[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION
=======================================================================
(113-5)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-895 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
VACANCY TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
Officio) (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland.................................................... 4
Hon. Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 4
Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 4
Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.............................................. 4
Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.............................................. 4
Panel 2
Dorothy Robyn, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.
General Services Administration................................ 12
Kevin L. Perkins, Associate Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation.................................................. 12
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland............................... 36
Hon. Robert J. Wittman, of Virginia.............................. 37
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer.............................................. 38
Hon. Frank R. Wolf............................................... 40
Hon. James P. Moran.............................................. 42
Hon. Donna F. Edwards............................................ 44
Hon. Gerald E. Connolly.......................................... 47
Dorothy Robyn:
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to questions from the following Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania........................... 53
Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland........................... 55
Kevin L. Perkins:/
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Answers to questions from the following Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania........................... 62
Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland........................... 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, submission of the following items for the
record:
U.S. General Services Administration, ``Report of Building
Project Survey for the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Headquarters Consolidation, Washington, DC, Metropolitan
Region,'' (2011)........................................... 69
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan
Policy, ``A Region Divided: The State of Growth in Greater
Washington, DC,'' (1999)................................... 76
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79895.006
THE FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order. Welcome to
our first subcommittee hearing. And thankfully it was not
rained out today.
I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for the opportunity
to chair this subcommittee. I also look forward to working with
Ranking Member Norton and continuing this subcommittee's
bipartisan tradition. Let me also thank our distinguished
colleagues from the House for testifying today. Your presence
speaks volumes about your concern for the FBI and your
communities. And finally, let me welcome Dr. Robyn from GSA and
Mr. Perkins from the FBI.
I chose the FBI headquarters for our first hearing, because
it is one of the most significant projects we may consider this
year. Several studies have documented the functional,
operational, and security problems with the Hoover Building on
Pennsylvania Avenue.
The FBI has a vital mission. It has made a compelling case
for relocating its headquarters function. However, a new
facility would cost over $1 billion, and financing it in
today's budget climate will be extremely challenging. Direct
appropriations are doubtful, and OMB scoring rules typically
preclude leases that result in Federal ownership. In fact, I
have been told OMB has not approved a long-term ground lease
with a Federal lease-back, as the FBI is proposing, since the
scoring rules changed in the early 1990s. Yet, if we are
successful, this has the potential for becoming a model for
public-private partnerships in the future.
When it comes to this proposal, the committee has two
general goals: the project should meet the security and
operational requirements of the FBI, and it needs to be a good
deal for the taxpayers. Achieving these goals raises a host of
questions that need to be addressed.
For example, if the FBI must leave Pennsylvania Avenue, is
a consolidated campus the best alternative? How can Congress
limit the financial risks to the taxpayer by such a large and
complex project? How can the committee ensure a fair and
competitive site selection process? Can a consolidated facility
be constructed or purchased for a reasonable cost? What is the
value of the current site on Pennsylvania Avenue, and what
should be done with it? Is GSA capable of managing such a
complex project?
These are some of the important questions we hope to
explore during today's hearing so we can ensure the FBI's
requirements are met and the interests of the taxpayer are
protected. I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.
I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms.
Norton, for a brief opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Why, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
congratulate you on your first hearing. I look forward to
working with you. I note that both you and Chairman Shuster
have started this committee and this subcommittee off to a very
fast and a very good start, taking up important issues from the
get-go. And I appreciate the start you have made.
I am pleased, especially, to welcome all of today's
witnesses, and especially my colleagues from across the region.
But I think it is important to clarify what is before us today.
What is before us today is simply a hearing on the GSA's
Request for Information. That is all that the GSA has asked
for, all it has solicited, information only.
Now, an RFI, as we call it, can lead to an actual request
for proposals. In this case, to consolidate the FBI into a new
headquarters. And there is agreement by the FBI, by the GSA,
and by the GAO, that a new headquarters is necessary. The
Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters has been falling apart now for
many years. And it does not allow even key personnel to be
housed in its headquarters building.
As important as the FBI is as an agency, constructing a new
or otherwise obtaining a new FBI is really no different from
any other Federal construction. The GSA and the GSA alone must
conduct a competition. And the GSA must make the decision in
the best interest of the taxpayer. And I can say in more than
20 years on this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen
any political decisions made by the GSA, and I am sure they
will keep that very strong record up.
Everybody here hopes that their site will be selected,
including the site from the District of Columbia. And everyone
here is, of course, doing the right thing to market their
sites. Sites are marketed not only by developers, they are also
marketed by Members of Congress. I regard my role, however, as
ranking member, to ensure that there is fair competition, so
that the taxpayer gets top value.
The staff memo raises important questions. And the
responses from the GSA today are going to be very important to
the subcommittee in evaluating this process. I appreciate the
clarification in the staff memo, working with my friends on the
other side, because there is a--the Senate resolution--do we
have that? Do we have that? The Senate resolution--and isn't it
interesting, when I say there should be no political
interference? The Senate resolution has not been adopted by the
GSA, and has led some members of the press to believe that the
site could be spread throughout the region.
It is clear that the RFI is in the GSA--is the GSA
resolution. And it says the location of the new FBI
headquarters must be no more than 2 miles from a Metrorail
station, not 2.5 miles from the Capital Beltway. And the
resolution is drawn that way to maximize competition and
because of the longstanding policy of this committee,
especially in this congested region, that we must facilitate
the use of Metrorail and mass transportation.
We know that the 20 locations of the FBI has made it
impossible for the agency to conduct its business as a security
agency should be. We are looking for lower space allocations.
We believe that the GSA could consolidate in as little as 2
million square feet. Its appropriation, if it were not leasing
space as it is now across the region, would be cut by nearly
$45 million. The GSA is compelled by the policy of the
administration and of this subcommittee to use the new space
utilization, which reduces substantially the amount of space
for each employee. As for the space on Pennsylvania Avenue, the
headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, it is the ugliest building
in town. Good riddance.
The focus of the first panel will be, of course, on their
preferred sites. It is the second panel that is critical to our
work, especially the use that the RFI proposes to make of
Section 412 authority that allows it a range of options to
engage in transactions, and does not require upfront spending
by the Federal Government.
I appreciate that Chairman Barletta has focused also on the
OMB's scoring rules, which do not align with CBO's rules. And
those scoring rules have cost the Federal Government billions
of dollars over time. And I believe that Congress may have to
intervene if those rules come into play again.
The project presents many challenges, but it also presents
many opportunities, and very specifically the opportunity on
the part of GSA to engage in a normal real estate transaction,
instead of treating real estate as a commodity, losing money
for the taxpayer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. At this
time I would like to recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Barletta, and thanks for
holding this hearing today. This is an important hearing.
Obviously, we are joined by four distinguished colleagues of
ours, and two from Virginia, two from Maryland. So it is
obviously important to the region, as well as the ranking
member, who, of course, represents the District of Columbia.
But I welcome you here to the committee today.
And again, I appreciate you holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman. The FBI is one of the most important institutions in
this Nation. It keeps us safe. We need to make sure that we
find them a location that is best suited for them, and making
sure that it is efficient, it is modern, and it is secure.
So, as we move through this process, I look forward to
getting input and hearing from everybody. And again, thank all
of you for being here. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now call on the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
comments. I want to hear from my colleagues first.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. We will have two panels today. The
first is a Members panel that includes the Honorable Steny
Hoyer, the Honorable Frank Wolf, the Honorable Jim Moran, the
Honorable Donna Edwards, and the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. Since your
written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Representative Hoyer, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; HON. FRANK R. WOLF, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; HON.
JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA; HON. DONNA F. EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; AND HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Barletta, and I want to
thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Norton, and Ranking
Member Rahall for their attendance. I thank the committee for
holding this hearing to examine the possibility of a new
consolidated FBI headquarters, and for the opportunity to
testify on the merits of relocating to Prince George's County,
Maryland, where I grew up and where I now represent, and have
for the last 32 years.
The J. Edgar Hoover Building is in disrepair and does not
comply with today's high-security standards. I think everybody
agrees on that. The agency suffers from space constraints and
security challenges. To restore the current building is neither
cost effective nor feasible. In addition, roughly half the
headquarters staff are in leased space around the capital
region because there is insufficient space within the J. Edgar
Hoover Building.
Consolidation will save money and enhance the FBI's ability
to do its work. The dispersion of staff negatively impacts the
FBI's ability to perform its mission. Consolidating and
relocating the headquarters in a timely manner will help ensure
that the FBI can carry out that mission and save our taxpayers
at least $44 million annually in the process.
Any new location for a possible new consolidated FBI
headquarters must meet several requirements. First, it must
have a minimum of 45 to 50 acres. Secondly, it must be located
within the national capital region. Thirdly, it must have
access to public transportation, such as Metrorail. And it must
have space to house approximately 11,000 personnel.
With a variety of potential sites in close proximity to
Washington with sufficient available acreage and close to mass
transit, I believe that Prince George's County is an ideal
location for the new headquarters. We will try to make that
case over the next months, and we will look forward to working
with our colleagues towards that end.
Prince George's County, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, has
ample undeveloped land near the Metro. In fact, more so than
any other jurisdiction: the MARC commuter rail, the Capital
Beltway, a variety of Metro and county transit bus lines and
regional bike trails. The sites can provide a secure and
convenient campus setting.
Twenty-five percent of the region's Federal workforce
resides in Prince George's County, and our State is already
home to a plurality of the FBI's employees. According to a
Maryland State study released in September, 43 percent of FBI
headquarters employees live in Maryland, 17 percent live in
Washington, DC, and 33 percent we understand live in Virginia.
FBI personnel and their families, I suggest, could benefit from
a lower daily transportation expense, Prince George's County's
vibrant neighborhoods, and an easier commute.
