    [Senate Hearing 115-856]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-856

                          OVERSIGHT: FBI HEADQUARTERS
                             CONSOLIDATION PROJECT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 28, 2018
                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    30-663PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               FEBRUARY 28, 2018
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................    13
    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland    14
    Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland..    15

                                   WITNESSES

    Mathews, Dan, Commissioner, GSA Public Building Service..........    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    26
            Senator Cardin...........................................    27
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    31
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    37
    Haley, Richard L. II, Assistant Director, FBI Finance Division...    39
        Prepared statement...........................................    41

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan With PPP Comments to
      Democrats, by Jeff Davis, Eno Transportation Weekly, Week of
      September 25, 2017.............................................   265
    Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say, by Lauren
      Gardner et al., Politico, February 14, 2018....................   268
    Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize America's
      Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accessed March 15,
      2018...........................................................   272

               OVERSIGHT: FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Fischer, Ernst,
    Cardin, and Van Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this meeting to
    order.
        Today's oversight hearing will focus on the status of the
    FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project. We will hear testimony
    from the General Services Administration and the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation.
        Last August this Committee held a hearing on the search for
    a new FBI headquarters. The hearing was in response to GSA's
    abrupt cancellation of their plan--years in the making--to
    consolidate FBI headquarters at a new location in either
    Maryland or Virginia. The plan involved trading the crumbling
    Hoover Building to partially offset the costs of new
    construction.
        Senators weren't notified of the cancellation in advanced,
    and first heard of the decision through the press. This isn't
    what accountable government looks like. Nonetheless, the
    hearing ended on a positive note.
        Both the GSA and FBI committed to return to Congress with a
    workable solution for the FBI headquarters. The plan was to do
    that by November 30th. A week before that deadline, GSA and FBI
    indicated they would require an additional 60 days to develop
    and submit a report detailing a workable solution.
        In response to this request, Ranking Member Carper and I
    sent a letter emphasizing the importance of receiving a
    thorough plan from GSA. We granted the extension request to
    ensure GSA and FBI had ample time to consider differing
    financing options for the project. The new deadline was set for
    January 29th of this year, and we expected it to be met. The
    deadline came and went, and the GSA didn't provide us with the
    report.
        To make matters worse, GSA's ultimate recommendation
    contained within the report was leaked to the press 2 full
    weeks before the report was delivered to this Committee. As was
    the case last summer, Members of Congress should have been
    notified well in advance of the media.
        On February 12th the Committee finally received GSA's
    overdue report. The report contains a revised plan which
    recommends the Hoover Building be demolished to make way for
    the construction of a new headquarters facility in the same
    location.
        Instead of consolidating all 10,600 FBI headquarters staff
    into one campus location, the revised plan would move 2,300
    headquarters staff to three new facilities around the country.
    The plan estimates that the total cost of the new project at
    $3.3 billion, and it indicates the Administration will be
    seeking $2.175 billion in appropriations to fully fund
    demolishing and rebuilding the Hoover Building.
        While this appropriations request is more than double the
    $800 million previously requested by GSA, the report estimates
    that the new plan's overall cost will be lower than that of the
    old plan.
        The revised plan is a significant departure from previous
    plans considered and put forward by GSA and FBI. The revised
    plan eliminates many of the FBI's security requirements: it
    scraps the concept of a consolidated campus, it abandons the
    need for a remote truck inspection facility, and it discards
    the requirement of a detached central utility plan.
        Under the old plan, these features were considered critical
    for FBI's security. Now they are gone, so the question is what
    happened.
        It has been nearly 7 years since this Committee first
    directed GSA to follow through on this project. Yet the need
    for a new FBI headquarters remains as pressing as ever. The men
    and women of the FBI who work around the clock to keep America
    safe require a modern and a functioning office building that
    meets their needs.
        It is past time for the GSA to implement a workable plan,
    one that can hold up to Committee scrutiny and deliver the long
    overdue replacement for the aging Hoover Building. The members
    of this Committee want what is best for the American taxpayers
    and what is best for the hardworking men and women of the FBI.
        The Federal Government has already spent over $20 million
    in 13 years planning for an FBI headquarters. The revised plan
    starts the process from scratch. I hope that today's testimony
    will clarify how this plan will succeed where previous efforts
    have failed.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper for his
    opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome our witnesses today, and I want to thank
    our colleagues, especially from Maryland, for urging us to have
    this hearing, and commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding it.
        Our friends from GSA, our friends from the FBI, welcome. We
    thank you and your colleagues for the work that you do,
    especially at the FBI. Thank you very much.
        The hearing today, as the Chairman has said, is a follow up
    to our hearing in August of last year, a hearing we held on the
    cancellation of the procurement for a consolidated FBI
    headquarters. At the conclusion of that hearing the witnesses
    from GSA committed to providing our Committee with a workable
    solution to meet the FBI's needs for a new headquarters.
        After an extension the Committee received the promised
    report on February the 12th, and the report--as the Chairman
    has suggested--is a complete reversal of a plan for the FBI
    that was more than a decade in the making. It abandons previous
    efforts to consolidate FBI's operations away from the Bureau's
    current location at the J. Edgar Hoover Building. Frankly, this
    about face is concerning, maybe even troubling.
        All members of this Committee should be concerned about
    this new plan for the FBI; not just the members of the
    Committee, but Senators who are not on this Committee. It
    raises serious questions from the impacts on national security
    to the excess cost of this decision may likely impose on our
    Federal Government at a time when our budget deficit this year,
    as my colleagues know, is going to exceed $1 trillion just in 1
    year. The kind of money that we are talking about here is
    alarming.
        I hope that today's hearing can answer some of these
    questions and alleviate members' concerns, including my own.
        What is not in question today is the fact that the FBI
    needs a new headquarters. The Chairman has already said that.
    We agree. The current facility is in dangerous disrepair, which
    not only affects the day to day operations of the FBI, but also
    has significant national security implications.
