<DOC>
[DOCID: f:45061.wais]
H.R. 404, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 404
TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949
TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF CERTAIN
SURPLUS PROPTERTY FOR USE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES
__________
JUNE 3, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-061 WASHINGTON : 1997
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
PETE SESSIONS, Texas CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
Carolina DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Counsel
Mark Brasher, Professional Staff Member
John Hynes, Professional Staff Member
Andrea Miller, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 3, 1997..................................... 1
Text of H.R. 404............................................. 6
Statement of:
Bono, Hon. Sonny, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 19
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Public Building
Service, General Services Administration................... 22
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California................................................. 13
Torres, Ascension (Sam), chairman, Joint Powers Authority;
Larry Smith, sheriff, Riverside County, accompanied by
Erick Schertell, sergeant and legal counsel, Riverside
County..................................................... 35
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bono, Hon. Sonny, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of....................... 20
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 10
Creed, Gordon, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Public Building
Service, General Services Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 24
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California, prepared statement of.......................... 14
Guthrie, Debbi Huffman, Monday Morning Group, prepared
statement of............................................... 59
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
International Association of Fire Chiefs, prepared statement
of......................................................... 73
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 5
Mullen, Tom, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, prepared
statement of............................................... 53
Smith, Larry, sheriff, Riverside County, prepared statement
of......................................................... 43
Torres, Ascension (Sam), chairman, Joint Powers Authority,
prepared statement of...................................... 37
H.R. 404, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT
OF 1949
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn, Davis of Virginia, Sununu,
Maloney, and Davis of Illinois.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and
counsel; Mark Brasher and John Hynes, professional staff
members; Andrea Miller, clerk; Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk.
Mr. Horn. A quorum being the present, the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology will come to
order.
In 1949, the Commission on the Organization of the
executive branch of the Government, known as the first Hoover
Commission, recommended the creation of an agency, the General
Services Administration, to coordinate purchases, utilization,
and disposal of real and personal property. The Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 set forth the
rules for the disposal of surplus Federal real estate.
The Federal Property Act created a series of public benefit
discounts whereby local government could obtain surplus Federal
real estate. Today, we are reviewing a proposal to create a new
public benefit. The current categories of public benefits for
real property include public health, education, recreation,
national service activities, historic monuments, correctional
facilities, and shipping ports only in the case of base closure
facilities.
H.R. 404, which has been introduced by our colleague,
Representative Ken Calvert, would expand the public benefit
discount for ``correctional facilities'' to cover ``other law
enforcement'' and ``public safety'' activities.
H.R. 404 has resulted from the following: Officials in
Riverside County, CA, wanted to place a coroner's office and a
law enforcement and fire training academy on surplus Federal
property at the March Air Force Base. That surplus property had
become available through the actions of the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Commission. The county would like the
land and the buildings for these functions to be made available
through one, not two, Federal agencies. Representative Calvert
has drafted H.R. 404 to address this and similar situations.
The subcommittee will hear from a number of witnesses who
are involved in the administration of public benefit discount
programs at some level, including a top official from the
General Services Administration.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from
California, will join us to discuss this important issue. She
has introduced S. 203, a companion bill to H.R. 404, in the
Senate. Representative Calvert, author of H.R. 404, is here
today. So is Representative Sonny Bono.
From the administration, we are joined by Gordon Creed. He
is Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Property Disposal in the
Public Building Service of the General Services Administration.
Also testifying today are two officials from California:
Larry Smith, sheriff of Riverside County, CA; and Ascension
(Sam) Torres, the chairman of the Joint Powers Authority, a
local redevelopment agency set up by the State of California.
Welcome to each of you.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Stephen Horn and Hon.
Carolyn B. Maloney, and the text of H.R. 404 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.005
Mr. Horn. We now call on Representative Calvert to outline
the fine piece of legislation he has drafted.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
kind introduction, and I appreciate assistance in putting this
hearing together today.
First, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein in advance--
I understand she will also be here--for helping me introduce
the Senate version of this important legislation, and she will
be describing that shortly.
I also would like to thank my good friend, Sonny Bono, who
I understand will also be here shortly. We share Riverside
County together. I represent the west end of Riverside County,
and Representative Bono the east end. He is also a member of
the House National Security Committee, and he has a special
insight, being a former mayor of Palm Springs, as to what it is
like to work with Federal levels on the local level, Federal
agencies.
The area we share, along with Representative George Brown
and Representative Jerry Lewis, is known as the Inland Empire.
This part of California has felt the impact of base closures at
Norton and George Air Force Bases and the realignment of March
to an Air Force Reserve base.
I would like to thank Mr. Gordon Creed from GSA for taking
the time to be here and testify in front of the committee. I
would like to thank and welcome my close associates from
Riverside, CA: Sheriff Larry Smith; Mr. Sam Torres, chairman of
the March Joint Powers Commission at March Air Force Base;
Debbi Guthrie, a member of the Riverside County Monday Morning
Group; and Sergeant Eric Schertell of the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department.
Finally, again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
cosponsoring H.R. 404 and allowing the opportunity to have this
hearing today.
Mr. Chairman, this issue first came to my attention as a
result of a meeting which took place last year between some of
our local community leaders and Mr. Dick Ward, deputy director
of operations for the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
I was informed the Department of Justice is prohibited by
statute from sponsoring excess Federal property for the purpose
of law enforcement and/or public safety training facilities.
The agency can only convey surplus Federal properties for
prisons. H.R. 404 and its Senate companion, which is authored
by our friend, Senator Feinstein--thank you--S. 203, will
correct this restrictive language and allow the Department of
Justice to apply its considerable expertise to sponsoring the
use of excess Federal property for training of law enforcement
and public safety officials.
To date, there are over 25 bipartisan cosponsors of the
measure in the Congress. As it is currently written, H.R. 404
authorizes the transfer to State and local governments of
certain surplus property for use for law enforcement or public
safety purposes.