In addition, Maryland has recently seen unprecedented
growth in the field of cybersecurity, which would provide the
FBI with greater access to experts in the field, as well as a
highly skilled workforce. Our State is home to--and I think
this is very important: the U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade;
the National Security Agency; the Defense Information Systems
Agency; the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence
headquarters at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology; the Department of Defense's Cyber Crime Center,
known as DC3; and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects
Activity, IARPA.
Our State's institutions of higher education, including the
University of Maryland at College Park, just a few miles from
the projected site, and Bowie State University, also just a few
miles from the projected site, both located in Prince George's
County, are training the next generation of leaders in
cybersecurity. Numerous companies and contractors in the field
of cybersecurity are located in Prince George's County as well,
Mr. Chairman, not far from others operating in Montgomery and
Anne Arundel County.
I think that Prince George's County will make its case with
several potential secure and convenient locations, and a
significant portion of the region's Federal workforce is the
right choice for the new FBI headquarters. I will continue to
work with you, Mr. Chairman, with your ranking member, Ms.
Norton, and with Mr. Shuster and Mr. Rahall as we go forward
assessing the merits of each of these sites. Local officials in
Maryland and the Governor advocate for any proposed
consolidated FBI headquarters to be relocated in Prince
George's County. Our State is united in that effort, including,
as you just recently heard, the leadership of Montgomery
County, Mr. Leggett.
So, I thank you for this opportunity to appear, look
forward to working with you. We believe that the Prince
George's County proposal will prove to be, from the taxpayers'
standpoint, which is obviously our principal concern, and from
the FBI's standpoint and national security, to be the best
site. And we look forward to working with you towards that end.
I thank you, thank the chair and the committee for its
attention.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Hoyer.
Representative Wolf, you may proceed.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and also
Ms. Norton, too. I will try to summarize quickly.
Obviously, I am here to support the Bureau moving its
headquarters to the State of Virginia. The entire Virginia
delegation, the Governor, everyone, is in complete agreement.
It is a logical choice. A number of FBI agents live in
Virginia. The Washington field office resident agency is in
Virginia. The FBI Academy is in Virginia at Quantico, the back-
and-forth and back-and-forth between the two. The FBI new
record facility is slated to be built in Virginia. The
recordkeeping fingerprint is out in West Virginia, which is
relatively close. The CIA is in Virginia. The CIA is in
Langley. The CIA is in Herndon. The CIA is in Reston. The CIA
is on Route 28. The NRO is in Virginia. And I could go on. But
having the proximity--FBI, NRO, CIA, all these agencies
together, along with the West Virginia and the new
recordskeeping in Winchester, it makes a big difference.
There are a number of potential sites in Virginia that meet
the needs of the Bureau. I am not coming in for any one
particular site, whether they are in Fairfax County, Prince
William County, or in Loudoun County.
As the process gets underway there, I think it is important
that the Government get the best deal. And I would encourage or
end by this last comment. If I say anything that sticks,
hopefully this will be. I would encourage the subcommittee not
to limit its search to sites no further than 2.5 miles from the
Capital Beltway as the Senate prospectus requires. That would
arbitrarily prevent sites in Loudoun and Prince William. We
expect the procurement process to be open and fair. So open and
fair, and remove any strictures that sort of, when you write
them down, you in essence are not saying the name but you are
forcing it to go. It ought to be open and fair.
And with that, I thank you for the hearing very much.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Wolf.
Now, Representative Moran, you may proceed.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Shuster and
Ranking Members Norton and Rahall. We appreciate the
opportunity to get our views before this subcommittee as a
region.
Now, I, along with a united Virginia congressional
delegation, do believe that northern Virginia would make the
ideal location for the new FBI headquarters. And the reasons
are the following, and they do mirror exactly what Mr. Wolf had
to say, although we didn't confer in advance. But I think you
will find the same conclusions that we came to.
Northern Virginia is home to a majority of FBI personnel in
the region. FBI people live in northern Virginia, for the most
part. The FBI Academy and the FBI Laboratory, the premier crime
lab in the U.S., employ over 500 scientific experts and special
agents. They are both located in Quantico, Virginia. The
northern Virginia resident agency, field office for several
hundred agents, is located in Prince William County. And
Winchester, Virginia, will be the future home of the FBI's
central records complex. A headquarters location in northern
Virginia would provide substantial logistical benefits and
collaborative opportunities.
In addition, the FBI occupies a number of discreet
facilities elsewhere in northern Virginia, and the region is
also home to the National Counterterrorism Center and the
headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. An FBI
headquarters location in Virginia would increase opportunities
for cross-agency coordination and promote increased operational
efficiency, saving time and transportation costs.
Northern Virginia offers geographically advantageous
locations roughly equidistant from Quantico and Washington, DC,
offering easy access to other Federal agencies, Congress, and
the aforementioned major FBI facilities. Our region also has
some of the best schools in the country and is consistently
ranked one of the best places to live, work, and raise a
family. Taken together, these attributes would help to minimize
the adverse transition and transportation effects on employees
assigned to the new headquarters.
Now, my top priority, of course--our top priority--is to
support efforts to locate the FBI headquarters in Virginia. But
I would like to mention a couple of facilities in particular.
There is a Center for Innovative Technology property, their
substantial amount of land is located right at the--at Route 28
and the Dulles Toll Road, and it will have access to the Silver
Line Metro station.
Another property that I believe would be ideal for this
facility is a GSA warehouse located in Springfield, Virginia.
It is situated on approximately 60 acres. It could easily
accommodate over 3.5 million square feet of highly secure
office space, and would allow for the productive use of
underused Government-owned real estate. It is right at a Metro
station. It would provide ample space for the FBI to
accommodate potential future growth.
Given recent local challenges that were created by BRAC
relocations, I think this subcommittee should consider sites
that would require the least amount of off-site infrastructure.
It is expensive, it is time-consuming, and I don't think that
it is appropriate to have to invest in substantial
infrastructure to accommodate a new FBI building.
In this regard, though, the Springfield location is unique,
because we have substantial improvements to Interstate 395, on
which it is located. We have the express lane project on the
beltway, and the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway to
Fort Belvoir, all going along this site. So more than $1
billion has been invested in the road network in and around
this particular GSA warehouse site. It is also located, as I
say, next to the Franconia-Springfield Metro station, next to
Amtrak, and next to VRE rail lines, and it is served by a very
extensive bus system. So the presence of a high-quality road
network and mass transit options would promote efficient
traffic flow and minimize the impact on the local community.
Now, as GSA proceeds with its selection process, I know
that this competition will be conducted in a completely open
and fair manner. Unlike the Senate-passed prospectus, I would
hope that we would not prevent consideration of potential sites
in the Dulles area. I urge the subcommittee to oppose
unnecessary restrictions on the location of the new FBI
headquarters. The Senate was more restrictive; I don't think
there is a need for the House to do so. The decision of where
to locate this facility should be based solely on what is best
for the FBI's ability to fulfill its vital law enforcement and
national security missions through a transparent process, free
of political considerations.
I am fully confident that sites in Virginia will stand out
among all the options, and I thank you again for inviting us to
testify and for your continued efforts to ensure the best
possible location is chosen as the new headquarters for the
FBI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Moran.
Representative Edwards, you may proceed.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Ranking
Member Norton. I really appreciate the ability to testify
today. And I look forward to our work together, as a
subcommittee, to make sure that we are reporting a resolution
that adequately reflects the needs of the FBI, but also is
respective of the needs of taxpayers.
The future location of the FBI headquarters is vital to the
men and women of the Bureau and to their mission. But it is
also vital to the people of my congressional district,
specifically in Prince George's County, where I live, which
Congressman Hoyer and I represent here in this chamber. We are
here today because it is critical that the FBI consolidate its
operations to optimize the agency's ability to meet its vital
mission and make the best use of taxpayer resources.
It has been my experience on this committee that when we
have considered--and Ranking Member Norton understands this--
when we have considered these matters in front of our
committee, our goal is about fairness of process, to make sure
that there is the most open competition possible that then
maximizes the taxpayers' dollars.
It has been almost 40 years since the FBI actually moved to
the Hoover Building, and we know it has outgrown it. We know
that it can no longer provide the security, infrastructure
needs, and space required of the world's premier law
enforcement agencies. In addition to its responsibilities here
at home today, the FBI is a key leader, globally, in meeting
our law enforcement needs.
Here in the national capital region, the FBI occupies more
than 3 million square feet of space over 21 locations that
results in $168 million of leasing costs alone. It is pretty
staggering. But surprisingly, the Hoover Building currently
only houses 52 percent of the FBI's headquarters staff. This
dispersed office structure is impeding the Bureau's ability to
meet its core mission, due to challenges in managing its
headquarters, divisions, and offices effectively, and while
also collaborating and sharing information across functions.
It--to comply with 9/11 security--post-9/11 security
requirements, the FBI has looked to consolidate facilities into
one headquarters. In response to a 2011 GAO study, the FBI
conducted a security assessment that documented threats and
analyzed building security requirements consistent with the
Interagency Security Committee standards. And so it is a
critical component of our Nation's security apparatus that the
agency has to comply with these enhanced standards.
So, I want to talk for a minute about Prince George's
County. Prince George's County offers an appropriate, I think,
opportunity for development and for the FBI to relocate its
headquarters. I think it offers a competitive combination, as
Mr. Hoyer has indicated, that meets the requirements of the
FBI, also meets the requirements of the resolution that came
out of the Senate, and has taxpayer value with the finest
location and access to world-class facilities.
Joint Base Andrews, the President's airport, is in Camp
Springs in Prince George's County. That would provide the FBI
with a secure facility from which to depart anywhere in the
world to meet its global responsibilities for our domestic law
enforcement needs. Fort Meade is home to the National Security
Agency, the Nation's largest leader in cybersecurity and its
intelligence-gathering apparatus. It is another secure facility
located in nearby Anne Arundel County, a part of which I also
have the honor of representing.
As Mr. Hoyer has indicated, the University of Maryland,
Bowie State University, also provides nationally ranked
disciplines in criminal justice, computer forensics, biological
sciences, language, homeland, cyber, and national security. It
is home to the Department of Homeland Security's Center of
Excellence and terrorism studies, and a national consortium of
leading terrorism studies programs across the country.