        One of the main motivations to consolidate the FBI into one
    location was to ensure that FBI headquarters maintains
    necessary security standards. There are also efficiencies to be
    gained by reducing departmental fragmentation.
        This new plan, however, appears to do just the opposite.
    Instead of moving people with common tasks closer together,
    this report recommends moving approximately 20 percent of the
    current headquarters staff to locations around the country.
        Congress has already appropriated hundreds of millions of
    dollars for this project, as you know, including the millions
    of dollars that have already been spent on the previous
    procurement.
        As stewards of the Federal purse, we should be working to
    save taxpayer dollars, make our Government more efficient,
    including with respect to property management. We see examples
    where consolidation is working or has the potential of working.
    One is the development of a consolidated Department of Homeland
    Security campus on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeth's
    Hospital in Southeast Washington, DC.
        Personally, I was initially skeptical of that project.
    However, after working with the previous Administration, and
    through oversight conducted as Chairman and Ranking Member of
    the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I am
    now convinced that it is in the best interest to have a
    consolidated campus in the Capital region.
        At the end of the day, though, we need to do what is right
    for the hardworking men and women of the FBI, and do so in a
    manner that makes the most sense for our national security,
    while also being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. How we
    achieve those goals is by ensuring that we have all the
    information we need to make an informed decision.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have had some previous
    challenges in obtaining information from the GSA that is
    necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities. For over
    a year I have been requesting documents from GSA about the
    Trump Hotel. Specifically, I have been asking about GSA's
    questionable determination that the Trump Hotel lease somehow
    does not violate the ethics requirements that prohibit an
    elected official from being a party to a Federal lease to
    financially benefit from that lease.
        Sadly, the Administration's response to my questions, to
    our questions to date has not been satisfactory. Of the almost
    12,000 pages worth of documents the GSA provided last fall,
    only 22 pages--22 pages, one-tenth of 1 percent--were written
    within the relevant timeframe and directly pertain to the
    question we raised about the lease. Fewer than one-tenth of 1
    percent of those 12,000 pages actually spoke to the question
    that we had raised. Not a single one of those 22 pages contains
    the analysis that I was seeking. Think about that.
        In contrast, there are hundreds of pages about the location
    of a clock, about the location of Starbucks in the hotel, about
    the maintenance of smoke detectors. Really?
        Moreover, GSA told me it was withholding information
    relating to some of my specific requests. For example, GSA
    would not tell me whether the Trump Hotel buys Trump wine or
    other Trump products, the sales of which would clearly benefit
    President Trump financially. This is unacceptable.
        I would ask unanimous consent to submit portions of the GSA
    response to my letter into the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I would also like to express my dismay
    about the information we received with respect to the FBI
    project that we are discussing today.
        The Committee learned of both the cancellation of the
    procurement and the release of this new plan from the press. I
    am very disappointed that we continue to find out about
    developments on this project in this manner. That is no way to
    do business. No way to do business.
        As we move forward, it is my hope that GSA and FBI will be
    more forthcoming with our Committee and members of our
    Committee so that we can conduct our oversight in an effective
    and productive manner.
        Let me just say there used to be a TV show. Mr. Chairman,
    you and I probably used to watch it as a kid. This was before
    these ladies were born. But the FBI--and this guy named Jack
    Webb was an FBI agent, and he would make calls on doing an
    investigation, and he would say to whoever answered the door,
    Ma'am, just the facts; we just want the facts.
        Well, that is pretty much what we are interested in today,
    just the facts. And we want them from the GSA and certainly
    from the FBI.
        I look forward to your testimony. Look forward to working
    with our colleagues, especially the ones from Maryland, the Mar
    of Delmarva, to see if we can't get to the truth. If we know
    the truth, we will not make a mistake.
        Thank you so much.
        And I will just say I am going to apologize to our
    witnesses. Simultaneous to this hearing is a markup that is
    going on in one of my other committees. I will be right back as
    soon as that is over. Thank you. So bear with me.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Since both the States of Maryland and West Virginia are
    involved in this, I would invite, first, Senator Capito to make
    an opening statement, and then the Senators from Maryland, if
    you so choose.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
    be going to the Billy Graham event, so I apologize for the
    quickness. But thank you for granting me this privilege.
        With consideration for my colleagues from Maryland, we may
    have a bit of a different view on how this could roll out.
        And I would like to say welcome to Mr. Mathews, who we
    served together when I was over in Transportation and
    Infrastructure on the House side, so it is nice to see you.
        Just briefly, in the revised plan, there is a plan, if
    consolidation occurs downtown--and Mr. Haley, you refer to this
    in your remarks--the CJIS Center in Clarksburg, where I just
    was on Friday, would have several hundred jobs moving into West
    Virginia. That would be an important development for me,
    obviously, as that facility continues to grow, become more
    professional, more highly technological, and we would welcome
    that prospect of having those employees move out into West
    Virginia, as many have moved there before and have realized the
    wild and wonderful life is a pretty good one out in West
    Virginia.
        So, with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know
    this has been a winding road, and I join with what Senator
    Carper was saying, we need to hear the facts, and I think those
    will bear out today. Thank you so much.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Cardin.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Capito, let me just say I don't think we are going
    to have a disagreement here. We want the FBI to consolidate in
    its most efficient ways, and we understand that some of the
    functions may be better performed in other locations, so I am
    not sure we will have any disagreement on that particular
    point.
        Senator Barrasso, I really want to thank you. The U.S.
    Senate delegates to this Committee the responsibility for
    authorization and oversight of public buildings, and Chairman
    Barrasso has taken this responsibility at a very high level,
    which I think is very important for our Committee. So I just
    want to thank our Chairman for paying great attention to this
    and giving us an opportunity to better understand why the
    original prospectus was terminated abruptly and now we have
    before us a totally different recommendation. I thank the
    Chairman very much for this opportunity.