However, I understand that the General Services
Administration has some concerns with the vagueness of the term
``public safety.'' To address their concerns, I have agreed to
and intend to support an amendment that would change the
language to state that the bill authorizes the transfer to
State and local governments of surplus property for use for law
enforcement or fire or rescue or life safety purposes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not solely intended for
Riverside and March Air Force Base in California. This measure
is applicable to all those military bases which are in the
process of being closed or realigned. Actually, this change in
law would apply to all excess real property, Federal excess
real property. Thus, any community in the country could benefit
from this improvement in the law. With the possible enactment
of a new round of base closures, this bill becomes even more
imperative.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce again
Sheriff Larry Smith, who will be testifying soon, and my friend
and colleague, Sonny Bono, who joined us, for his help in
putting together this important legislation, as I mentioned
earlier, in an area that we both represent.
Sheriff Smith is the elected Sheriff of Riverside County
and the chief law enforcement authority of the county. He
commands California's fourth largest sheriff's department,
supervising more than 2,300 personnel. He entered the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department in 1966 and started his career as a
deputy sheriff in the Blythe, CA, jail and patrol station and
has since held each successive rank in assignments across the
county.
Sheriff Smith was promoted to chief deputy in 1987 by then
Sheriff Cois Byrd and was elected as Riverside County's elected
sheriff, winning the office in the June 1993 primary. He holds
a bachelor's degree in public management from the University of
Pepperdine and has completed graduate work at the University of
Southern California. We are proud to have him here today.
Also with us is Sam Torres, my good friend from Perris, CA,
who is chairman of the March Joint Powers Commission at March
Air Force Reserve Base in California. Mr. Torres was selected
chairman in January 1997. In 1991, Mr. Torres was elected to
the City Council of Perris, an incorporated city of 31,000 in
central Riverside County, which Mr. Bono and I both share as
far as representing the city.
As a member of the Perris City Council, Mr. Torres has
accepted a number of related responsibilities. He is currently
a member of the board of directors of the League of California
Cities and held that position since 1996. He is also a member
of the Latino Elected Officials Caucus of the League of
California Cities and served as president of that caucus in
1993 and 1994. Councilman Torres resides in Perris with his
wife of 18 years, Susan, and their children, Jessica and Sammy.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues and
the committee for agreeing to hold this important hearing and
look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ken Calvert follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.008
Mr. Horn. We thank the gentleman very much for appearing.
I am delighted now to welcome the senior Senator from
California, one of the hardest working Senators I have known
over 50 years and the person who gets our legislation through
on the Senate side.
Thank you very much for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
good to see you again.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to support House
Resolution 404. I would like to thank the two distinguished
Members on my left and thank you for doing this.
Obviously, we first learned about this from Riverside, from
the Sheriff's Office and from the Reuse Committee. This is
rather straightforward legislation. Essentially, what it does
for the first time, is really allow local jurisdictions and
local law enforcement and fire fighting to obtain land on
closed bases for the purpose of training.
As I understand the law now, they cannot receive this land;
they have leases. It is my understanding that what the
Riverside Sheriff's Department has done is engaged in five 1-
year leases for about 350 acres, including a noncommissioned
officers academy. They use this for training purposes.
They would like to participate in some private-public
partnerships with respect to these training exercises but
really cannot do so with any degree of certainty. As you well
know, today the Department of Justice can only engage in a land
conveyance if it is for a prison facility. Therefore, the
Sheriff's Department has to go through a bureaucratic maze with
HHS and other departments if they wish to accomplish this.
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman--and I would hope my
colleagues on my left would agree--that a major priority of
Government is public safety. Law enforcement training and fire-
fighting training not only saves the lives of the individuals
in the forces, it also saves the lives of the civilian sector.
So well trained fire fighters, well trained police officers,
well trained deputy sheriffs, are extraordinarily important as
a matter of public policy.
I think this conveyance bill would essentially say to local
government that you have an opportunity to obtain land on these
closed bases. I can tell you, as a former mayor of San
Francisco, that many of our law enforcement training programs
are in less than suitable circumstances. Three hundred acres is
a good chunk of San Francisco. We don't have anything like
that. This would mean that land could be conveyed at Alameda
Naval Air Station, at Treasure Island, at various closed bases
really throughout the United States, to provide for good and
positive law enforcement training.
So I am very happy to support this bill. I am introducing a
similar bill in the Senate. I am hopeful that you will take the
lead and pass it expeditiously, and I will do my best on the
other side.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.013
Mr. Horn. Good. We thank you for coming over, and we
appreciate the time, and we thank you for that excellent staff
you have.
I see Menda sitting in the front row over there. We are
very lucky people when we have staff people like you have.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That is very much
appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
I am now delighted to call on my colleague who represents
one part of Riverside County, CA, Representative Sonny Bono,
who will make his supporting statement on behalf of this bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing today. I appreciate it.
I want to thank Ken Calvert for writing this legislation
and Senator Feinstein for similar legislation and for taking
the time to go and observe this and understand it clearly and
to explain it the way she has. She has really said it all.
I guess to reiterate somewhat, I think her point was that
if we turn these kind of things over to bureaucracy, having the
opportunity to have a training center like this, where we can
focus so directly on law prevention and fire safety and do it
so well, and have a pilot program that could go across the
Nation like this and not be interfered with by bureaucracy,
because we all know that a bureaucracy would get involved,
start dictating the terms, and the whole thing would fall apart
and become a frustrating, unfortunate circumstance.
However, I was fortunate enough to visit this site. It is
running so efficiently, so effectively, and doing so well, that
now Los Angeles Police Force wants to become part of it. It is
a pilot program that can go across the Nation and be a winner
for us all.
So I wholeheartedly support this legislation. I wish you
could all see how effectively it runs and how it is not
interfered with by complicated bureaucracy, and it leaves it up
to the local government and the local areas to handle it and
work an area that they know well and works best.
So I hope you see fit to approve this legislation. Again, I
want to thank Ken Calvert for being so active in writing this
and Senator Feinstein. I support it wholeheartedly.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Sonny Bono follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.015
Mr. Horn. We thank you very much for coming.