Prince George's County is also home, as we have heard many
times in this committee, to 15 Metro stops, which is the most
in this region, offering all kinds of accessibility throughout
the county, and provides easy access to the White House,
downtown Washington, DC, the Capital Beltway, the Department of
Homeland Security's new campus at St. Elizabeths, and our
region's airports, while also having the lowest real estate
prices in--around nearby Metro facilities throughout our
region.
In addition, over 67,000 Federal employees reside in Prince
George's County and, as you have heard, 43 percent of the
workforce at the FBI. Prince George's County is the right fit
for the FBI, and it will do right by the FBI.
And if a consolidated headquarters becomes a reality
anywhere within the parameters already set by the Senate
resolution, the District of Columbia also stands to gain. The
Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue would free up a block on
the most important and prominent street in America, allowing
the District of Columbia to have a tax-generating tenant and a
building that adds to the aesthetic value of Pennsylvania
Avenue. And that would complement the soon-to-be developed Old
Post Office site, which Chairman Norton worked very much on in
the last Congress, and was championed by this committee, as
well.
Again, Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Norton, thanks
for allowing me to testify today. It is not our job here to
figure out who gets the competition, but it is our job to make
certain that it is a fair, it is an open and competitive
process, and I have every confidence that Prince George's
County will meet that competition.
Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Edwards.
And now, Representative Connolly, you may proceed.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Norton, Mr. Shuster. And I know Nick Rahall just stepped out. I
have a prepared statement; I am not going to read it to you. It
repeats an awful lot of what has already been said. So let me
just summarize.
I want to echo what my colleague, Donna Edwards, just said.
We look forward to a fair, open, and transparent process, free
of political influence. And we believe that if there is such a
process, frankly, Virginia is the likely new site of an FBI
headquarters for several reasons, one of which is the FBI is
already there. The FBI is in Quantico with a very large
footprint. The FBI new recordskeeping complex is going to be in
Winchester, Virginia. We already have the northern Virginia
residency, of course, in Prince William County in Virginia.
Virginia offers--northern Virginia offers one of the most
skilled workforces in the United States, one of the highest
performing school systems in the United States. It is a place
from which we can draw skilled labor. And we have George Mason
University, now the largest public university in a stellar
public university State, the State of Virginia. We have the
third largest community college, Northern Virginia Community
College, in the United States, in Virginia, all of which
provide criminal justice courses and forensics training in
large numbers for law enforcement.
The nexus for the FBI is logically in Virginia. And I
believe that with a fair and open and transparent process,
Virginia is going to be more than competitive in sites that are
served by transit, particularly the GSA site in Springfield,
but also the CIT site proximate to Dulles Airport that will be
served by the silver line that is under construction right now.
So, we are very proud of the sites that have been
proffered. We look forward to a fair, open, transparent
process. We hope that this committee, in drawing its criteria,
will, frankly, be more flexible and more open than maybe the
Senate was in drawing its. And as I said, we are confident
that, if that is the process, we are going to be more than
competitive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for giving
us this opportunity this morning.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to thank each of you
for your testimony here this morning. I know how busy you all
are. But we all know how important this project is. It is
critical to the FBI that their new location will be somewhere
where it will be functional. And obviously, security is a major
role.
But the questions we have today that we want answered is
why, where, and how. And your testimony today informing our
subcommittee is very important to all of us. So again, I want
to thank each of you for your time.
We will excuse the panel, and----
Mr. Rahall. Mr. Chairman? Since I didn't make an opening
comment, may I make a comment to the panel----
Mr. Barletta. Yes, you may.
Mr. Rahall [continuing]. Before they depart? Let me just
cite a couple well-known facts, if I might, to the panel.
First, the FBI in my home State of West Virginia, which Mr.
Wolf has referred, already have a successful partnership. As we
know, in fact, the largest division of the FBI, the criminal
information service division, is located in Clarksburg. The
heart of the CGIS complex is a 500,000-square-foot main office
building on 980 acres of land owned by the FBI. It features a
beautiful 600-seat cafeteria, 500-seat auditorium. It has an
atrium for visitors and employees, and a 100,000-square-foot
computer center.
The campus already employs some 2,500 employees. In fact,
FBI owns nearly 1,000 acres of land in Clarksburg, plenty of
room for expansion.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rahall. In addition, the Internet crime complaint
center, collaboration between the FBI and the National White
Collar Crime Center, has a facility in Fairmont, West Virginia.
It has been reported, following the division's move from
downtown Washington, DC, to Clarksburg, West Virginia, that FBI
executives cited sharper lower employee absentee rates,
improved employee retention rates, higher worker productivity
and morale.
The benefits of West Virginia as a home for Federal
facilities are abundant. And other agencies would do well to
consider the community where the FBI and other Federal
employees have thrived over the past 20 years.
So I would say while these titans of the beltway lock
horns, let us all remember that there is a calm, safe, and
serene atmosphere in ``Almost Heaven,'' where our dedicated and
hard-working FBI employees can work and live. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rahall. Yes, I yield.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shuster. I just would like to remind everybody that the
Pennsylvania State line is less than 100 miles from here, and
there is wide open spaces all over south central Pennsylvania.
Yield back.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say that I have
had a discussion with the new chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and she has told me how much she admired the work of
the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, would it be inappropriate to ask
the ranking member of the full committee for his estimated ETA
for the Metro system to arrive in West Virginia?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. And how we are going to pay for it?
Mr. Rahall. With high-speed rail, anything is possible.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if it
can't be in the preferred location, Virginia, we would be proud
to have it in our sister State, West Virginia.
Mr. Barletta. I will call on our second panel of witnesses:
Dr. Dorothy Robyn, commissioner, Public Buildings Service of
the General Services Administration and Dr. Kevin Perkins,
associate deputy director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, so I ask unanimous
consent that our witnesses' full statements be included in the
record.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. Since your
written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Dr. Robyn, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DOROTHY ROBYN, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND KEVIN L.
PERKINS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Ms. Robyn. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Norton, Congressman Rahall. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here before you this morning. That was a hard act to follow.
Under new leadership, GSA has refocused on its mission of
delivering the best value in real estate acquisition and
technology services to Government and the American people.
With respect to the real estate mission, GSA faces three
key challenges: an aging inventory of buildings; limited
availability of Federal dollars with which to maintain our
existing buildings and construct new ones; and, as a result of
the first two challenges, a growing reliance on leased space.
To address these challenges, we are working to improve
agencies' utilization of space, and thereby reduce their
requirement for space, particularly costly leased space. We are
seeking to reduce the cost of operating our buildings. Finally,
we are using the authorities Congress gave us to leverage
private capital to deliver better and more efficient space to
Federal agencies.
The subject of today's hearing is an illustration of these
very challenges and our efforts at GSA to address them. Let me
briefly summarize the challenge and our proposed response to
it.
As you heard from the last panel, and I would concur, the
J. Edgar Hoover Building is no longer suitable as a
headquarters facility for the FBI. Opened in 1974, when the FBI
was primarily a law enforcement agency, the building was
principally designed to store vast amounts of paper documents.
It was also intended to be accessible to the public, as
evidenced by the large central courtyard and the second-floor
veranda for parade-watching along Pennsylvania Avenue. These
features, among others, now represent deficiencies.
The building is highly inefficient, from the standpoint of
space utilization. Of the 2.4 million gross square feet of
area, only 1.3 million square feet are usable to FBI personnel.
This inherently poor use of space, together with the growth of
the agency since 9/11, means that the Hoover Building now
accommodates only about half of the agency's headquarters
staff. The rest are located, as you have heard, in some 20
leased locations around the national capital region. This
dispersion of staff inhibits the kind of collaboration and
communication that the FBI has sought to encourage in the
aftermath of 9/11.
Second, the design of the building as, in effect, a large
filing cabinet discourages collaboration and communication
within the building. In particular, sturdy interior walls of
cement block, which line corridors wide enough to accommodate
the movement of large blocks of paper files, make it hard to
reconfigure the space into the kind of open, collaborative
workspace that the FBI needs and that they are creating in
their field offices around the country.
And then, finally, the building, with its high-profile
location and limited perimeter setback cannot meet and will
not--cannot meet and does not meet the FBI's requirements for
Level V security under the Interagency Security Committee's
standards.
Mindful of these deficiencies, in early December GSA issued
a Request for Information from private developers interested in
building a new headquarters for the FBI somewhere in the
national capital region. The RFI made clear that GSA wants to
consider an exchange of the Hoover Building for a new facility
of up to 2.1 million square feet that would consolidate
personnel from Hoover and the multiple leased locations in the
national capital region.
What exactly do I mean by ``exchange''? Real property
exchange is a tool that Congress has given GSA with which it
can dispose of properties that no longer meet the Federal need
and/or with which we can leverage the equity of some of our
Government's less suitable or efficient buildings to get other,
more suitable and efficient ones. This could--in this case,
this could involve the construction of a new facility on land
that a developer owns, the construction of a new facility on
land that the Government owns or acquires. Alternatively, it
could involve an exchange for an existing building somewhere in
the NCR.
Under any of these scenarios, at the end of the process the
developer would own the Hoover Building and the Federal
Government would own its replacement facility.
Now, I want to emphasize that our current initiative and
the RFI are not limited to the exchange approach. But use of
our exchange authority appears to be promising. The J. Edgar
Hoover Building is functionally obsolete, and we believe the
Pennsylvania Avenue site has considerable potential for higher
and better use than as a headquarters of a Federal agency. We
hope to unlock that hidden value and apply it to the creation
of a new facility in the NCR.
The deadline for responses to our RFI was March 4th. As you
can imagine, the response was very enthusiastic. We got 35
responses. We are now in the process of evaluating them. Based
on the information we obtained, we may issue a Request for
Proposals. That would be the next step.