        Mr. Chairman, we are just puzzled. We are puzzled. We have
    gone through 12 years where the FBI, GSA, intelligence
    community have all said that the FBI needs a facility to not
    only meet its current needs, but to meet its needs in the
    future, and that requires a facility that can handle the
    personnel and the security needs that is estimated to be
    between 45 to 55 acres. That has been consistent in the report
    of 2011, in Kevin Perkins' testimony before the House of
    Representatives on March 6th, 2013, and Mr. Haley's testimony
    before us on March 1st of 2016.
        It is hard to understand how that is going to be met on a
    6.6-acre site with 2.6 million square feet. It is hard to
    understand how that is going to meet the security needs as
    determined by the Department of Homeland Security.
        Consistently there has been the issue raised about the
    security. The J. Edgar Hoover Building does not meet
    interagency security committee standards for an intelligence
    committee graded building. That is from testimony of Mr. Haley
    in August 2017. The report from the FBI in August 2011 points
    out that the Department of Homeland Security has determined
    that the FBI headquarters should be housed in an ISC Level 5
    facility.
        It then goes on to say why. The report from the GSA points
    out the reasons why this level of security is needed, and I
    would just like to put that into the record. ``Perimeter
    protection and standoff distances are the most effective means
    of preventing or limiting damage from a bomb attack. There is
    no practical way to adequately secure and protect the J. Edgar
    Hoover Building. The real risk for inadequate physical security
    is that the FBI operations are more vulnerable and could easily
    be disrupted, potentially at a time when these capabilities
    would be most needed.''
        Now, all of a sudden, we are changing the direction here.
    It is very difficult for us to understand that.
        The Chairman and the Ranking Member asked for detailed
    information about the plans. We got this glitzy 22-page, more
    photographs than details, about the proposal. And when you take
    a look at the cost comparisons, many of the costs are not even
    included in this. For a 20 percent smaller building, you don't
    include the swing rental issues or building out the new rental
    spaces.
        So, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for us to understand
    this. Mayor Bowser has said that she believes that the best use
    of this space for the people of the District of Columbia is for
    it to be in private development hands, so we are not even
    paying attention to the local community.
        So, there are a lot of questions here. I appreciate our
    witnesses being here.
        I would just make one last comment. I know the urgency of
    this. The FBI desperately needs new facilities. But it has been
    the agencies that have delayed this for 12 years. Twelve years.
    Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. And now we find out
    about this information through press accounts. We still don't
    have adequate information in order to move forward.
        We certainly have not delayed this, and to the men and
    women who work at the FBI, for the people of this Nation who
    depend upon their work, this has been just a major mishandling
    by the agencies for them to have adequate facilities to carry
    out their responsibility.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Van Hollen.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also
    thank you and the Committee for taking this issue with the
    seriousness it deserves. This is a textbook example of how the
    Federal Government should not operate over a period of time. It
    is an example that people will use for decades to come about
    how the Federal Government misled people from start to finish,
    failed to provide information to the Congress when requested,
    and constantly changed its assessment of what was required for
    the FBI.
        People who were bidding on this project invested lots of
    money, Mr. Chairman, in proposals, only to see whiplash when
    the FBI totally changed its testimony and the GSA totally
    changed its position on this.
        There are GAO reports from years ago analyzing all the
    options, including the option that you are proposing here
    today, to demolish the current building and rebuild. There have
    been hearings in the House and Senate on this issue for years,
    and the testimony is all there on the record. I am looking
    forward, Mr. Chairman, to having a conversation and question
    for these witnesses, because representatives from the GSA and
    FBI have made statements repeatedly on the record that are
    totally at odds with the position that these agencies are
    taking today, and that is something that does not give the
    public any confidence in how their Federal Government is
    operating.
        So, I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can get to the bottom of all
    this. All of us want an FBI building that allows them to
    complete their mission and ensures their security, and is at
    the best cost for the taxpayer, and I am hopeful that we will
    arrive at a sensible solution.
        I appreciate your holding this hearing.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        We will now hear from our witnesses. We have with us Mr.
    Dan Mathews, who is the Commissioner of the General Services
    Administration Public Building Service, and Mr. Richard Haley,
    who is the Assistant Director and Chief Financial Officer for
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation Finance Division.
        I would like to remind you both that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing today, so
    please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so that we may
    have time for questions. I look forward to your testimony.
        And we would ask you to please begin, Mr. Mathews.

                       STATEMENT OF DAN MATHEWS,
               COMMISSIONER, GSA PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE

        Mr. Mathews. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here.
        The purpose of my testimony today is to explain why the
    previous procurement failed, how the recommendation changed
    from a suburban campus to a new facility on the current site,
    and why this is the preferred solution for meeting the FBI's
    mission requirements.
        Please let me be clear. This proposal does consolidate the
    FBI headquarters. It reduces its real estate footprint
    significantly and meets its mission requirements.
        Since my arrival at GSA in August, Mr. Haley and I have met
    on a regular basis with our teams to develop this proposal.
    Although I did not work at GSA at the time, I do think it is
    important to explain why the previous procurement was canceled
    in July.
        While the lack of appropriations was a significant factor,
    and I think that is where most of the discussion has taken
    place, it is not the only reason. The incorporation of an
    exchange greatly complicated and increased the risk of that
    procurement.
        Under the contract, the Federal Government was obligated to
    turn over the existing facility as partial compensation for the
    new campus. However, without full funding of the appropriated
    portion of the project, meaning the delta between the estimated
    value of the Hoover Building and the actual cost of the
    facility, that new facility could not have been completed. The
    FBI would have been unable to move, to relocate out of the
    Hoover Building, and the current site could not have been
    turned over in accordance with the contract.
        The legal and operational risks were simply too great with
    that type of a structure of the procurement to proceed without
    full funding in hand.
        Although the procurement was terminated, as you all have
    mentioned, the need and urgency for a new headquarters does
    continue. Each year delay increases the project costs by about
    $84 million by a combination of construction escalation and
    temporary investments that we need to make in the facility.