If there are not other comments from the two
Representatives, we will move to panel two, which will be the
Honorable Gordon Creed, deputy assistant commissioner, Public
Building Service, General Services Administration.
Mr. Creed, I think you know the routine with the Government
Reform and Oversight Committee. If you will, Mr. Creed, just
stand and take the oath.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that the gentleman confirmed
the oath.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GORDON CREED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Creed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members.
I am Gordon Creed, the deputy assistant commissioner of the
Office of Property Disposal in the Public Building Service of
the General Services Administration.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss House Resolution 404, a bill which would amend
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to
authorize the transfer to State and local governments of
certain surplus property if used for law enforcement and public
safety purposes.
I note that Congressman Calvert's comment made earlier is a
step in the right direction with regard to the public safety
issue that I had raised in the testimony I had submitted for
the committee.
I would like to continue with my testimony, because there
is a lot of misunderstanding as to the descent and distribution
of property owned by the public both through the Government and
as it becomes available for reuse by State and local
communities.
The Federal Property Administrative Services Act, which we
generally refer to as the Federal Property Act, is the
governing authority for the disposal of most Federal real
property. Under the Federal Property Act, GSA is invested with
the responsibility for administering an economic and efficient
system for the orderly disposition of real property which the
Government no longer needs.
Under normal procedures, real property which is no longer
needed by a Federal agency is reported to GSA as excess real
property. GSA first notifies other landholding Federal agencies
that such property is available for further Federal
utilization. If we receive a properly justified request for
further use of the property for further Federal purposes, it is
then transferred to the requesting agency. Such transfers among
Federal agencies fulfills the congressional objective stated in
the Federal Property Act which is to minimize executive
agencies' expenditures for the acquisition of property through
the efficient and effective utilization of excess property.
If there is no further Federal requirement for a property,
it then becomes available for disposal as surplus real
property. Under existing provisions of law, eligible State and
local government units and certain nonprofit institutions may
acquire surplus real property for restricted public purposes at
monetary discounts of up to 100 percent where such purposes
reflect the highest and best use of the property.
Eligible public uses include public parks and recreation,
historic monuments, public airports, public health, public
education, port use, correctional facilities, highways, and
wildlife conservation.
In accordance with the requirements of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, property--Federal properties
determined suitable by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development are also made available for homeless assistance on
a priority basis by GSA in coordination with the Department of
Health and Human Resources. State and local public bodies may
purchase surplus real property by negotiated sale at fair
market value for unrestricted use.
Property which is not transferred for public purposes to
non-Federal public bodies is generally offered for sale to the
public by GSA through competitive bid offerings and public
auctions. Such sales benefit the locality by placing the
property in productive use, returning it to the tax rolls, and
providing the taxpayer a measure of cost recovery. Proceeds
from the sale of surplus real property are generally placed in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is administered by
the Department of the Interior, and in turn provides grants for
local park and recreational projects.
In every decision involving the disposal of excess
property, we are required by law to consider the environmental
and cultural impacts resulting from proposed dispositions in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other
relevant statutes.
Hence, the GSA real property disposition process involves
the full participation of the public, the State and local
government, and Federal agencies.
GSA has not taken a formal position on H.R. 404 which seeks
to amend section 203(p) of the Federal Property Act by
expanding the qualifying public purpose from correctional
facilities purposes to law enforcement and public safety
purposes. My comments therefore are technical in nature.
The Federal Property Act was amended in 1984 to add section
203(p) in response to a recommendation made by the Attorney
General's Task Force on Violent Crime. The task force concluded
at that time that State and local governments were in need of
additional resources to reduce prison overcrowding, and the
conveyance of surplus real property for this purpose was seen
as a means to help correct this problem.
The rest of my testimony with regard to the correctional
facility purposes and to the public safety purposes I think was
addressed earlier by Congressman Calvert, where he suggests
that the term ``law enforcement and public safety'' would now
read ``law enforcement and/or fire and rescue purposes.'' I
think that is more clear of an intent by Congress for purposes
of administering this amendment to the Federal Property Act.
Mr. Chairman, this would conclude my statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you and the other members
of the subcommittee may wish to ask.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Creed follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.020
Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you very much for that very
thorough background as to the role--the extent of surplus
property and GSA's role in it. Your testimony did raise a
number of general questions.
The program agencies sponsor land conveyances for these
public benefit discounts. What sort of oversight is performed
by these various program agencies to ensure that the property
transferred was not put into another unapproved use or sold?
Does GSA have any role in this oversight and whether from a
survey standpoint, coordination, providing guidance--how do you
work that process?
Mr. Creed. Within Title II of the Federal Property Act,
different executive agencies have the right to dispose of
surplus real property for a particular public use, and those
agencies are also required to monitor the use of the property
for its compliance of the public purpose.
With regard to the General Services Administration, we are
charged by statute to monitor and comply the conveyance of
properties for correctional facility use and for fish and
wildlife use.
We have a compliance program that goes region to region and
identifies on a regular basis properties to be visited, surveys
the intended use or the actual use of the property, and ensures
that the property is not being appropriated to a nonapproved
use in violation with the terms and conditions in the deed.
Where the property has been found to be in noncompliance,
generally the agency--in this instance, the GSA--would request
for the property to be reverted.
The Department of Education has a compliance program. The
Department of Health and Human Services has also a compliance
program, as does the Department of Interior.
GSA generally meets with the other executive agencies and
coordinates to find and apply best practices where, for
example, if there is one State that may have several different
properties, it might be best practices today to have one
surveyor to go and review all public benefit conveyances rather
than have five agencies go for five different times for five
different purposes. We are looking to try to re-engineer our
approach to meet the best practices of the industry as if we
were a corporation.
Mr. Horn. Is there a certain timetable GSA has on which
they try to see what has happened to this disposed property
that became surplus?
Mr. Creed. We have a regular 5-year plan where, in 5 years,
all properties will have been completely surveyed. So it would
not be once; it would probably be 20 percent per year for 5
years, to have a total review for compliance purposes, and then
the sixth year we start over.