In sum, this is an important project, one that I believe
can materially improve the FBI's ability to perform its
mission. We are seeking to meet this challenge using innovative
authorities that Congress has given us. We will work closely
with Congress as we go forward, using a transparent process
that emphasize competition and minimization of risk to
taxpayers. And every jurisdiction in the NCR will get fair
consideration.
Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Robyn.
Now, Mr. Perkins, you may proceed.
Mr. Perkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Barletta,
Ranking Member Norton, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the
subcommittee, and all the distinguished guests here today, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FBI's need
for a new consolidated FBI headquarters building. I am pleased
to appear before you today, and I am truly honored to be here
with my colleague from the General Services Administration,
Commissioner Robyn.
As you know, the FBI has occupied the J. Edgar Hoover
Building on Pennsylvania Avenue since its completion in 1974.
Since then, and particularly since 9/11, the FBI has undergone
significant changes in its structure and its management:
information technology systems, interagency collaboration, and
its overall mission. These changes have transformed the Bureau
into a national security organization that fuses traditional
law enforcement and intelligence missions, enabling us to
successfully identify and combat new and emerging threats, head
on.
As its mission has grown, the FBI has also adapted the use
of the Hoover Building to meet mission requirements, and to
increase operational efficiencies. For example, we relocated
our crime lab to Quantico, instituted an electronic system of
record, relocated our paper records, and converted nonpersonnel
and equipment-intensive spaces into office space to accommodate
our growing number of employees. As a result, today's FBI has
over 10,000 headquarters staff in multiple locations throughout
the national capital region.
In fact, the Hoover Building houses only just over half the
Bureau's headquarters staff. The dispersal of employees has
created significant challenges with regard to effectively
managing the Bureau's headquarters divisions and offices,
facilitating organizational change, and sharing information
across operational and administrative functions.
Now, to address these concerns, numerous assessments of the
current Hoover Building and other headquarters offsite
locations have been conducted over the last few years. All have
concluded that consolidating the FBI headquarters operations
will improve information sharing and collaboration, eliminate
redundant space, and enhance security, while at the same time
saving significant tax dollars.
Housing critical FBI headquarters elements in a single
location will reduce space needs by over 800,000 square feet, a
reduction of almost 30 percent, which, in turn, results in
significantly lower rent payments, especially when you compound
them over time. Our August 2011 headquarters consolidation
project report concludes this will result in a savings of at
least $44 million annually.
Working with our partners at GSA, we have proposed locating
a new headquarters within the national capital region.
Generally, the site must be served by mass transit, have
adequate surrounding highway infrastructure, and must be in
substantial conformance with local land use plans. Just as
importantly, the FBI headquarters building should be housed in
a facility meeting the highest standards of security, a level
of protection reserved for agencies with the highest level of
risk related to their mission functions, which are critical to
national security and continuation of Government.
We will continue to work with the GSA and with Congress in
order to identify and implement a solution that meets the FBI's
needs not only now, but well into the future.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be here
before you today. It truly is an honor. And I now look forward
to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Perkins. I
will now begin the first round of questions, which will be
limited to 5 minutes for each Member. If there are any
additional questions following the first round, we will have
additional rounds of questions, as needed.
As I said in my opening statement, this is an important,
yet complicated proposal. The committee wants to be helpful and
find a new home for the FBI, but I do not envision the
committee writing a blank check. As a result, we are looking
for reasonable limitations on the size, scope, and cost of the
project in order to protect the taxpayer from overbuilding and
overspending.
We have many questions along these lines and limited time.
So it would be most helpful if you could attempt to keep your
responses as brief and to the point as possible.
We have some detailed questions regarding the FBI's 2011
report. If it would be helpful, Mr. Perkins, I would invite Mr.
Pat Findlay to join you at the table at your discretion, if you
feel that that would be helpful. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Findlay, would you state your name and your title?
Mr. Findlay. Yes. Patrick Findlay, assistant director for
facilities, FBI.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Dr. Robyn, GSA recommended Federal
construction in this 2011 project survey report. My question
would be if this is GSA's current recommendation. If not, what
is GSA's current recommendation? As you know, this report
recommends Federal construction. In today's budget climate and
fiscal climate, we know that is not possible. So if this report
is not the true recommendation, what is GSA recommending?
Ms. Robyn. Federal construction, Mr. Chairman, as you know,
is always the least expensive approach, the best approach, in
terms of cost to the taxpayer. So we always prefer that. We are
pursuing that at St. Elizabeths, but you can see from the
delays at St. Elizabeths the problems associated with
consolidating an agency headquarters relying solely on Federal
construction.
So, we are looking at our exchange authority. We are not
looking exclusively at that, but we want to explore that as an
alternative, and a way to do this in a more accelerated way.
Mr. Barletta. When will the committee receive an OMB-
approved prospectus requesting the project?
Ms. Robyn. Well, I would say that OMB approved the RFI to
go out. So I think that should give you some comfort that the
approach that we are pursuing is one OMB is comfortable with.
I think it is premature to talk about sending up a
prospectus. I think we are--we just got the replies from the
RFI in last week. We are evaluating them. Because there are so
many, it is going to take us a while. We will be happy to brief
you along the way on them, but I think it is premature to talk
about a prospectus.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Perkins, would you please describe the
FBI's recommended strategy in its 2011 report? And can you tell
me, is the FBI formally requesting the committee to authorize
that strategy?
Mr. Perkins. Well, not formally requesting that
authorization at this point. The strategy that is put forth in
the 2011 report is that of a public-private partnership that,
as you correctly noted earlier, in this fiscal environment in
which we are in, we believe that would serve as the method by
which would require the least upfront cost for the taxpayers,
have the least impact on Federal spending, and be able to
leverage the private sector's ability to come up with financing
and development of a project with the least cost to the
taxpayer.
So, overall, we believe, in the end, we would have a
facility that would meet our needs and our requirements, both
security and operational, as well as having the least cost to
the taxpayer on the front end.
Mr. Barletta. And could you please present the financial
case for the FBI's proposal? And what does the FBI spend now to
home the headquarters? And what would it spend under a new
proposal?
Mr. Perkins. Certainly. Right now we spend approximately
$168 million annually in rents across 21 different facilities
within the national capital region. Under this new process, and
a single campus, I believe that number would go somewhere
approximately $124 million to $125 million in annual rent. The
annualized net present value over the term of any type of
public-private partnership and lease agreement would save us at
a minimum of $44 million a year over what we are paying in
rent, currently.
Mr. Barletta. And for each of you--Mr. Perkins, you first--
is the ultimate Government ownership of a new headquarters
necessary? And is that in the best interest of the taxpayers?
Mr. Perkins. Yes. Ultimately, in the proposal that we
looked at and really went forward with in our review, the
public-private partnership would involve the facility being
build on Federal land. After a term of approximately a 30-year
lease, would come back in ownership to the Federal Government,
yes. Ultimately, the facility would become a Federal facility.
Mr. Barletta. Dr. Robyn, same question.
Ms. Robyn. I think everyone agrees that this should be a
Federal facility, a federally owned facility, sooner or later.
We typically resort to leased space only for very general
purpose space that we can get on the regular commercial market.
If the facility needs to be specialized to an agency's needs,
it is better to have it be federally owned space. The FBI's
proposal would eventually have it be federally owned, but not
initially.
Mr. Barletta. Dr. Robyn, as I see it, OMB scoring is our
biggest obstacle to the FBI's proposal.
Ms. Robyn. You said that, sir, not----
Mr. Barletta. We all know we don't have $2 billion in
appropriations, and GSA has never been able to get OMB to
approve the type of lease arrangements proposed by the FBI.
My question is this. Please explain the scoring issues with
this proposal. And, two, what is OMB's position? Is OMB
prepared to allow this project to advance as an operating
lease?
Ms. Robyn. Well, I don't want to speak for OMB, but let me
tell you what I think the scoring issue is. And I want to say
that we certainly have not ruled out the out-lease lease-back
approach that the FBI report recommended. That is an innovative
authority that this committee gave us. We still hold out hope
that we can identify a way to do that. So we have not ruled
that out.
I think, in terms of scoring, the philosophical foundation
for scoring is risk. It is the concept of risk. Does--is the
Federal Government bearing the risk, or does the private sector
have skin in the game? That is really what it comes down to. So
when something scores--and typically OMB and CBO are--look at
the world in very similar ways--it is typically because they
feel like the private sector isn't bearing as much risk as
Government, or the scoring is--depends on the amount of risk.
So, I think the issue for an out-lease lease-back approach
would be can we do that in a way that the private sector has
enough skin in the game, that is what it would come down to. We
think we are on better footing with an exchange. We think
that--I think it is--the reason I emphasize that OMB had
approved the RFI is because the RFI that we put out, it did not
limit it to exchange, but it did make clear that we were
interested in the possibility of an exchange of the Hoover
Building for a new headquarters. And that RFI passed muster
with OMB.
So I think we feel that we are on better footing in terms
of potential scoring with an exchange. But we have certainly
not ruled out other approaches.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I will recognize Ranking Member
Norton for questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank both of you for very helpful testimony. Dr. Robyn, the
RFI is different from the Senate resolution. And I note that
the staff memo, which is a memo from the staff of both sides
here, is not a Democratic or Republican staff memo, has a
section or question, or actually is a statement. It says that
the Senate EPW resolution requires, to the extent practicable,
the new location to be 2 miles from a Metrorail station and 2.5
miles from the Capital Beltway. If GSA were to follow this
instruction, it could significantly limit competition of sites
in all three potential jurisdictions: Virginia, DC, and
Maryland.
Is the delineated area in your RFI necessary for
competition, for full and fair and open competition? And is it
likely to be the delineated area in any forthcoming RFP or
Request for Proposals?