        When GSA and the FBI project team regrouped in August, we
    removed the exchange from the project and considered all
    options for bridging that gap between the project costs and the
    available funding. The first step in that process was the FBI
    reassessing the scope and mission requirements of the
    headquarters in an effort to lower costs. From a real estate
    perspective, which is what I am really going to be talking
    about today, the most important change the FBI made was in
    reducing their personnel requirement for this facility from
    10,600 to 8,300.
        We applied this smaller requirement to a campus
    construction scenario, and the total cost savings were less
    than one would typically expect. This is because the larger
    campus infrastructure costs are essentially the same for
    housing 10,600 people as they are for housing 8,300 people.
        This led to the consideration of smaller sites in an effort
    to reduce land acquisition, perimeter security, and other
    campus specific costs. Most significantly, the reduction in the
    personnel requirement made the current Pennsylvania Avenue site
    a viable option for housing the consolidated headquarters
    function.
        Again, from a real estate perspective, there are several
    distinct advantages of the current site over other potential
    locations. First of all, the current site is federally owned
    and under GSA's custody and control; demolition costs are
    considerably less than site acquisition, preparation, and
    relocation costs; a central utility plant, a new truck
    inspection facility, because there is an existing one, would
    not be needed; the classified communications, cabling, and
    major utility fees that are necessary to serve a facility like
    this already exist and are in place; the site is served by
    several Metro lines and existing road networks, eliminating the
    need for expensive parking garages and transportation
    infrastructure; and the current site is located in the center
    of the FBI's key mission partners and departmental headquarters
    across the street.
        GSA and the FBI considered three options for reusing the
    Hoover site: a phased renovation, a renovation of a fully
    vacant facility, and a demolition and rebuild at the current
    site.
        A phased renovation we determined would take almost 15
    years and cost more money and deliver a less successful product
    than demolishing and rebuilding the new structure. New
    construction allows us to build a facility that can house 8,300
    people instead of a smaller number in a renovated facility. In
    addition, new construction can mitigate security threats more
    effectively with tailored designs, newer materials, and current
    construction techniques.
        In short, demolishing the current building and replacing it
    with a new building enables GSA to deliver a more secure and
    efficient headquarters faster, cheaper, and with less risk than
    a renovation.
        As directed by the Committee, GSA and the FBI considered a
    variety of funding options, including lease construction, lease
    with a purchase option, a ground lease lease back arrangement,
    phased appropriations, and full funding appropriations, which,
    ultimately, we recommended.
        While alternatives were discussed at length, the Bipartisan
    Budget Act of 2018 provides a unique opportunity to secure
    appropriations for a new headquarters. That opportunity didn't
    exist a year ago, and I don't know if it will exist 2 years
    from now, but it does exist today.
        In conclusion, the proposal achieves a strategic
    consolidation of the FBI headquarters, reduces its footprint,
    and provides a good value for the taxpayer.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mathews follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Mathews.
        Mr. Haley.

                   STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. HALEY II,
                ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI FINANCE DIVISION

        Mr. Haley. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper. I appreciate the kind words to the men and women of the
    FBI, and I look forward to taking that message back.
        Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify before you today. I will be very short in my oral
    comments.
        The last time I was here we discussed the decision to
    cancel the prior procurement and difficulties presented by the
    previous exchange proposed strategy and lack of available
    funding to move forward. The Building Commissioner has gone
    into that. GSA and FBI committed at the hearing to provide you
    with a comprehensive report on the best way forward for the FBI
    project. As you are aware, that report has been provided to the
    Committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss it
    today.
        During the past 6 months since we met before, we have
    reviewed all the funding options that have been available or
    that could be available and have taken a comprehensive approach
    on how best to move forward with this project.
        At the core of the review, and I can assure you, in terms
    of what the FBI's part in this review was to follow the
    criteria laid out by this Committee: one, to ensure that a way
    forward best meets the FBI's mission requirements and is in the
    best interest for the men and women of the FBI, and second, is
    a good deal for the American taxpayers, and we have not wavered
    from that commitment to look at those.
        As reflected in the report, after looking at all the
    options, and going back for more than a decade reviewing the
    lessons learned and studying the core requirements for this
    project, we, the FBI, have, in conjunction with GSA, agreed
    that reutilizing the existing headquarters site has been
    identified as the best path forward. This recommendation has
    not been provided lightly and is the culmination of a number of
    factors, and we are aware of the potential frustrations based
    on that decade-plus of moving this forward have had with a
    number of individuals, including Senator Cardin, Senator Van
    Hollen.
        First of all, in terms of us looking at it, I think most
    critical has been us relooking at and redefining what a mission
    focused, fully consolidated FBI headquarters requires. We
    strongly believe that a multi-headquarters set of sites across
    the country will enhance our resiliency and operational
    effectiveness. This is something that we have talked about to a
    number of other entities, not just in the Government, private
    sector. There are a number of private sector companies that are
    looking for resiliency through other headquarters at this time.
    That has been part of that learning process.
        These other sites that we have identified have been part of
    our physical portfolio for many years. And while the way
    forward includes enhancing the use of these sites, these sites
    are not new to the FBI; we have had a presence in Huntsville,
    Alabama, since 1971, we have had the Pocatello site since 1984,
    and our presence, as noted by the Senator a few minutes ago, we
    have been in Clarksburg since 1995. Those are all owned sites
    by the FBI that we are talking about increasing their presence
    for this resiliency and moving additional headquarters pieces
    out to those locations.
        All of that said, the FBI still requires a strong National
    Capital consolidation. While we are not talking about the
    10,600 positions coming in to the National Capital Region
    facility, we are still talking 8,300 positions. That is 3,000
    more seats than we currently have available at the Hoover
    Building and over a 50 percent growth.