Mr. Horn. Is that a GSA-paid official, or consultant, or
appraiser, or however one might contract?
Mr. Creed. Generally, the Office of Property Disposal will
try to identify properties within an area when a real estate
specialist is going into an area to review property that is
being reported excess by an executive agency, to also use the
trip as a two-fer, meaning they will not only visit a
particular military base or Coast Guard facility, but if there
is also additional property in the area, to use that occasion,
those costs incurred for that trip, to try to get extra mileage
by going and also checking on compliance of other properties.
In essence, they will try to find the shortest path here
for purposes of compliance.
Mr. Horn. Do you have an estimate of how many properties
GSA has that they would have to look at 20 percent a year,
let's say, over a 5-year period, to cover the number, and you
would have even more at the end of that 5-year period?
Mr. Creed. Well, for the General Services Administration,
we would be reviewing only two categories of conveyances, for
fish and wildlife and for correctional facility. We have those
numbers, and I would be happy to provide those to the
committee.
Mr. Horn. If you have them with you right now; do you?
Mr. Creed. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Horn. We will put them in the record then at this
point.
How many reversions of property have you had because it
didn't meet the intended use for which the property was given
to a nonprofit or local government or whatever?
Mr. Creed. I do not have the actual numbers, but I do know
of instances where the Government has conveyed property and the
property has not been placed in or maintained for the intended
use, and therefore there was a requirement that the Government
revert the property, bring the property back for further
redeployment. I do know of instances where that has occurred. I
will be happy to provide that additional information to the
committee.
Mr. Horn. Sure. Without objection, it will be included at
this point in the record.
As I understand it, some of the public benefit discounts
are to be used in perpetuity, recreation as one example. So
that wouldn't be just a 5-year matter. You are saying you
would--we are looking at the fish and wildlife to see proper
usage there, and you are also looking at correctional
facilities.
Mr. Creed. Yes.
Mr. Horn. Now, is that because they are primarily in your
jurisdiction? Correctional comes under Justice, doesn't it?
Mr. Creed. That is correct. But under the Property Act, the
deed is executed by the administrator. The Department of
Justice's role is to review the application of use, and then
GSA's role is to continue for the compliance.
Mr. Horn. If the Department of Education gives a public
benefit for education, is the Department of Education supposed
to go out and look to see that that school or whatever happened
on that property is still there every 5 years, or is GSA
supposed to do that?
Mr. Creed. It would be the Department of Education.
Mr. Horn. See, I guess part of me says why doesn't GSA run
this whole surplus property operation, get the advice of the
relevant Cabinet Department, but where you have a conflict
between two Departments or a nervousness that they are not
carrying out the law--let's say Education is arguing over, is
law enforcement training really an education kind of thing?
Now, I happen to be an educator. I have spent 18 years of
my life as a university president and 18 years of my life as
one of the founders and later as chairman of the board of the
National Institute of Corrections. So I spent a lot of time on
correctional problems.
The fact is that the law enforcement training, or the
deputy sheriffs or police in an area, and the role of
correctional training, there is a lot of overlap, there is a
lot of educational content in these courses, and I don't know
why we can't have the agencies give you advice and, if there is
some difference, GSA has the final say on behalf of the Federal
Government.
It seems to me that was the vision of GSA, was to get one
group that you could hold accountable for the stewardship of
Federal surplus property. I would just ask, what do you think
about that?
Mr. Creed. In the spirit of re-engineering, we always find
that there are economies of scale to be recognized where
activities are combined. So as to whether this might be a more
efficient way, it very well may be, yes.
Mr. Horn. It just seems to me you are the specialists in
property usage. It seems to me if somebody is going to be an
objective source as to whether this property has been used in
accord with the actual benefit given to it, that GSA could
imply some consistency across the board and would also be able
to handle the reuse of that property if it has been misused,
both the reversion, the advertising, and going around maybe the
same priority system. You would have to go around when you were
giving a public benefit the second time.
But I would think in terms of the administration, with the
President's goal to have 100,000 police and/or deputies on the
streets to help reduce the level of violence and improve law
enforcement in this country, that the application of this area
for law enforcement training would be right in line with what
the administration is trying to encourage.
Do you feel that way?
Mr. Creed. I believe that the property could lend itself
toward the potential reuse being sought here by the Riverside
County, yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. They are also running into a problem in terms of
the coroner function. I happened to head a university that had
a very distinguished criminal justice program and forensic
program in the chemistry department working for criminal
justice, and I can assure you, in training of police and in
training of deputy sheriffs, if they are to be properly
trained, there is a role for what the coroner does. And if it
is right there, handy, young, or newly sworn-in recruits can
see what a coroner does and understand that.
A lot of court cases, as we know recently, have been lost
by the inability of either the law enforcement personnel or the
coroner's staff to be able to state the case in simple English
to a jury. I would think that this shouldn't be something that
we say, gee, sorry, we can't do it. And you are not saying it,
it is another agency that conceivably is saying it, but we have
got to look at these in a broader context, because they are
related, they are not something 180 degrees apart. They are
something that any progressive training program ought to
utilize. At least as I read this file, that is what struck me.
What is wrong with the coroner using the facilities and
also having law enforcement training and still correctional
facility, whatever?
Mr. Creed. What GSA has attempted to do over the last few
years is to be more flexible with the local communities. Where
a local community has applied for property for public education
use and found that, due to circumstances beyond their control,
it is not feasible to continue to use the property, in the past
GSA would require that the property revert back to the
Government.
We found this was frustrating much of the local community,
when the community would come and say, ``We could have applied
for it as a historic monument, but we selected public
education. We are very sorry we made the wrong choice.''
Our policy today is to allow the transfer of restrictive
covenants from a particular property to another qualifying
public benefit discount conveyance. Therefore, we would allow
the grantee, generally the city, to remain the owner of the
property. They would retain possession of the property. Rather
than the property being restricted for one particular use, we
would allow it to be changed, and therefore not upset the
intent and the spirit of the community to redeploy for its true
purposes, which were not clear at the application process.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, forensic science, it could
be public health type purposes very clearly, but then again it
is also combined with educational purposes, public education.