Ms. Robyn. We made clear in the RFI that the area we are
interested in is the national capital region. We did not limit
it any more than that. And we did not refer to----
Ms. Norton. And you recognize that the Senate resolution
does limit----
Ms. Robyn. Yes. Yes, I do. We tried to make the RFI as
broad as possible. We want to encourage as much creativity and
interest at this stage as we can. And the RFI does not talk
about being 2.5 miles from a Metro or the beltway. That is not
in the RFI. I think we used those criteria for purposes at--one
point for purposes of trying to estimate the value of land in
various parts of the national capital region. But that--we
didn't--we explicitly did not put that into the RFI.
Ms. Norton. So that standard isn't even in your--and you
don't anticipate it being in the RFP?
Ms. Robyn. I don't know. I think we are very mindful of the
proximity to transit. I think the FBI, as I think we are, I----
Ms. Norton. I don't think you have any choice about
transit.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Norton. That is the policy of the United States, when
it comes to construction. But this 2.5--the linking of the 2.5
miles from the beltway, to deliberately exclude most of the
District of Columbia was an affront, frankly. And it didn't
sound like the GSA usually does business. We, of course, wrote
to the Senate and we didn't think that that could pass muster.
But it is important for that to get on the record here.
You talk about the national capital region.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Norton. And, of course, about distance from Metro
stations. And that, of course, is fair, free, and open, and
nobody gets excluded.
Could I ask Mr. Perkins? Are you seeking to leave the
District of Columbia? Do you object to being in the District of
Columbia? Do you see any advantages to being in the District of
Columbia?
Mr. Perkins. Ranking Member Norton, I will start by saying
that----
Ms. Norton. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Perkins. Oh, yes, ma'am. It is set. I am sorry. I will
start by saying that we have absolutely no objection to being
within the District of Columbia, whatsoever. Our central
mission here is to come up with a property, whether it is in
either Maryland, Virginia, or in the District, that meets two
major criteria: one, our operational mission needs; and two,
providing adequate security for the facility and the workers
who are coming and going from there. So there is absolutely no
objection to the District. There is no objection to any of the
proposals that are out there at this point.
Obviously, as we have already discussed, adjacent--near
highways, transportation, public access, and the like, very,
very important, as we have already mentioned in the record. But
no, we have no objection whatsoever to that.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Could I ask both of you? The RFI has
an enormous acreage, 40 to 55 acres, for a new consolidated
FBI. Bear in mind that you are talking to the committee that
developed these new standards that puts everybody into smaller
amounts of space. You have 40 to 45 acres. We understand that
has a lot to do with security.
Could this requirement be mitigated if other factors were
taken into consideration so that it wouldn't take up so much
land, and have you consider mitigation of that large amount of
land, 40 to 55 acres? Dr. Robyn?
Ms. Robyn. Yes. We have--there is a trade-off between the
amount of land for a setback and alternative approaches to
getting that same level of security through the building,
physical ways the building is constructed. So there is a trade-
off there. Again, we are trying not to prejudice the process at
this point. We are saying we are open to a variety of
approaches. But we recognize that is a serious issue.
I have continually thrown out the idea of whether this
should possibly go on a military base for exactly that reason,
because you would not need to have the same setback. I don't
know that there are many other people who support my thoughts
there.
Ms. Norton. Horrible idea. Is it a horrible idea.
Ms. Robyn. I hear that. I heard that from Congresswoman
Edwards, as well, earlier. But it is another----
Ms. Norton. We will strike that from the record.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. We have had--and I know my time is over--we
have had some dealings, Dr. Robyn, with you and with force
protection standards that harmed this entire region, which we
think are gone forever.
Ms. Robyn. They are, yes. I worked to change those.
Ms. Norton. That required the kind of setbacks that would
mean that you could locate almost nothing of the Federal
Government in this region.
Ms. Robyn. No. Well, that is--I think--so let me just
clarify, because--so, first of all, those, the standards, were
changed.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Ms. Robyn. And I think I had something to do with that, and
thank you----
Ms. Norton. And I thank you for that.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. For your support on that. But
secondly, my thought of--and it is just an idea that I have
thrown out, and it has not gotten a lot of support, but is that
if one were to put this new headquarters at, say, Andrews Air
Force Base or Anacostia-Bolling, you would not need the large
setbacks, because it would already be within a secure
perimeter. So it would be precisely to get away from the large
setback that one would want to consider that.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. We will
have a second round, if there are more questions. But now I
would like to recognize former full committee chair, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your leadership in chairing this important
subcommittee, and continuing to deal with Ms. Norton. Both of
those deserve high praise.
Ms. Norton, did you hear that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Well, she will--staff will inform her later and
she will get even with me. But pleased to participate today.
I have been involved, of course, with GSA prior to becoming
chair of the full committee. We produced a report entitled,
``Sitting on Our Assets: The Federal Government's Misuse of
Taxpayer-Owned Assets,'' and we tried to pick up, when we
gained the Majority, looking at--and the beginning of that
report, if you read it--I think it is still online--focusing on
GSA and their dealing with public buildings.
And the largest trustee of public assets I think we have is
GSA and, of course, the Federal Government, has some broader
jurisdiction across the hall in Government reform, and we will
continue that, which we have done most recently--we had a
narrow scope in this committee--much broader. And I am
absolutely appalled at what I am finding as we continue our
work, looking at these.
First of all, Ms. Robyn, how many square feet is the new
building going to require?
Ms. Robyn. The RFI says up to 2.1 million.
Mr. Mica. Square feet. All in one location. OK. Secondly,
you--to do that you have to make a decision on how you are
going to do it. That would cost quite a bit of money. What is
the estimate that it would cost to build 2 million square feet?
Ms. Robyn. We have not made an estimate of that.
Mr. Mica. Well, come on. You are----
Ms. Robyn. I will defer to----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. GSA. Tell me what it would cost to
build a Federal building.
Ms. Robyn. It is----
Mr. Mica. Were you doing $1,000, $500 a square foot?
Ms. Robyn. It is a substantial amount of money. But, sir, I
don't----
Mr. Mica. But I want to know the range, OK? And you are not
going to get it from this Congress or the next Congress, I
don't believe. Is that--has that money been appropriated?
Ms. Robyn. No.
Mr. Mica. OK. So you are not going to have the money. So
you look at your alternatives. The agency has recommended that
possibly a lease and then a eventual possession by the Federal
Government. That is one of your options, right, since you don't
have the money?
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Have you made a decision on how you are going to
approach this to get them out of there?
Ms. Robyn. No, sir. We have----
Mr. Mica. You have an evaluation that we see in the report.
They are right now sited downtown and you have other spaces. Is
that correct?
Ms. Robyn. They----
Mr. Mica. Sir? Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. How many total square feet do you occupy now?
Mr. Perkins. Just over 3 million square feet.
Mr. Mica. And you are going to consolidate that? You can
get by with 2.2 million?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir, the----
Mr. Mica. So there would be some savings?
Mr. Perkins. There would be considerable savings.
Mr. Mica. And that would have some value to the Government.
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Do you know how much that would be?
Ms. Robyn. Well, the FBI's number is $44 million.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Ms. Robyn. That is an----
Mr. Mica. And that has some value to the Federal
Government.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. If you multiply it out over the number of years.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. So, when you--you are not going to get the money
from the Federal Government. So somebody has got to make a damn
decision of moving forward. When do you expect that will be?
Ms. Robyn. We--in my opening statement I made clear that we
are looking principally at the potential to exchange the value
of the J. Edgar Hoover for a new facility----
Mr. Mica. OK.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. An exchange.
Mr. Mica. And you are negotiating that. OK.
Ms. Robyn. We are not negotiating yet----
Mr. Mica. How long will you let that go on?
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. We are--we put out an RFI.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Ms. Robyn. The responses were due----
Mr. Mica. When is----
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. March 4th. We got 35 responses.
Mr. Mica. And how long----
Ms. Robyn. We are working----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Will it take you to evaluate them?
Ms. Robyn. It will take----
Mr. Mica. Give me a date. Come on. This is business.
Ms. Robyn. It will take a couple of months to go through 35
responses----
Mr. Mica. OK. So 60 days you will have an answer. That is
the problem with Government versus business in the private
sector. Nobody can make a decision or meet a timeline.
Now, I just got through being down at the--Miami to look at
the Federal courthouse. Sitting empty, a Federal building, for
more than 5 years. They knew 2 years before that that that
building was going to be empty. And nobody has made a damn
decision yet on what to do with it, costing $1.2 million a
year. A total of just 5 years is $6 million to keep an empty
building maintained.
Now, do you have a plan? Are you going to--are they going
to vacate the building downtown, sir? That is the plan?
Mr. Perkins. That is one of the options----
Mr. Mica. That is your major, principal location.
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Do you have a plan to do something with that
building?
Mr. Perkins. With J. Edgar Hoover? We would----
Mr. Mica. Are you starting that process now?
Ms. Robyn. The----
Mr. Mica. I will bet there isn't plan one.
Ms. Robyn. Sir----
Mr. Mica. I will bet there isn't a clue as to what to do
with it.
Ms. Robyn. Could----
Mr. Mica. Now, if I really want to go after you, the FTC
building, again, we have down the street. The consolidation of
that, we propose, would save a half-a-billion dollars. But God
forbid we should do that or consolidate it all in one location.
Ms. Robyn. The nature of an exchange is that we would, in
effect, auction off the Hoover Building----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. To a developer. And in exchange for
that value, they would build a new facility.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
Ms. Robyn. That would be up to the developer----
Mr. Mica. I don't mean to give you a hard time. And thank
you for also building in the power station. This week you
announced that it went online auction. And we held a hearing in
the vacant 2.08-acre power station. Just for the record, that
will bring in $19.5 million.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. We also have the Old Post Office building, and I
hope that deal is moving forward.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. But we have--I think we had 14,000 properties. I
only have 13,994 more to go.
Thank you and yield back the rest of my time. If you have a
second round, I will be here and I will also submit questions
for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Now I would like to
recognize Ms. Edwards for 5 minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you also to
the witnesses this morning. I appreciate the insight that I
have already gotten from our discussion thus far.