        Second, and part of the piece that we really looked at hard
    within the FBI, is the day to day mission tempo. We have a
    unique relationship with the Department of Justice, which is
    across the street from us, as well as the hundreds of meetings
    that occur each day with other partners in oversight, including
    the Congress. This was a piece that had been looked at and not
    necessarily addressed in the previous plans in terms of not
    necessarily the director or executives like myself, but how do
    the men and women, the middle and lower parts of the
    organization that are all across town, how do they get back and
    forth in an effective way and get their job done. And this was
    a big part of what we have looked at for the last 6 months.
        We also do not believe we are wavering on an aggressive
    security requirement improvements. We looked at what the status
    quo is now, and it is unacceptable, and we believe we are still
    maintaining an appropriate security posture. What we give up in
    space obviously needs to be made up for in thickness of
    concrete and other security ways of getting to those same type
    of assurances that we are meeting that requirement.
        I think one of the things that is not a physical or
    necessarily a quantitative part of what we have looked at, and
    this is a conversation that we have had internally, as well as
    with GSA, is the FBI's public facing presence. We are indeed a
    part of the IC community, but we are also part of the law
    enforcement community, and we are the premier national law
    enforcement agency, and we believe a public facing FBI is
    critical, and that has gone into this factor.
        Our brethren in the IC, many of them have moved on to
    campuses not only for the security, but because they actually
    want to be out of site of the American public for much of what
    they do and the missions they have; whereas, we believe that is
    a strong tenet for us to have in terms of our presence on
    Pennsylvania Avenue.
        In closing, what remains clear in this revised strategy is
    the need for a new facility that meets the mission requirements
    for the FBI. The current J. Edgar Hoover Building is an
    impediment to achieving operational effectiveness and continues
    to decay. As noted by the Building Commissioner, these delays
    are costing over $80 million a year. Status quo is not
    acceptable. The building continues to deteriorate, and we
    estimate that it is going to cost about $300 million just to
    maintain the building at this point for just basic operations.
        Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Senator Cardin,
    Senator Van Hollen, I thank you for the opportunity to come
    back and testify on the new FBI headquarters project. We
    appreciate your interest and support, and I am happy to answer
    any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Haley follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you both very much for your
    testimony. There are a couple of questions that we will have.
        Starting with you, Mr. Mathews, the report submitted to
    this Committee indicates the revised plan costs roughly $200
    million less than the previous plan, but to me, the math
    doesn't all seem to add up. When you are considering the
    revised plan, it consolidates fewer employees into the Hoover
    location, it no longer includes a building exchange to offset
    the costs, it doesn't account for temporary employee relocation
    costs and rent space, and it asks for significantly more
    appropriations.
        Could you kind of explain this a little bit as to why this
    is actually a better deal for taxpayers?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes. I would be happy to answer the question
    about the costs. The first thing I would say, when you are
    comparing these costs to the previous project, I would say this
    Committee didn't have the full costs before, and in this
    report, this is really the first time you have seen the full
    costs of the previous project, the 10,600-person campus
    consolidation. You did not see those FBI fit out numbers.
        In fact, those are normally kept separate from the project;
    you usually just see the GSA portion of the project. You are
    actually seeing all of it here, what we think this project will
    actually cost to deliver at the best of our ability to estimate
    those costs at this point in time.
        So, I would start off by saying the comparison, that is why
    we have it in that report, the left hand side of that column,
    those are the previous costs of the canceled procurement, and
    you did not see those before. That is new and we think it is
    important that you have a full appreciation for what that
    project was costing.
        You mentioned a number of things--swing space, for
    example--that this report here shows I believe it is $427
    million for the swing space costs. And what we are showing
    there are the additional costs to fit out space for the
    temporary location. Whether we swing them out or if they were
    sitting in place in the Hoover Building, there is considerable
    expenses to operate and maintain the Hoover Building.
        Those are roughly equivalent to the rental of space cost
    for swing space, so we left those out because they are
    basically on both sides of the ledger, no matter what we are
    doing, and they cancel themselves out. The extra costs that we
    included were for building out the swing space so that they
    could occupy it. That would be above and beyond sort of the
    normal operating costs.
        Again, on reusing the current site, like I said in my
    testimony, there are some very specific advantages to reusing
    the current site. We are not building a 2.6 million square foot
    parking garage. We are not building a separate central utility
    plant, separate visitor center. In fact, when you look at the
    structure under the current proposal, we would be building
    almost 5 million gross square feet of facility. In this one we
    are building about 2.65 million gross square feet of facility.
        The acquisition costs, actually constructing it, is about a
    third of the lifecycle costs of the facility. So actually
    having a significantly smaller facility, cost-wise, over time,
    the lifecycle cost of that facility is very much tied to how
    large that facility is.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Mathews. It is disturbing
    to all the members of the Committee here when you say they
    aren't costs the Committee has ever seen before. And I
    understand you weren't in this position at that point, but it
    is concerning all of us here, both sides of the aisle, when we
    hear that sort of thing, that we haven't been getting all the
    information that we, as a Committee and this Congress, have
    been requesting.
        Mr. Haley, over the course of this project, which has
    spanned now more than a decade, the FBI has consistently
    indicated the need for a fully consolidated campus. FBI further
    requested that such a facility be equipped with certain
    specifications: a remote truck inspection facility, a detached
    visitor's center, a detached central utility plant. The revised
    plan, of course, contains none of these requirements.
        Has the FBI, in a sense, lessened its security requirements
    for this project, and if so, when and why did the requirements
    change?
        Mr. Haley. Thank you, sir. We do not believe we have
    lessened our requirements. I think the learning process that we
    have gone through, and again, I will reemphasize as we have
    been pursuing the process forward, we have spent a considerable
    amount of time talking to--myself, probably 35, 40 Fortune 500
    companies. We have talked to intel community members not only
    here in the U.S., but also our partners overseas in terms of
    how best to get to all of the pieces you are talking about.