In fact, there might even be a hybrid. This is one of the areas
that does cause some frustration for a local community to
select between option A or option B. These are the available
options. Sometimes A doesn't fit.
Mr. Horn. I think you are absolutely right. Does your
statue, according to your general counsel, need a
liberalization so you can cross over these categories and not
have to feel that it is either/or, but it is both/and?
Mr. Creed. I could obtain an opinion of counsel and provide
that for the committee if that would help.
Mr. Horn. If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to
clarify that. We will put it in the record at this point
without objection. I think that would be very helpful, not that
we like to reopen a lot of statutes, but you have a lot of
experience now since the Hoover Commission dealing with surplus
Federal property. It seems to me if it would give you the
flexibility you need to be carrying out the spirit of the law
and to turn it over to public entities which are higher on the
running than just putting it up for auction, unless they are
going to turn it into a parking lot or a mall or something. But
it just seems to me you need that flexibility. So if there is a
problem here, I think we ought to know about it and try to make
a change, as suggested by GSA.
Mr. Creed. We will prepare that.
Mr. Horn. Very good.
Mr. Creed. Request to the counsel's office and have them
promptly respond back to the committee.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. I now yield time to the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, first of all, you certainly have a way of
attracting Californians. I thought for a moment that I was out
West and everybody from California was here.
Mr. Horn. Let me say to the gentleman, on voting day we
wish we were in Chicago.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. Mr. Creed, is
this legislation necessary, or could the purpose be served
under the existing base realignment and closure laws?
Mr. Creed. That is a very good question. Under the Base
Closure and Realignment Act, the Administrator of General
Services was required to delegate his authority to the
Secretary of Defense. There is no present provision that
provides for the conveyance of surplus real property for law
enforcement purposes.
There is one additional authority that under BRAC, Base
Closure and Realignment Act, that was given by Congress to the
Secretary of the Department of Defense, and that is the
authority to convey property for economic development purposes.
I think they are called EDC, economic development conveyances.
Generally, as I understand the EDC process, the properties
that are available for such conveyances must be for job
creation and to stimulate the local economic development
because of the economic conditions created by the military
closure of an installation.
I don't know whether the Department of Defense would view
the intended activities at this subject property to qualify for
economic development purposes. So there may be a big question
mark there as to whether the properties could be conveyed under
DOD's authority. Therefore, it comes back to is there another
provision to provide for the conveyance of property for law
enforcement. No, there is not, not in the Property Act. There
is for public education, there is for public health, but, no,
there is not for law enforcement purposes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. How much property are we talking
about now? How big?
Mr. Creed. At March Air Force Base?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Creed. I have some facts, but I think probably Sheriff
Smith may have more accurate facts than me. I believe it may be
300 acres for one parcel and another parcel with a hospital
complex is 25 acres approximately.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And is all of it being proposed to
be used?
Mr. Creed. I am not certain with regard to the proposal for
reuse. The legislation as drafted is generic legislation, it is
not site-specific, so what portion would be eligible for
conveyance under this authority, that decision has not been
made.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. OK. In sub-paragraph 4, there is an
unusual retroactive provision which suggests that a property
previously transferred for use as a correctional facility
could, with the approval of the Attorney General, be
transferred to a different public entity for use in a law
enforcement or public safety purpose.
Would you have any opinion about this provision?
Mr. Creed. Not at this time.
Mr. Davis. So actually it is just simply suggesting that as
long as it is for law enforcement use, it does not really
matter which entity has it, or if it is found that a different
entity could use it for the same or similar purposes, then the
act would still be in force. Is that sort of the understanding?
Mr. Creed. We have not looked at that provision as to the
scope of its implementation. It appears to provide some
flexibility for properties that had previously been conveyed
for a correctional facility, may now be conveyed or by
reformation made to allow for law enforcement purposes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The center has already been
established. That is, the training center has already been
established at the base and plans are being made now, I
understand, for police and fire stations and a coroner's
office. Do you know what this does to the value of the land or
the value of the facility itself?
Mr. Creed. I am sorry, could I ask you to repeat the
question?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The training center has already been
established and I understand that plans are being made to
police and fire stations and a coroner's office. I guess my
question was just simply, do you have an idea of what this does
for the value of the property?
Mr. Creed. No. 1, I don't know what the value is of the
subject property at March Air Force Base. If we were to obtain
an appraisal, I think those matters would be addressed by the
appraiser as to any in-place use for such purposes as to how
the property would be valued with these types of improvements
and activities in place. But I wouldn't know at this time.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think it is a tremendous use
actually of the property. I think it is a creative way of
making use of property which otherwise in all likelihood may
very well be fallow. So I certainly commend the authors of the
legislation and wish I had been a cosponsor. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. We certainly can add you to the bill. I am sure
the gentleman from part of Riverside County will be delighted
to file the appropriate form, as soon as we are in session.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horn. I agree with you on that. I thought for a while
you were going to say there goes the neighborhood. I mean, is
it the coroner or what, in terms of having any residential
housing out there? But, I don't know. It just seems to me that
this makes a lot of sense.
Does the gentleman from New Hampshire have any questions?
Mr. Sununu. No.
Mr. Horn. We thank you very much for coming. Mr. Creed, can
you stay with us for a while as we have the third panel? Just
keep your seat there. We will have the third panel up, and if
questions come up, it is an easy way to resolve things.
Panel three, Mr. Torres, Mr. Smith, accompanied by Mr.
Schertell. I will introduce you individually once you have
started testifying.
Gentleman, we have a tradition on this committee of taking
the oath for all witnesses except Members of Congress.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all three witnesses have
affirmed. We will just follow the agenda we have laid out here,
where we will have first Ascension Sam Torres, the chairman of
the Joint Powers Authority. You might explain to us, Mr.
Torres, how that works in relation to this surplus property.
