Congressional hearing spotlights confusion over rapid GSA property disposals and calls for measured implementation of new real‑estate rules

House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management members pressed federal officials and outside advisors on implementation of recent federal real‑estate reforms and the speed of property disposals announced by the General Services Administration.

Chairman Ezell, chair of the subcommittee, opened the hearing by saying the panel would examine “how we can make federal real estate work for the American taxpayer.” The session featured testimony from David Maroney of the Government Accountability Office and David Winstead of the Public Buildings Reform Board and drew sustained questioning from members including Ranking Member Stanton and representatives from districts named on recently published property lists.

The Government Accountability Office told the subcommittee that longstanding problems with federal real property include unreliable data, aging buildings and large deferred‑maintenance backlogs. "For more than 20 years, we've identified the management of federal property as a high‑risk area in need of substantial transformation," David Maroney said, adding that the pandemic highlighted the issues and created an opportunity to “right size” the portfolio. GAO cited prior findings that many agency headquarters had utilization rates of 25% or less, and some as low as 9%.

Members pointed to new statutory tools intended to accelerate portfolio reductions — notably the Use It Act and language included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (WERDA) that requires agencies to measure building utilization and sets a 60% occupancy benchmark for continuing space. Several members however said the GSA appears to be skipping required steps and moving immediately to large‑scale lease terminations and sales, producing confusion for agencies, landlords and the public.

David Winstead, a member of the Public Buildings Reform Board and a former public building commissioner, defended the board's effort to identify high‑value disposal candidates and described the board's analysis of dozens of buildings. "We are really realizing the potential to save billions of dollars for the federal taxpayer by recommending assets that are truly no longer needed," Winstead said. He said the board had analyzed a first set of high‑value assets and expected to report another round of recommendations to Congress within weeks.

Members pressed witnesses about tangible consequences of a rapid disposal timetable. Ranking Member Stanton and other lawmakers said landlords and tenants have received termination notices without clear timelines; contractors are uncertain whether ongoing projects should continue; and constituents worry about losing face‑to‑face government services at Social Security, VA and IRS offices. Representative Larson and others cited examples including a reported GSA notice to the National Transportation Safety Board that was later reversed and concerns about Bonneville Power Administration facilities that rely on lease payments funded by ratepayers rather than general tax dollars.

Witnesses told members that careful sequencing matters. GAO stressed that accurate utilization data — including badge‑swipe measures the Use It Act requires agencies to begin collecting within six months — and planning for consolidation and relocation costs are essential before finalizing disposals. Maroney said agencies need both time and funding to move, consolidate and avoid unintended service disruptions.

Multiple members asked why GSA did not appear; the committee requested that GSA Commissioner Mike Peters testify for oversight. Peters was referenced repeatedly by members as the official leading disposals but was not present at the hearing. Lawmakers also sought clarity about a widely reported GSA list of more than 400 ‘‘non‑core’’ assets that was published and later pulled from GSA’s site; witnesses said some items on that public list overlap with the board’s recommendations but that the board and GSA operate on different review timelines.

The hearing closed with members urging stronger communication, phased approaches for surplus assets in concentrated markets (including Washington, D.C.), and more deliberate coordination with local officials and agency customers. Several members said they supported the underlying goal of reducing waste but asked GSA and OMB to follow the statutory process and to ensure relocations would not impair mission‑critical functions.

The subcommittee left with no formal votes or directives recorded at the hearing itself, but with an explicit request that GSA leadership appear before the panel to answer outstanding questions and that agencies begin the utilization measurements required by statute.