        A campus provides many opportunities, and we know that from
    some of our brethren agencies. But we also think that we can
    get those same capabilities. We have a truck inspection
    facility, a remote truck inspection facility that is in
    Maryland today that we would, in this plan, continue to use. We
    believe that we can meet the requirements of the site, as the
    Building Commissioner has mentioned. You can't take the current
    Hoover Building, obviously, and renovate it or do what would be
    needed.
        We had not, honestly, looked at a new building on that site
    before. By looking at these other locations, which was really
    driven by the resiliency, the opportunities in these other
    locations to get an expanded talented work force, a diversified
    work force, by getting that number down into that 8,000 person
    range, we believe this site can still meet the requirements
    that we have been identifying throughout this project. And
    again, that public facing piece and that operational tempo were
    two of the critical pieces then that went into that.
        Senator Barrasso. One last question before turning over to
    Senator Carper.
        Under the revised plan, the FBI is going to be forced to
    move the entire Hoover headquarters operation to temporary
    swing space locations, and it seems like it is about for 5
    years, at least the way I read this, if everything goes on
    scheduled time. Is the FBI concerned that this could hinder or
    compromise the ability to carry on its mission as an agency
    with all of this activity?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir. And I will be honest with you; that is
    the hardest piece of this whole thing, is how do you maintain
    that mission tempo in that period of time. And I will not tell
    you it is not going to be hard. We are looking at this as a 50-
    year project, so what happens in that 5 years, and that is one
    of the conversations that we have had with GSA in terms of we
    can't take that lightly. How we are going to do that, those
    pieces that need to be close together, the mission, the
    operational pieces that have to go into that, that is some of
    the costs you are seeing in that swing space.
        What we believe, though, in the longer picture, is that if
    we can do that right, put the pencils to paper and noodle that
    correctly, we will get a longer term better option for the FBI
    at this point.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        And again, our witnesses, we are grateful to you for your
    testimony and your responses to our questions.
        Let me start, if I could, Mr. Mathews, with a question for
    you. So far, the GSA and FBI provided limited details on this
    new proposal. When can this Committee expect in-depth details
    on the proposal, not solely a 22-page PowerPoint presentation?
    When does the GSA anticipate transmitting a new prospectus?
        Mr. Mathews. I don't have a firm date on when a new
    prospectus could come, but I believe the earliest we could
    probably send one up would be later this spring or in the
    summer.
        Senator Carper. So later this spring could be May, June, or
    summer lasts until September.
        Mr. Mathews. It would be closer to the August recess, June,
    early June for spring, July.
        Senator Carper. OK.
        A question if I could, Mr. Haley, for you. This plan
    proposes to move staff into temporary swing space while the
    current Hoover building is demolished and rebuilt. There are, I
    understand, about 5,600 staff personnel who are located in the
    current facility. Is that correct?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. As I understand, the proposal does not
    include payments for rental space for temporary swing space. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Haley. It doesn't include the rent; it includes what
    would be required to fit out the swing space, so it is the cost
    of what that swing space would require in terms of us making
    that C-grid or top secret required space; it just doesn't
    include the rent payments. As the Building Commissioner
    mentioned, the rents that we are currently paying for the
    Hoover Building through GSA and some of those costs would be
    offset by what would be going to the temporary swing space.
        Senator Carper. Would it be a wash? Are you suggesting it
    would be a wash? Because it seems to me that the rental
    payments could be actually extraordinary.
        Mr. Haley. We have some estimates on it. When we look at
    the two projects in total, and we can go through with yourself
    and your staffs the numbers, we believe in terms of what the
    project to maintain the downtown location, with all the swing
    spaces and all those other requirements, when you compare that
    total cost and things that you offset, where you are not going
    to have a parking garage, you are not going to have to run
    utilities and transportation requirements, we believe the costs
    are comparable. Again, one of our tenets to this was that it be
    a good deal to the American taxpayer, so we believe that the
    two costs, the previous plan and this plan are similar in cost.
    There are ups and downs on both of them, but we would not
    coming here, honestly, if we thought this was significantly
    more expensive, even with the swing space and that requirement.
        Senator Carper. We look forward to drilling down on that
    with you folks.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. A follow up question, if I could. Does
    temporary swing space exist that would meet the security
    requirements of the FBI? And would any new temporary swing
    space costs include necessary security upgrades? I think you
    mentioned that, but security upgrades that might need to be
    made to it?
        Mr. Haley. We have been having discussions already with
    GSA. In terms of the requirements, there are spaces that we are
    aware of that are either vacant or becoming vacant. There are
    intel community spaces that are in the region, so we are
    looking at all that. I can't tell you today exactly where that
    would be. All of them would probably require upgrades to
    security, and that goes into the costs that we have estimated.
    Our hope would be those costs that you are seeing in the report
    would come down, but those are kind of the high level
    watermarks and what we would expect.
        Our space generally for the FBI is secret level, and then
    we have a portion of our operations that are obviously in
    SCIFs, top secret. So any space we would go into that would
    meet the mission requirement would have to be brought up to
    those security requirements as well as the bollards and
    barricades in that period of time.
        Also, in that investment, the other conversation we have
    had with GSA is as we would vacate those back into the
    permanent building, that those potential sites would be able to
    be used for other tenants, so that we would not just be
    building that out for ourselves; others would be able to use
    that in the future.
        Senator Carper. OK, thanks.
        One last question for Mr. Mathews, for you. In 2016 and in
    2017 I sent four letters to GSA regarding its determination
    that the Trump Old Post Office is in compliance with the
    conflict of interest lease provisions for a Trump National
    Hotel. When GSA testified in front of this Committee in August
    I asked GSA to commit to responding to questions for
    information from any member of this Committee and was told that
    GSA would only respond to questions for information from our
    Chairman.
        I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle found
    that to be an entirely unacceptable position. And as I noted in
    my opening statement a few minutes earlier today, GSA did
    eventually send me roughly 11,860 pages worth of documents, but
    as I noted in my opening statement, not a single one actually
    answers the question I asked, and GSA appears to be using
    legally questionable reasons for withholding and redacting
    materials.
