Passed
397 Yea1 Nay32 Not voting2/3 required
HR-3424-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Robert Onder (R-MO)
What it does
This bill would require the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to collaborate with federal agency tenants to identify concerns about shared office space arrangements, develop criteria to expand space-sharing and co-location, identify how special-use spaces can be better utilized, and establish measurable objectives to track the success of shared-space arrangements. Within six months of enactment, the GSA Administrator would be required to brief the relevant House and Senate committees on implementation progress.
Who benefits
Federal agencies that currently pay for underutilized office space and could reduce costs through better space-sharing. Taxpayers who may benefit from reduced federal real estate expenditures. GSA, which gains a clearer coordination mandate. Federal employees who may gain access to better-located or better-equipped shared facilities. Contractors and vendors who support federal office consolidation and space management services.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies that value dedicated, exclusive office space and may resist consolidation due to security, operational, or mission-specific needs. Federal employees who may face disruption from office relocations or transitions to shared workspaces. Commercial landlords currently leasing space to federal agencies, who could see reduced demand if agencies consolidate. Federal workers' unions, if space-sharing arrangements affect working conditions or commute patterns.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government spends billions annually on office space, much of it underutilized — a 2023 GAO report found that federal office buildings were occupied at an average of just 25% of capacity. They contend that requiring GSA to systematically identify and expand space-sharing opportunities is a straightforward, low-cost step toward reducing wasteful real estate spending and improving interagency coordination.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill adds a procedural layer without providing GSA the authority, funding, or enforcement tools needed to compel agencies to actually share space, making it largely symbolic. They contend that many agencies have legitimate security classifications, mission-specific infrastructure, or statutory requirements that make co-location impractical, and that a one-size-fits-all collaboration mandate may produce briefings and reports without meaningful reductions in federal real estate costs.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under Article I to direct the operations of executive branch agencies, including how they manage federally owned and leased property. No active constitutional tension areas apply.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (GSA) gains a coordination and planning mandate; Congress retains oversight through a required briefing to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works within six months of enactment.
Historical precedent
The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 and prior GSA consolidation initiatives have similarly directed the agency to reduce the federal real estate footprint, with mixed results in achieving measurable space reductions.
Passed