I want to clarify something, because I am looking at the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee-approved
resolution, and just want to be clear about what your
understanding of that resolution is, and whether you believe
that it excludes sites within the District of Columbia from
also competing in this eventual competition.
Ms. Robyn. I would have to ask our general counsel to
interpret it. I would just say here that we intentionally cast
the RFI more broadly so as to encourage the maximum amount of
ideas and interest at this stage. So we didn't--we did not
limit the RFI based on the Senate resolution. I don't know
whether, as a legal matter, whether the Senate resolution
would----
Ms. Edwards. It would be helpful, perhaps not here, but to
have your counsel's interpretation of that for our
consideration.
Ms. Robyn. OK.
Ms. Edwards. I want to ask you about the--in the GSA study
report, on page 4 specifically, I just want to read to you what
your report says, that ``the location of the facility is
assumed to be within 2.0 miles of the Metro station and 2.5
miles of''--and I emphasize ``of'' because it is a different
preposition--``the Capital Beltway with site costs similar to
those found in the more developed, close-in suburban areas as a
means to estimate the maximum cost the Government would
incur.''
And so, I want to make sure that we are also following--as
we move forward, Mr. Chairman or Ranking Member--that we are
also following the recommendations that were laid out in the
GSA report, and that we come as close to that as possible in
our own work.
Ms. Robyn. Could I just clarify?
Ms. Edwards. Yes.
Ms. Robyn. The--those figures were used for purposes of
doing a valuation, valuation of property at various locations
in the national capital region. They were not inserted as a
siting criterion. So that is an important distinction. They
were for purposes of valuing land.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks for the----
Ms. Robyn. Land and property, yes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you for the clarification. Excuse me.
I also want to know how the Hoover Building fits into a
potential financial structure for the new headquarters
building. Mr. Perkins, if you could, clarify that for us.
Mr. Perkins. Certainly. I may draw upon my GSA colleague in
assistance with that, but the Hoover Building, the way it is
being proposed in the FBI's report, would serve as part of the
public-private partnership to where we would exchange that
facility and that property with a developer who has a plan to
be able to build a facility for us in an acceptable area. At
that time, then, at the end of the construction, if I am
correct, the Hoover Building--that property would become the
property of the developer, to develop as he or she sees fit,
going forward. And then we would then eventually acquire
possession of the new facility, as it is completed, and over
the lease term.
And correct any of the technical aspects of that.
Ms. Edwards. That was a yes, Ms. Robyn, right? Let me ask
you as well, Dr. Robyn, if the GSA has gotten any independent
expert advice regarding the actual valuation of the J. Edgar
Hoover Building. And, if so, from whom? And what did you learn?
Ms. Robyn. It has been appraised at several points along
the way. I don't feel comfortable throwing those numbers out.
They are not--I don't think they have ever been widely
circulated. There was a Jones Lang LaSalle report in 2005,
2006, that included an appraisal done by a subcontractor to
them. I believe we did another one later, within the last year
or two. And typically, they appraise the value as-is, and then
the value of the unimproved land, as well as a number of other
variations on those.
I just don't--those numbers are out there. I would be happy
to brief you on them privately. I don't feel comfortable
sharing them more broadly.
Ms. Edwards. At what point will, as part of this process,
will we have some sense of the real valuation of the property
for the purposes of figuring out whether the savings to the
taxpayer is $44 million in, you know, in opportunities around,
or perhaps the savings might even be more, depending on the
valuation of that property in exchange.
Ms. Robyn. Well, I think that we--I mean, ultimately, one
doesn't know the value of a piece of property until you sell
it. The market tells you what the property is worth. We think
we can--we would certainly do everything we could to raise that
value before we sold it, by working with the District of
Columbia on the historic status of the building, on, you know,
possible other changes that would allow for maximum use of that
very desirable property.
I think we can get a sense of what it is worth from an
appraisal. But ultimately, one doesn't know until you actually
sell the property.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Perkins, the FBI report and the Urban
Land Institute report each have detailed cost figures for the
proposed FBI headquarters. Can you briefly summarize what it
will cost to build a new headquarters? And can this committee
rely on those numbers for the purpose of authorizing a new
headquarters?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir. I can give some approximate numbers
on that. The Urban Land Institute was actually brought in
following our conducting our own internal study to really check
our math and put a second set of eyes on the document. The
findings they came up with were fairly on par with what ours
did.
As far as the actual cost of what we would take, in looking
at that type of a facility, looking at approximately $1.2
billion coming up with the square footage we needed to put that
together. And that is over the term. That is the construction
plus--well, that gives us the 2.2 million square feet,
including the land costs involved in that.
Mr. Barletta. Can the FBI's proposal be financed through a
lease utilizing--without utilizing the value of the
Pennsylvania Avenue property?
Mr. Perkins. I will take a stab at that, and will also
defer to my colleague from GSA. I would say that is going to be
a very difficult road to go down, if not--especially in the
current fiscal climate in which we are operating.
Mr. Barletta. Dr. Robyn, how does GSA and FBI propose to
pay a developer for any difference between the value of the
Hoover Building and the cost to build a new FBI headquarters
complex? It is questionable whether the Hoover property will
provide sufficient funds to--as an option for a 2-million-
square-foot new facility. And how do you propose that they will
pay for that?
Ms. Robyn. That is a fair question. I am not ready to
concede that the value of Hoover won't cover the value of a
headquarters. I think we don't know what the value of Hoover
is. But I think it--a lot of it comes down to land, whether the
land--whether the Federal Government would be purchasing the
land, or whether we would be getting the land for nothing. So,
it is not obvious to me that one would cost more than the
other.
A major question that we put out in the RFI was--to
developers was if there is a--if you think there is a
disparity, how would you propose to cover it? There are a
variety of ways. There may be other property, other GSA
property that we would be willing to also exchange, or that we
would propose to exchange to add to the value. One could do
continued leasing some space for the FBI. One could do
something in phases, like we are doing at St. Elizabeths,
although we would like to avoid that.
Mr. Barletta. Is there a list of properties that you may
look at as an option?
Ms. Robyn. In the national capital----
Mr. Barletta. To add to the exchange.
Ms. Robyn. No, no. I am putting that out as a conceptual
alternative, but I don't have other--a short list of other
properties.
Mr. Barletta. Assuming GSA proceeds with the project and
gets to the point of issuing a request for proposals, is GSA
taking any steps to seek and use outside expertise to advise
GSA in the process? And if you could, please explain.
Ms. Robyn. Yes, we have. The FBI and GSA began talking
about this 9 years ago. Director Mueller and the then-head of
the GSA, Perry, met in 2004. We have both done a series of
studies that have drawn on outside experts to do housing
studies to look at the condition of the Hoover Building, to
appraise the value, a variety of things.
So, we have done two things: one, reach out to outside
experts, and then draw on the best and brightest we have inside
GSA to work on this project. And we will continue to do that.
Mr. Barletta. OK, thank you. I will turn to Ranking Member
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Just a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. I want
to get back to this 2.1 million square feet. That was in the
initial report. One thing I believe this subcommittee will hold
GSA to is its requirements for smaller amounts of space and
square footage.
Do you believe that perhaps, given the new requirements,
that 2.1--that less than 2.5 million square feet may do for a
new headquarters?
Ms. Robyn. We were clear to say in the RFI ``up to,'' up to
2.1 million. So we haven't locked in on that number. I think
it----
Ms. Norton. Well, how did you get to that number? Did that
number include the space allocations that the administration
now has mandated, as well as this committee?
Ms. Robyn. Yes. That represents taking those people that
the FBI believes need to be in the consolidated headquarters
and allocating a--it is a pretty conservative space number for
them.
Ms. Norton. Well, I mean, is it--does it keep--first of
all, I am not sure that that--that may have been issued before
the mandate for----
Ms. Robyn. Yes. Well, we--yes. We--I mean we have been
working----
Ms. Norton. So all I am asking is have you----
Ms. Robyn. Can it go further? I----
Ms. Norton. The mandate was--came down from the
administration, it came down from this committee. For example,
the Coast Guard headquarters----
Ms. Robyn. Right.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Was done before that mandate. And
what I am asking you is--was the 2.1 million square feet, up to
2.1 square feet, did it take into account the mandate that says
you must reduce the per-employee space in Federal buildings?
Ms. Robyn. It represents a 30-percent reduction in space.
So, yes, it did.
Ms. Norton. That is my only question.
Ms. Robyn. Yes. An apples-to-apples comparison, would--the
FBI would be going from, I think, 3.1 to 2.1--3 to 2.1. So it
is a 30-percent reduction. Even before the OMB mandate, we have
been very aggressively pushing agencies to downsize their
footprint. And that--and the FBI is very much on board, because
it supports their effort to go to more collaborative, open
workspace.
Ms. Norton. Well, does the building take into account--
well, first of all, let me ask Mr. Perkins. Do you see further
growth in the FBI? And does the--will the new site take into
account for the growth, if you do see further growth in the
FBI?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, ma'am, it does. It accounts for the
growth over the coming years. And the key point to remember
here is in shrinking down from 21 facilities to a single
facility, you are eliminating a significant number of
overlapping space, great inefficiencies. When you are dropping
800,000 square feet, it is easy to be able to put all of us
into 1 facility at 2.1, versus the 21 that are out there, or
the 20-plus headquarters.
So--but to answer your question, yes indeed, it does look
at the future growth of the FBI and the potential for that,
going forward.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Perkins, did you have any role in the RFI
delineation?
Mr. Perkins. I had no direct role in the development of the
RFI.
Ms. Norton. Were you consulted?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, ma'am. Well, our assistant director for
facilities, who is in my chain of command. Yes, ma'am. The FBI
was consulted in that.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask about the role--I can understand it
was, of course--it is always advisable to consult the agency.
But Dr. Robyn, you may know that this subcommittee has
repeatedly criticized GSA for allowing agencies
disproportionate authority over what happens in the agency,
including where things could go. I mean we have agencies on K
Street who could have gone to other parts of the region and the
city.