STATEMENTS OF ASCENSION (SAM) TORRES, CHAIRMAN, JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY; LARRY SMITH, SHERIFF, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ACCOMPANIED
BY ERICK SCHERTELL, SERGEANT AND LEGAL COUNSEL, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
Mr. Torres. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, members of the committee, for allowing us to come here and
testify on behalf of the Sheriff's Department and explain a
little bit about March Joint Powers Commission and its support
of H.R. 404.
As was already stated, the March Air Force Base was closed
as a result of a 1993 BRAC action. When it was announced in
1993, the JPA was formed through the agencies, the surrounding
political entities of the county of Riverside, the city of
Riverside, the city of Moreno Valley, and the city of Perris.
We formed, agreed, there were equal voting shares on this
commission. Unlike some of our local fellow redevelopment
agencies, we agreed, we formed, and we moved forward.
The planning process included a screening of the surplus
properties, as I stated earlier, for the priority use by other
DOD agencies, Federal departments and homes assistance
providers. When this was completed, the land and buildings that
were not claimed by any of these eligible entities were then
analyzed for community reuse, and at the March Air Force Base,
the March Joint Powers Commission approved a master reuse plan
that has become the guiding policy for the conveyance of the
surplus policies.
During this planning process, the 1994 Riverside County
Sheriff's Department presented a proposal to the JPC to use the
existing noncommissioned officers academy as a public safety
training center. This proposal was embraced by the community
and by the JPC, and subsequently we approved and supported the
365-acre site which was identified. This, I believe, was the
site of the training facility, and doesn't include the hospital
itself, which I believe was pretty actively stated was
approximately 20 acres. That is now the Ben Clark public
training facility, which promises to be a model for training of
fire and safety and police officers.
In regards to the property conveyance, disposition of
surplus Federal property can be accomplished via a number of
different conveyance methods. When public use of the property
is planned, the most expedient and cost-effective method for
transferring ownership is through a public benefit conveyance
process.
The proposed new owner applies either to the current owner
of the surplus Federal property, in this case the Air Force, or
through some sponsoring Federal agency. Although the creation
of the public training center is a unique opportunity, there is
currently no sponsoring Federal agency that has been given the
authority to convey the property for the specific use.
The March Joint Power Commission supports the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department for receiving a PBC transfer of the
proposed site for permanent use as a public safety training
center.
As a solution, we support H.R. 404 as that method of
conveyance that would allow the sheriffs to take over the
property. The Sheriff's Department now does occupy a portion of
the site and the training of fire fighters and police officers
is occurring at March Air Force Base. The Joint Powers
Authority needs your help to make this a permanent asset to law
enforcement in southern California. In the process, the
training center becomes a fine example of the local community
taking advantage of an unfortunate base closure.
The result is a win-win situation that should be supported
in any way possible. We urge your adoption of H.R. 404.
Again, for us as a local reuse authority that has been
charged over the last 4 years to find a suitable use for this
property, it is for us a model to demonstrate not only to the
local communities, but I think nationally an effective way of
reuse of disposed property. We wholeheartedly support the
Sheriff's application and will continue to be here to answer
any questions or any specific questions to March Air Force
Base, the Joint Powers Commission and its role in this process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torres follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.023
Mr. Horn. We thank you. Before I ask Sheriff Smith to
speak, I would like to clarify the exact acreage. In your
testimony you say by 1996, the buildings plus a 365-acre site
was identified, and you said for fire, safety, police. So that
is where that training and pistol range, whatever else is
needed, would be, on that acreage; is that correct?
Mr. Torres. Yes.
Mr. Horn. Sheriff, you are free to get in here. We wanted
to get the numbers right to start with. Then you are saying 20
acres besides that would be the coroner facility?
Mr. Torres. They are noncontiguous prompt properties. The
hospital, which would be the coroner's office, is separate from
the contiguous 365 acres which does contain all of the old NCO
training facility.
Mr. Horn. How far away is the coroner's area?
Mr. Torres. My estimation would probably be perhaps a mile.
Mr. Horn. A mile. So these are not contiguous properties.
These are two different properties on a vast base of thousands
of acres, I assume. What is the total acreage of March?
Mr. Smith. Approximately 7,000.
Mr. Horn. 7,000 acres. It is a strategic air command base,
so the runways are pretty long. OK. I think we have got that
straight.
Now, Sheriff Larry Smith of Riverside County, he is
accompanied by Eric Schertell, sergeant and legal counsel for
Riverside County.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Horn. Honorable Members, I
am Larry Smith, sheriff of Riverside County. My agency, along
with a host of partners, is currently operating the Clark Park
training center at March Base in southern California.
A quick point of clarification for Congressman Davis, I was
born in Illinois and lived there in my youth, and Mr. Schertell
was born and raised in Rhode Island. So we do have some other
diversity, other than all being from California.
But I am here today to present testimony on H.R. 404
authored by Congressman Calvert and urge that it be approved
by, moved by this committee.
H.R. 404 and its companion bill, S. 203 authored by Senator
Feinstein, and I appreciate her appearance here today, will
provide the means for the Department of Justice to sponsor the
transfer of surplus Federal real property to local agencies for
public safety use. For purposes of my testimony today, public
safety is intended to refer to emergency first responders,
fire, emergency medical personnel, and law enforcement
officers.
The Riverside County's Sheriff's Department would directly
benefit by this bill, as we will seek the transfer of certain
land at March Air Force Base in Riverside County, CA.
Traditionally, public safety and law enforcement training has
been accomplished separately by individual agencies throughout
the State of California, and, frankly, throughout this Nation.
However, we believe that we have a better way. We seek to
provide a consolidated training and education program available
to all public safety agencies at a central location.
We believe that if you train together, you are going to
work more effectively together in emergency scenes, where every
second counts and where the loss of time may well mean the loss
of life.
At the scene of emergencies, those who respond first must
work quickly and efficiently. However, law enforcement
officers, fire department personnel, and emergency medical
technicians, must also work cooperatively. Each agency has its
independent responsibility, but they are also clearly
interdependent. Each must know the responsibilities of the
other in order to work effectively. Rather than wait for years
of experience to buildup to fill in the gaps, we propose to
include this as part of the basic training. That is why the
Sheriff's Department and fire department have established a
consolidated training center at March Air Force Base.
