. federal office buildings are 80%

vacant, government fund audit finds. 80% vacant. we have an opportunity here that shouldn't be partisan, should be pretty simple. all wereing is, my goodness, federal agencies, can you come back to work at least 60%? at least 60%. is that too much? it's 10% above 50% which would be half empty. we find that very objectionable. but at least 60% should be this article is from the "washington times" dated thursday, october 26, 2023. mr. speaker, i'd like to have all these entered into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by mr. perry: sorry? the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. federal real property has remained on the g.a.o.'s high-risk list for more than 20

years. the government accountability office has said this is a high risk for the last 20 years. we are on the precipice. we are standing on the edge ■fof providing a solution to the excess space that exists that we keep paying for. at the same time, our debt has gone $34 trillion. by may it will be $35 trillion. we are not going to save trillions here, but we can save billions. and if you start adding up billions, maybe you'll finally get to trillions. we are not saving anything right now. we are not going to save any of this if we don't pass this oppo. speaker, to finally fix this problem, a problem that i will note historically has found bipartisan support to address the issue. even on this occasion, when the bill was lacking, we had a hearing, markup on it, friends on the other side of the aisle said would you listen to a way we could potentially improve it? we did and we worked together. you'll have an opportunity to

vote on that amendment shortly. the use it act of 2023 is reasonable. it is common sense legislation that simply says that ifoyees de back into the office, the taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the empty space. we don't this town, mr. speaker. extra money in this town, mr. speaker. nobody has any extra money. th is wher it's going, unnecessarily. we can consolidate, sell things off. some of these agencies probably get a new building at the right size where their workers would still have flex time, would telework where appropriate. where constituents, where our bosses, where the american people could access the services that they pay for and deserve to get because they do pay for them. mr. speaker, i do urge support of this bipartisan, soon-to-be:>