In order for me to get people to go to NOMA, which is a
stone's throw from the Senate, I had to beat--if you will
forgive me--GSA about the head and shoulders. There have been
some, I am going to say, disparaging remarks made about going
to one part of the region. So I have got to ask. What role will
the FBI have when the ultimate authority under the statute is
with the GSA?
Ms. Robyn. On this issue, as on others, we have--we wear
two hats. On the one, we try to be customer-friendly to our
Federal agency customers. At the same time, we do--we play a
sheriff role. And downsizing square footage and getting
agencies out of leased space and into less expensive space is
also part of our role. So we play that dual role here, as we do
in other places.
Ms. Norton. Dr. Robyn, all I am saying is--and you have to
play a dual role. The role of sheriff has been much overcome in
the past, so that agencies have cost the taxpayers billions of
dollars, just by essentially having the final say on matters
that were within the authority of this agency. And that is
something we will be watching.
If I could ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, and that is
about the Old Post Office. What is the status of the Old Post
Office, which has been a virtual project of this subcommittee?
Ms. Robyn. Yes, and thank you very much for your support.
You know, we announced a year ago that the Trump organization
is the preferred developer. We said that we are going to need a
year to negotiate it. These things take time when you are
talking about--and we are at that point. We are still
negotiating, but we are hopeful that we will--you know, we are
not going to take a bad deal, but we are hopeful that we will
have--that we will complete our negotiations relatively soon.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr.
Mica.
Mr. Mica. That is astounding, that it has taken you a year
to negotiate. What the hell would you doing, when you should
have been having a deal that was close to just sewing up? It is
unbelievable.
Mr. Chairman, maybe you need to go do another hearing in
that vacant building down there. This is appalling, the way we
manage our Federal properties. It is just beyond the pale.
OK. You said you got $44 million in savings, right?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Perkins? OK. You multiply that about 27 years,
that is worth about $1 billion--10 times 44 is 440, 27, 28
years, that has got $1 billion value.
Did you tell, or somebody testify that you had--it would
cost you about 300--you need 60 to 70 acres. Is that right, 50
to 70?
Mr. Perkins. Between 45 and 50----
Mr. Mica. Forty-five? OK. But your estimate in cost is
about $300 million, right? Just a guess. In the capital region,
you are going to--it is going to cost you that much? Give me a
ballpark. Quarter of a million?
Mr. Perkins. The value of the land. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Yes, OK. Sorry, Ms. Norton, you got screwed in
this whole process, I saw, with the Senate resolution. Figured
this one out. They kind of excluded you from--this is neat, the
way they craft it. They just don't happen to have a Senator, so
they screwed her.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. But thank you, GSA, for helping her, because your
RFI, whatever, your Request for Information, actually allowed
the District to be considered, property in the District. Is
that right?
Ms. Robyn. All parts, yes.
Mr. Mica. So we--this isn't a request even for proposal,
folks. This is a request for information. But that is the game
that is being played there, interestingly enough.
Now, if someone was doing their job in GSA, you would look
at the Federal properties that we have, so we could save $300
million to start. We have $1 billion we could save there. If
this thing is going to cost you $2 billion, that is a $700
million deficit that we would have to make up for, get the
private sector to--there may be more than that, but the Federal
Government, in the meantime, would be paying an average of $44
million.
Just thinking this thing out, there are plenty of
properties. I was stunned to find out that there is 7,000 acres
in Beltsville at the Agricultural Research Service station at
Beltsville, Maryland, 7,000 acres. This is one of the principal
buildings out there. Can you see it from here? From there? I
know I had a big blowup. I don't have it. This is the Food and
Drug Administration building, windows knocked out. There are
rows of office building. Seven thousand acres. You need 45 to
70?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Then I went across the other way to--and I am not
picking sides in this fight. That is Maryland. Here is a site
we could save $300 million, $250 million, or whatever.
I went out to Springfield. At the Metro stop--I took the
Metro back, folks, to save money on gas. Didn't charge the
taxpayers for it. The Metro stop, how many acres, 70 acres out
there? They use it for storage, storing files and storing doors
and stuff. I went out and looked at it myself. A million square
feet on about 70 prime acres we could use.
So, I would think someone would put a deal together, or at
least your RFI would say we have the opportunity to use some
Federal buildings. Those are only two sites, one in Maryland,
one Virginia--not picking sides. Ms. Norton has one in--what is
it the staff told me? Yes, OK. Not that I am a fan of the
District, and I have my little war going with her on things,
but we have sites.
Nine years? Did you say 9 years that they have been going
back and forth, talking about this?
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And then you gave me 60 days for the Request for
Information? You think you would have a Request for Proposals
after that?
Ms. Robyn. Well, I don't think it will be 60 days, no. I
think it is going to take----
Mr. Mica. Do you need more direction from Congress? You
want something from this side of the aisle? Is this enough to
work with?
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. Take longer. We always welcome----
Mr. Mica. OK. But again, it is so frustrating. We could
save money, we could house our chief law enforcement agency,
the FBI, and provide some of this space, if somebody would
start thinking, if we had people with a little bit of common
sense.
Again, I have to go back to you all looking at--the thing
that stuns me, like when I went out to Beltsville, I know it is
the Department of Agriculture. Nobody has a plan of what to do
with this. There are 500 buildings on that property, 200 of
them are vacant, vacant or smashed in, like this. And no one
has a plan.
Do you--and I saw the information you provide on real
estate assessments from the agency that almost all the
information is incorrect. In fact, some of them have vacant
buildings and smashed out buildings like this that they report
as in good shape. This is a broken system, when we are closing
down and sequestering vital services of Government, and we have
billions of dollars of waste, and nobody is doing anything
about it.
Ms. Robyn. And, sir, I have told you in an--first of all,
as you know, that is not GSA property. And I have stressed to
you, coming from 3 years in the Defense Department, that we
need a civilian BRAC.
Mr. Mica. Ah, Defense.
Ms. Robyn. We need a civilian BRAC.
Mr. Mica. Post Office, Defense. It is more than a BRAC, and
I yield back----
Ms. Robyn. We need a----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. The balance of my time.
Ms. Robyn. Can I--I want to just point out something, that
the conversation about building the J. Edgar Hoover Building
began in the early 1960s. The building was finished in 1974.
The reason was lack of funding. Lack--so this is an old--you
know, these things--this is the dilemma that we----
Mr. Mica. So we are following that pattern again.
Ms. Robyn. Well, it is an age-old problem. The Old
Executive Office Building, the same thing. It took two
decades----
Mr. Mica. God forbid we should drag ourselves into the----
Ms. Robyn. It is not----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. 21st century of fiscal
responsibility. Amen.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Mica. And Ms. Edwards?
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
say to Mr. Mica that I would be happy to work with him on
making sure that the Beltsville agricultural property becomes
the new campus of the FBI.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Edwards. Well--and I am sure that as the GSA and FBI
move forward on going from where we are right now to a Request
for Proposals, that you will make certain that this process is
open and fair, and that sites like the Beltsville agricultural
property can be part of this consideration.
I want to ask you, actually, Mr. Perkins, if you have any
concern--and this is actually somewhat related to Beltsville--
if you have any concerns in a new FBI headquarters would be
adjacent to support of mixed use development to enhance the
overall work environment for the workforce. Do you have any
concerns about that, or--any security concerns or otherwise?
Mr. Perkins. No, ma'am. I believe, as I have noted, I want
to make sure that whatever facility we wind up in allows us to
carry out our mission and keeps our workforce secure. Those are
the two main issues. And if--depending on what the adjacent
properties were, their types of usage would all be considered
in any kind of a request. We would hope to be a part of that
discussion.
Obviously, to meet those security requirements it would
require certain offsets and all, as you know. But no, in answer
to your question, it would not be a major concern if the
adequate offset in space was available.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I wonder also if you could--when we
go to those security concerns--if the FBI headquarters has to
be built to satisfy Interagency Security Committee Level V
security specifications, that with that in mind, what would be
your view, in terms of the area that would ideally be
encompassed for a new and consolidated headquarters? Do you
have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Perkins. Well, I think I have really--with the
requirements we have put out, we are going to lean heavily on
the GSA to come up with that location. I think there are
locations in each of the areas that we have discussed today
that would be adequate to meet our needs, just based on what we
know at this point.
There are pluses and minuses. There are--there has been
reference to where FBI employees live and commute from. I don't
have the exact numbers of where all of our people reside, but I
do know we have an adequate and representative number in each
of both Maryland, Virginia, and the District.
I will note that the three top officials within the FBI,
one lives in each of those areas. We have one of us in the
District, one in Maryland, and one in Virginia. So there is,
ironically, an equal representation there.
But the security concerns are significant for us,
especially as we are--where we are located at the current time,
which is probably the worst of all of the agencies in the
intelligence community.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And Dr. Robyn, I want to go to
something that our Ranking Member Norton suggested as she was
asking questions, and that goes to the concern that, whether it
is true or not--and we can go around and around about that--
that there, at least in my jurisdiction, has been some
perception that the GSA has not always acted as a fair arbiter
and that, in fact, building on what Ranking Member Norton
discussed, that, in fact, that GSA, in some instances, has been
perceived to actually favor agency requests that can sometimes
take a back seat to what is the best benefit of the bargain for
the taxpayer.
And I would only say this, that this is a new day. This is
a new Congress. And this is a new process for the FBI and for
the GSA. And I would just strongly, strongly urge you to take
those criticisms into consideration, and to move forward in a
very different kind of way. Because there are a lot of eyes
watching the GSA. And when you look at the amount of money that
is currently spent by the FBI on its operations, on its leasing
operations, $168 million, if there is any potential, given the
choices, to make sure that the taxpayer saves a boatload of
money, all of us have an interest in doing that in this very
constrained fiscal environment.