The project includes a consolidated public safety training
center and resources, also an emergency operations center for
law enforcement and fire operations, and also the ability to
provide temporary housing to support emergency workers.
We are also master planning the site for a Sheriff's patrol
station and a fire station, which would provide basic service
to the surrounding community while connected to our training
curriculum.
At the site of the current hospital, the second item, the
plan is to install the Office of the Coroner in that facility
on two floors, to use an additional two floors in partnership
with a local university to provide forensic science training,
as well as emergency medical training for personnel and use the
remaining balance for administrative support functions and our
technical and forensic services, such as CAL-ID, which is our
automated fingerprint system in California.
We recognize that there is a great potential for this type
of project to be replicated nationwide at military bases that
may be closed or otherwise considered for alternative uses, and
we believe that other programs that are responsive to the
public's need will be created by local agencies if they are
given access to surplus Federal property.
In terms of Federal agency sponsorship of general law
enforcement project, there is no single agency or collection of
agencies that can fully sponsor our current project or the
others I would anticipate seeing in the future. I clearly
appreciate the efforts of Mr. Creed of the General Services
Agency, who we met with to assist us in identifying the issues
here.
The Department of Education can only handle the training
aspect and the Department of Health and Human Services can
handle the coroner function, and maybe some of the emergency
medical training issues. But the result is you have a split-up
of the project and you are accountable already to two different
agencies, and we believe that that will not fully cover our
project, and also will multiply our administrative coordination
and reporting problems.
We have met and discussed the matter with the Department of
Education. They confirmed that they can't handle the entire
project, as well as meeting with representatives of Health and
Human Services, who also confirmed they cannot handle the
entire project. So the Department of Justice is the natural
sponsor, I think, for a law enforcement related project.
We seek their participation as a sponsor, and we think that
this is critical to our success. If you think about it, it
seems a reasonable adjustment to consider in the current
transfer authorization bill. We all agree, I think, that public
safety and law enforcement activities are a high priority to
all citizens and public safety is everybody's business.
H.R. 404 would open the base reuse process to law
enforcement and public safety agencies nationwide. It doesn't
seek a higher priority for public safety projects; it just
simply creates access where no access has been available. The
Department of Justice, GSA, would hold us to the same standards
for review and approval of applications, and the necessary
processes and controls of these applications could remain in
place.
Public safety agencies would still be required to meet the
appropriate test of activity and program services or lose those
resources. Clearly by this bill, we are asking for access, but
to also be held to the standards that everybody else must be
held to, no more, no less. We believe through the passage of
the bill, we will be able to implement a project that will have
positive effects on public safety services and simultaneously
demonstrate a benefit that may arise from these base closures.
We believe that given access to the surplus property, we
will have a project that will also save taxpayers money,
because we will have a more efficient and effective delivery of
training services, and that is something I think that every
taxpayer can support.
I appreciate the time you have provided me to present these
comments. I stand ready to answer any questions that the
committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.032
Mr. Horn. I thank the Sheriff for his testimony. It has
been very helpful.
We have in our books here the testimony of Tom Mullen,
Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Without objection, that
testimony will be put in the record at this point as if read.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mullen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.037
Mr. Horn. Were there any other statements? Here is the
testimony of Debbi Huffman Guthrie, representing the Monday
Morning Group, in favor of H.R. 404. Without objection, that
will be put in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.050
Mr. Horn. Let's just see if we have some others here.
That is it. There will be a letter from the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, who enthusiastically endorses this
proposal. That will be put in the record.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45061.051
Mr. Horn. Now, are there any questions you would like to
ask of GSA and any questions Mr. Creed would like to ask of
you? I think this would be a good chance to get all the facts
out on the table in just what we are talking about.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Creed and I have personally met and talked
over the phone, and I think his testimony accurately reflects
the state of where we are today.
Mr. Horn. Does the gentleman from Riverside County, Mr.
Cal- vert, wish to comment on anything else? Do you see any
loose ends here? We want a complete record.
Mr. Calvert. I, again, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
al-lowing us to have this hearing. As you heard from Senator
Fein- stein and Congressman Bono, this isn't just important to
Califor-nia, I think this is a program that Sheriff Smith
correctly outlined that can be very important to the entire
country for law enforce- ment purposes and public safety
purposes. It makes good sense.
Unfortunately, GSA doesn't have the ability to work within
the existing law, so this is necessary to move forward where we
can get this project moving forward.
Sheriff Smith is certainly proud of what he has
accomplished there to this date, and I think we look forward to
many of the public safety agencies, both Federal, State and
local, participating on this property for joint training for
public safety purposes, whether it is earthquakes in California
or floods or wherever else we have. So I think this is great
legislation, with all due modesty.
I look forward to your support.
Mr. Horn. I think it is an excellent piece of legislation.
But let me ask Mr. Creed, in terms of public benefits, if that
300 acres was used for a law enforcement training benefit,
nothing else would really occur on that 300 acres, I take it.
Is that the way the various benefits work? They are
exclusionary once the mission is fulfilled there?
Mr. Creed. Under the Federal Property Act, when surplus
real property is made available for public health purposes, the
Sec- retary of HHS promulgates regulations to describe what
qualifies as public health. Presently, there are about eight
different activities. The latest activi- ty is for the
homeless, to make that a public health-type activ- ity.
Similarly, the new section 204(p) could conceivably be
defined through implementing regulations as to exactly what
type of activities would encompass law enforcement. So,
therefore, conceivably training or some other activities could
further be developed through the Department of Justice. But
while those types of activities could be probably changed and
modified, the property would remain restricted for those types
of public purposes on the rede- ployment of the property. So,
therefore, no, the property could not be used for some other
public benefit, discount conveyance.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask the representatives from Riverside
County, is all 300 acres needed? Essentially, have you scoped
out what your needs are?