        So, I am going to ask the question that I asked in August
    again. Will you provide any member of this Committee the
    documents and answers that we ask for, whether it relates to
    the FBI headquarters, Trump Hotel, or any other legitimate area
    of interest?
        Yes or no, Mr. Mathews, will you do that?
        Mr. Mathews. As I said when I first arrived here, one of
    the first things I did is I met with your chief of staff to
    answer that question, would we respond to the Ranking Member.
    Absolutely, we will, and we believe we did. What I also said at
    that time is consistent with past practice in all
    Administrations, that doesn't mean we can turn everything over
    all the time, and my commitment was to turn over all the
    information that we believed we could, and if there were
    certain things that we believed we could not provide because of
    privilege or other reasons, we would clearly identify what
    those were and why we believe we were not able to turn them
    over. That is what we did.
        I know that the crux of this matter for you--one of the key
    questions was the legal interpretation, the legal advice
    between the Office of General Counsel and the contracting
    officer, and that information is internally privileged to the
    Administration, and we explained that in the letter, and that
    is why we were not able to turn that over.
        Senator Carper. I am not sure I understand that, extremely
    privileged. I am not sure I understand that at all.
        But let me just follow up, if I could, Mr. Chairman, with
    one last question.
        GSA said it had determined that the President would not
    benefit from the Trump Hotel lease while he is in office. If
    the Trump Hotel buys Trump wine the President would be
    benefiting from the Trump Hotel lease even if the lease
    proceeds were being held in a trust. So, I believe you are
    telling me that the question of whether or not the Trump Hotel
    buys Trump wine is protected by attorney-client privilege. Is
    that really what you are saying here? I just find that hard to
    believe.
        Mr. Mathews. With respect to that specific question, what
    we said was the contracting officer found the hotel in
    compliance with the terms of the lease and that the specific
    question about beneficial interests, that is the subject of, I
    think, two pending lawsuits at the moment, and we had to defer
    to the Department of Justice on that.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank both of our witnesses.
        Mr. Mathews, I am having a hard time accepting what you are
    saying here, so I want to be perfectly blunt about that. You
    now say a major reason for terminating the original prospectus
    was the transfer of the Hoover Building, something that you all
    wanted, and we didn't want. Congress didn't like that idea, but
    you said it was something you needed to do to get it done. So
    now we are supposed to believe that is the reason why you
    terminated it, for something that you wanted.
        Second, the consolidation, one of the major reasons for the
    consolidation on costs is to save rental costs. That is what
    you have told us all along, that it is more expensive to have
    places outside of the central location. And now you are saying
    it is a wash.
        Can you understand why I am having a hard time accepting
    the information you are presenting?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, Senator. So, with respect to your first
    question, the issue of----
        Senator Cardin. Quickly, because we have your written
    statement on the transfer of the buildings. I agree with you on
    the transfer of the building. It didn't make sense.
        Mr. Mathews. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. But you insisted on it.
        Mr. Mathews. Well, personally, I came here in August, and I
    didn't support it.
        Senator Cardin. Your agency insisted on it. In the
    prospectus that they submitted, they insisted that this be part
    of the deal.
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, they did, and I suggest that was a
    mistake.
        Senator Cardin. And I suggest that the information you are
    giving us right now may be, likewise, a mistake.
        Mr. Haley, you have honestly told us that the disruption to
    the mission of the FBI will be a factor during this transition.
    Seven years ago we started down this path, and we haven't
    gotten to the conclusion. Do you honestly believe you are going
    to be in this new facility by 2025, when we are not going to
    get the prospectus until--at the earliest--the spring? Don't
    you recognize the FBI's mission, that if we start down this
    path, it will be another 12 years, and your mission is going to
    be compromised during that period of time?
        Mr. Haley. Sir, we definitely don't want another 12 years.
    The status quo is not acceptable. On those other sites, they
    will be owned sites; they are not leased sites. When we talk
    about a consolidation, we still believe we are getting a
    consolidation in the National Capital Region into this
    facility.
        The other facilities, the Idaho facility is being
    constructed as we talk; it is part of a larger Department of
    Justice consolidation of data centers. The CJIS facility, which
    we have been in for over 25 years, we are going through major
    renovations out there.
        Senator Cardin. I understand. My point is that you said,
    very honestly, that you have concerns about being able to carry
    out the missions as you relocate and are in various locations
    for the new umpteen years.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. And what I am suggesting to you, make it
    two times umpteen years, because that is how this process has
    unfolded.
        Mr. Mathews, you acknowledge you are going to send us a new
    prospectus, and yet I understand there has been a request made
    that we include money in fiscal year 2018 for this project.
        You recognize that you can't proceed without Congress's
    authorization through our committees, correct?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, that is correct.
        Senator Cardin. And if you take the same position you took
    before, unless you have every dollar appropriated, you won't
    proceed, is that correct? That was your position before for
    terminating this prospectus.
        Mr. Mathews. In order to award the contract, yes, we need
    to have the money in hand.
        Senator Cardin. All the money in hand.
        Mr. Mathews. For the contract, that is right.
        Senator Cardin. And it is a pretty big sum of money.
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, it is.
        Senator Cardin. Did you figure that into your projections,
    the realities of politics?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, we did.
        Senator Cardin. I will just move on.
        Let me understand, Mr. Haley. If this building is rebuilt
    the way you want, 8,300 employees will go into it?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. You have 8,300 people now to go into those
    positions?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir. In the Washington, DC, area we have
    over 10,000.
        Senator Cardin. So 8,300 will actually go into the
    building.