And, at the same time, we want to make sure that the agency
and its workforce are able to meet the mission of the Bureau in
a location that is acceptable and is secure, and that the
process itself is open, and that GSA is the one who is leading
the process, and not following, because of one agency head or
other. And that is not to disparage at all the FBI, but to say
that we just want a fair and open process, and all of our
jurisdictions want to have the capacity to compete. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. And, Mr. Perkins,
what would be an appropriate limit for the cost of a new
facility on a per-square-foot basis?
Mr. Perkins. I would have to get back to you with an exact
answer on that, sir, as far as the per-square-foot basis goes.
I think in an earlier--I wanted to clarify something as well on
one of the questions on the facility itself involving the J.
Edgar Hoover Building. If we were to trade the Hoover Building,
it would be for the land cost involved. And thus, we would then
utilize, in the public-private partnership, the funding and
financing of a private entity to build and construct that
building over time.
Mr. Barletta. The reports have some cost. Would they be
accurate? Can we rely on the report?
Mr. Perkins. Go ahead, Pat.
Mr. Findlay. Yes. We have checked any changes in
construction design cost, and they are very, very close. And
there was some contingencies and allowances built in, so those
still appear to be very valid.
Mr. Barletta. And what is the proposed rental rate or cap
you would propose for a consolidated headquarters without the
Hoover Building exchange?
Mr. Findlay. Both our report and, really, the private
sector through Urban Land Institute confirmed that that could
definitely be done at around $54 per square foot. If I could
point out, though, the estimate is the Government would be
receiving something in excess of $5 per square foot for the
ground lease per the approach that we are using.
Mr. Barletta. And what would the estimated rental rate be
with an exchange?
Mr. Findlay. A whole lot better.
Mr. Barletta. Dr. Robyn, how can Congress ensure adequate
cost controls? And is setting a maximum rental rate one way to
control those costs?
Ms. Robyn. I don't--I am not sure what the answer--I mean I
think working--we will work closely with you. I don't know
whether that is the best way. I mean I think the--we will rely
fundamentally on competition to get the best rate. I am not
sure how else to answer that.
I mean we do set--we set caps within the national capital
region on leased rental rates. And you know, frankly, as an
economist, I have mixed feelings about that. It kind of amounts
to rent control, but we do that. We limit the amount that
agencies can pay for leases. So it is a--but at the end of the
day we are relying on competition to get us the best deal for
the taxpayer.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Perkins, one of the areas that can cost
to increase are obviously change orders and changing
requirements. How will the FBI ensure that its requirements are
all thoroughly identified upfront, so there are no costly
change orders or increases, once the project begins?
Mr. Perkins. One of the most important ways is we will have
a complete development team formed within the FBI that will
work closely with the GSA to go forward. We are quickly--well,
we have already realized the mammoth scope of what this
undertaking would be that would require significant oversight
internally within the FBI, as well as with our partners at GSA,
going forward. So we would have a dedicated team of individuals
who would solely be working on this project to ensure those
issues and to ensure both requirements were met and cost
controls were in place.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. So far as you know, Dr. Robyn, has the GSA ever
engaged in developing a facility using the flexibility that we
have now given you?
Ms. Robyn. You mean the exchange----
Ms. Norton. Have you ever had any experience?
Ms. Robyn. Using the exchange authority? Is that----
Ms. Norton. Or 412 authority, 585 authority, the different
authorities, some of which you already had----
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. But the subcommittee made it even
more explicit a number of years ago. Have you any experience
using flexible authority?
Ms. Robyn. We have----
Ms. Norton. To develop a construction.
Ms. Robyn. We have used the exchange authority in limited
ways, nothing this large.
Ms. Norton. Because there will be some who wonder whether
you can manage this authority. It took you so long to use it,
took GSA so long to use it.
Ms. Robyn. Well, it----
Ms. Norton. It is not exactly unknown to people engaged in
real estate, but--and many of your staff have come out of, of
course, professional real estate.
But how do you plan to organize internally to do what you
have never done before, and what you seemed unwilling to do
before? And I must say, as I ask this question, that I am
cheered that your administrator is Mr. Tangherlini. This is an
administrator who comes from OMB, and that may have something
to do with the fact that OMB now understands more about the
costs it puts on the agency by not allowing that flexibility.
But now that you have it for the FBI, and you have never
really used it, how will you organize the GSA to use it? Or
will you bring in consultants to help you manage this
authority?
Ms. Robyn. I think both. Let me just speak to why we
haven't used it. And I am new here, I have only been here 6
months. But I think our preference, as I have said, is always
to do Federal construction. That is always the----
Ms. Norton. No, I understand that.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. The least cost approach. So in----
Ms. Norton. I understand that. But, for example, you are
not going to be able to do that----
Ms. Robyn. Right.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. With the remainder of the
Department of Homeland Security, and we have heard nothing from
the GSA about how it purports to continue building that
facility, also a secure facility. And, of course, this is going
to end up being a pilot, because if you can do it here----
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Perhaps you can do it----
Ms. Robyn. Right.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. There.
Ms. Robyn. Yes, yes. I----
Ms. Norton. But we know what--everybody knows that if the
chairman and I wanted to buy a house, and we had the cash to
put down, it would cost us less than taking a mortgage. So we
understand that.
Ms. Robyn. Right.
Ms. Norton. And nobody does that, even those who can afford
it don't do that. So you can't afford it this time. You have
not done it before. How will--how are we to have confidence
that you can do it? Are you relying only on staff that you have
who have been building, for example, the Department of Homeland
Security so well? Or will you be relying as well on others who
have----
Ms. Robyn. Well----
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Who have had this experience?
Ms. Robyn. I think our--I mean we have asked for--I don't
think that there has been a problem with the way we have
managed the Department of Homeland Security. We have not gotten
the funding----
Ms. Norton. You managed it very well, but you weren't using
this authority.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. That we requested--well, yes.
Ms. Norton. We got you more than $2 billion.
Ms. Robyn. Right.
Ms. Norton. And I am asking you----
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. When you now have new flexibility
that you haven't used before, can you tell this subcommittee
that you can manage that? And if so, is it going to take
reorganization of some kind within the GSA? Are you relying on
consultants? That is my direct question.
Ms. Robyn. It is both. It is both. It is not going to
require a reorganization of the agency. We have done
headquarters projects before. The Department of Transportation
headquarters project you are very familiar with. That is one
where it is a capital lease. We will be paying rent on the
Department of Transportation headquarters for 30 years, and
then we will have to sign another lease and pay rent for
another 30 years. We don't want to do that. So we are trying
another approach.
But it is not fundamentally different than what we were--
what we have been doing. And I think it does reflect the acting
administrator's knowledge of OMB and scoring challenges.
Ms. Norton. Well, I agree with you, Dr. Robyn. I think you
have all along had the capacity and the skill to do it. You
haven't had the will to do it. And now that Mr. Tangherlini has
stepped up and you have that kind of leadership, that increases
my confidence that the agency can pull it off.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Ms. Edwards?
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I just have one last question.
And it relates to the question that you were asking of Dr.
Robyn, and it has to do with the idea of--that you either
encourage competition, as you have done--as you suggested,
through the RFI process, or setting maximum lease rates.
And I want to ask you about that, because there has been
some concerns expressed over a period of time by me and others
on this committee that when you set--when GSA sets maximum
lease rates, that that actually has not been done fairly
through the region, which has greatly disadvantaged some
jurisdictions over other jurisdictions.
And so, if the GSA chooses to go that route, do we have
assurances that the--a maximum lease rate that you would set
would be equally set in the region, so that everybody in the
region would be competing fairly? Or would you continue the
process which is only true here in the Metropolitan Washington
area, where one county or one jurisdiction has a different rate
than another jurisdiction, which really discourages
competition?
Ms. Robyn. Those rates apply to a scenario where we would
be leasing space. And I would hope we would not be leasing
space. So I will leave it at that.
I think you are raising a broader issue, and I am torn on
that broader issue. I can see arguments on both sides. But for
purposes of this, I would hope that won't be an issue, because
I would hope that we won't be in leased space.
Ms. Edwards. Well, I am just suggesting to you right now
that, going forward, even if that were ever a consideration, I
just think it would be a nonstarter for GSA again to pursue a
route of valuing leased space differently in the same
metropolitan region where all of us have to operate under the
same constraints.
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Edwards. And--but I do share the view that the
preference is the kind of competition that you envision that
allows all of us in the region to compete fairly.
Ms. Robyn. Let me just add that when we set rents, even in
our own space, it does--we do it using commercial methodology,
and it reflects the commercial rents in the area.
So, it is--we don't set it for the entire NCR, we do--but
it does--it reflects what commercial rents are in the area.
But----
Ms. Edwards. As I finish, just to reiterate----
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Edwards [continuing]. The Metropolitan Washington area
is the only----
Ms. Robyn. Yes.
Ms. Edwards [continuing]. Region in the country where you
do that. Every other region, those kind of rates are set
regionally, except here, with zero justification, zero
explanation. And I--we digress from the FBI, but I want to make
this very clear for our record, because time and again GSA has
appeared before this committee and can't even offer a history,
a record, an explanation about why those differences exist,
except that they do. And they greatly disadvantage my county in
Prince George's County. And we are not going to go forward like
that. Let's just do a competition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Dr. Robyn, earlier you said that
it was premature to talk about a prospectus for the project.
Yet the committee needs a prospectus, or least a cost
information that is included in the prospectus, in order to
authorize the project. So when will the GSA provide the
committee with the information and the request for the
committee to move forward?
Ms. Robyn. I think we need to digest the 35 responses that
we got to the--one of them was larger than a bread box, so
there is a lot of material for us to digest. But as soon as we
have something meaningful, I would be happy to have--to brief
you on that. I don't want to commit to--I am not--you know,
hopefully the next step will be an RFP, but I don't want to
make any commitments until we see what we got.
Mr. Barletta. I will take you up on that offer.
Ms. Robyn. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. If there are no further questions, I would
ask unanimous consent for the record that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearings.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. I would like
to thank our witnesses again for their testimony today.
If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]