Mr. Smith. Yes, the existing property that we currently
have under sublease is being used pretty much as classroom
training sites, as well as support area. The proposed uses in
our program of the open space currently in the process would be
to develop a
canine and equestrian process, a computer training center, a
cor- rectional training complex, a driver's training course for
skills driv- ing, an emergency staging area, fire and life
safety complex.
Currently, there is no development of that. An example
would be fire towers and those kinds of issues, a physical
training complex and the scenario training village. Because we
are trying to develop a skills-based training site, and we now
have in terms of the actual buildings and property, we have the
classroom setting.
What we basically need now is to develop the ability to go
out and do applied training. And that is the essential part of
the issue of the additional land in the complex.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask you, Mr. Creed, have you ever been
faced in GSA with a situation where two agencies were needed to
sponsor a public benefit discount? Have you had that situation
arise be- fore? Which is really this situation.
Mr. Creed. Generally, the situation is you will have two
commu- nities, you will have a municipality----
Mr. Horn. Could you get that microphone a little closer? It
is a little hard to hear.
Mr. Creed. Generally, what we will encounter is a
municipality or a county or a State each applying for a public
use which is dis- similar from the others. We may have public
education competing against a public health type of use, but
never have we had the situation where there would be two public
benefit sponsors for the same property.
Mr. Horn. I see. They might be contiguous, but they haven't
been overlapping?
Mr. Creed. Correct.
Mr. Horn. And so you haven't really had to bring the forces
to- gether. We just haven't had that factual situation you are
telling me?
Mr. Creed. No, we have not.
Mr. Horn. So even if we gave you the power based on that
memorandum you are going to get from legal counsel as to
liberalizing the law so GSA can act and solve these prob- lems.
The problem just hasn't arisen before, so you would have a
problem like this. What do you think is the common sense thing
to do?
Mr. Creed. In GSA's role as being the Government's property
manager and disposal agent, we try to serve as a facilitator to
bring the different sponsoring agencies together. On May 5th,
we met with Sheriff Smith and people from Riverside to get an
initial grasp of the facts surrounding these particular 300
acres of the base.
Yesterday, GSA conferred with the Departments of Health and
Human Services and with the Department of Education to try to
see if there is some flexibility by combined efforts as a
single team.
So is this new territory for GSA? Yes. It it is one that we
con- tinue to remake available and seek to assist the county of
Riverside in its efforts to redeploy the property for these
purposes.
Mr. Horn. Was your feeling after meeting with the other
agen- cies that as they interpret the law, there was no way to
solve the problem?
Mr. Creed. It was my understanding that they couldn't pull
the elephant through the door, meaning----
Mr. Horn. Through the key hole.
Mr. Creed. Meaning all, both the 300 acres and the 20 acres
as dedicated for public health purposes, nor could the
Department of Education pull both parcels through for public
education. But there may be an approach whereby one parcel
could be for public education and perhaps the other parcel
could be for public health-type use, and there might be some
flexibility with these two departments to try to attain a
success here.
Mr. Horn. I think GSA would be a good arbiter on behalf of
the executive branch to solve the problem. If you need the
authority, we certainly ought to try to amend the bill to get
that authority and bring it before the House and ship it to the
Senate. I think we could solve problems all over America,
because there has got to be similar situations like this that
will grow as we face up to what are we going to do with the
huge lands that have been turned over as surplus Federal
property. That gives the community and the Government
flexibility to do the right thing, which I think is important.
Are there any other questions? We are delighted to have the
ranking minority member here, Mrs. Maloney of New York.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just really would
like to ask Mr. Calvert, why you are using this approach as
opposed to just a land conveyance that happens all the time in
Congress, that is narrowly tailored just for this specific
purpose and this particular situation?
Mr. Calvert. Under the existing laws, as was pointed out
earlier, GSA cannot convey the property other than for a
corrections facility or for education uses or public health. So
for law enforcement purposes and public safety purposes, we
need this legislation in order for the Department of Justice to
be able to be the sponsoring agency and to convey the property.
Mrs. Maloney. But oftentimes in Congress they will put in
just a special conveyance bill for a particular piece of
property.
Mr. Calvert. We believe that besides just March Air Force
Base, California, as Senator Feinstein pointed out earlier, we
have experienced a number of base closures, and law enforcement
throughout the State of California and certainly throughout the
United States may also find it necessary to find excess Federal
property for this type of use. So it would give the flexibility
to GSA throughout the country by changing language to allow for
law enforcement and public safety activities to be conveyed
without further legislation.
Mrs. Maloney. Did you consider trying to arrange the
transfer of this property under the base realignment and
closure laws? Did you try to convey it through those laws, and,
if not, why didn't you?
Mr. Calvert. Again, this is certainly for the public use
and for the local communities, so it doesn't really define as
economic development, because it is not going to be developed
into an industrial park or a shopping center. It is to be used
for public use. So it really doesn't define as economic
development under the base realignment laws as they exist
today.
So really we certainly attempted to find a way to do this
without having to pass this legislation. There has been a lot
of other Members, both Republicans and Democrats, by the way,
who have also tried to find some ways to do this and have found
that this legislation is necessary in order to make sure that
we can have this take place, not only in Riverside, but
throughout the United States.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank you for your testimony, and I have no
further questions. It merely expands it to law enforcement. It
already covers correctional. I have no objection to it. I would
request that my opening statement be put in the record as read.
Mr. Horn. It will be put in the record at the beginning of
opening statements as read.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Well, any further comments, Mr. Creed, you would
like to make? Gentlemen? Mr. Calvert, would you like to make
any comment?
If not, we thank you very much for coming. We know that is
a long trip. We hope you enjoy the sights of Washington, DC,
and you are always a welcome guest here. With that, we adjourn
this hearing.
Let me note for the record, to our friend recording this,
the list of staff present: J. Russell George, staff director
and counsel; Mark Brasher, professional staff member; John
Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller, clerk; Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff member; Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk; Bob Cochran, court reporter; and the GMIT
Interns, Melissa Holder, Grant Neuman and Michael Presicci.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<greek-d>