        Now, suppose the mission that you have for those 8,300 by
    the time you get into this building requires another 500, 600,
    700. Can you put them in the building?
        Mr. Haley. We believe that this multi--first of all, I
    appreciate the question, and we have looked at this. One of the
    reasons we feel comfortable about this is that we were already
    looking at Huntsville, especially, but also----
        Senator Cardin. No, my question is if you are going to
    continue the mission, you have 8,300; you have a limited sized
    facility. You have to harden it the best that you can, which is
    going to take some space.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. You have height limits on how you can
    build.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. I read every letter that has been sent in.
    You said you want a facility for today and tomorrow. Do you
    have a facility for tomorrow? Are you going to be able to put
    another 500 or 1,000 or 1,200 people in this to carry out the
    mission that you need in the consolidated facility?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir. May I answer the question? So, we have
    been looking at Huntsville and West Virginia and Idaho for a
    number of years for that specific purpose, is that we don't
    want to have a building that is at capacity the day we move in.
    So these other facilities are not facilities that we just----
        Senator Cardin. But this building will be at capacity. This
    Hoover rebuilt building will be at capacity.
        Mr. Haley. Even with the previous plan on the campus, if
    we----
        Senator Cardin. How many more people could you put in after
    construction over the 8,300?
        Mr. Haley. When the building gets done, we will still have
    the ability to put additional positions in.
        Senator Cardin. How many?
        Mr. Haley. Five hundred to 1,000.
        Senator Cardin. So the square footage that you are giving
    per employee is not accurate?
        Mr. Haley. No, sir. It----
        Senator Cardin. Well, wouldn't it be less if you put more
    people into it?
        Mr. Haley. The current building today, which only holds
    5,500, is a very inefficient building.
        Senator Cardin. The information that was presented to us
    shows us a square footage per employee. I take it that is based
    upon 8,300.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. So now you are saying we can go up to 8,800
    or 9,300. What is the answer here?
        Mr. Mathews, what is the answer? What is the capacity of
    this building?
        Mr. Mathews. Well, if we added people, the square foot per
    person would decrease, that is right. Right now there are about
    180----
        Senator Cardin. Well, I would submit to you that you don't
    have the capacity to expand onsite, and that was one of the
    reasons you wanted 45 to 55 acres, wasn't it, so that you would
    have a facility that could meet the needs today and tomorrow?
        Mr. Haley. We are comfortable that this plan will meet the
    FBI's requirements for the next 50 years.
        Senator Cardin. OK, one more important question, if I
    might. And I appreciate the Chairman; he told me originally he
    would be a little more lenient on the clock.
        Do you disagree with GSA, Mr. Haley, where the GSA said
    that the perimeter protection and standoff setback distance are
    the most effective means of preventing or limiting damage from
    a bomb attack? Do you disagree with that?
        Mr. Haley. Setback is a very effective and probably the
    most easily way to----
        Senator Cardin. And how much of a setback are you going to
    have on this building?
        Mr. Haley. It won't be the same. It won't be the 300 or
    whatever.
        Senator Cardin. Does that concern you, for the safety of
    the people, or the attractiveness of trying to do damage
    because you don't have a setback?
        Mr. Haley. Well, starting from where we are at now, with
    status quo, this will be a significant improvement.
        Senator Cardin. I understand that, but not like a perimeter
    security that you have on a campus facility.
        Mr. Haley. Absolutely. But we believe that there are three
    ways that you can get to security----
        Senator Cardin. I understand that. I understand all about
    glass-proof windows, et cetera. But the bad guys, they want to
    do something spectacular, and when you are on the road, it
    gives temptation, does it not?
        Mr. Haley. Sir, we have looked at this, and we believe that
    we are going to get ample security, and at the same time get a
    day to day operational tempo. We are going to have that public
    facing facility----
        Senator Cardin. But not as good as you have perimeter
    security as you would at a campus facility.
        Mr. Haley. I won't argue with you, a 300-plus setback is an
    ample way----
        Senator Cardin. Of course, we are going through this now
    with our embassies, and paying a heavy price around the world
    because we listened to some people who wanted to be in a
    particular location, and now we have serious security problems
    that we are trying to correct at a high cost to the taxpayers
    of this country.
        Mr. Haley. And this facility, much of what is going into
    that security posture is based off of the embassy standards.
    You are not going to have the setback, but again, as I
    mentioned earlier, we have had conversations with a number of
    IC community partners here in the country, as well as some of
    our foreign IC partners who have similar situations who----
        Senator Cardin. But they had that situation. We are
    building that situation today.
        Mr. Haley. We are building it----
        Senator Cardin. We have a choice not to do it, and we are
    doing it if we follow this recommendation.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir, from a risk approach we are looking at
    it and all those other tradeoffs I mentioned in my opening
    statement and that I have repeated with the Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. So the last question I have, with the
    Chairman's indulgence, is who was in the room when this
    decision was made? I assume GSA was in the room; I assume the
    FBI was in the room. Who else was in the room that decided that
    we were going to rebuild the Hoover Building and not go to a
    campus facility?
        Mr. Haley. Sir, this is an FBI decision that we have done
    in partnership with----
        Senator Cardin. So this is your recommendation, your
    agency's recommendation? This is what you want, no outside
    influence at all, is that what you are telling me?
        Mr. Haley. Based on the status quo----
        Senator Cardin. I am asking you a simple question.
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir, it is an FBI decision.
        Senator Cardin. I understand it is an FBI decision. I asked
    who was involved in making that decision. Solely FBI?
        Mr. Haley. FBI and GSA have brought this. This has always
    been about what is----
        Senator Cardin. No input from any other agencies? No input
    from the White House? This was strictly the two of you, two
    agencies, is that what you are telling us?
        Mr. Haley. GSA----
        Senator Cardin. It is a simple answer.
        Mr. Haley. Yes. This is an FBI decision that we----
        Senator Cardin. I know it is an FBI decision. I am asking
    who else was involved in making that decision.
        Mr. Haley. In the decision that I have been a part of, and
    our newest Building Commissioner, who we have worked with very
    well following the last hearing, I have to say the relationship
    we have with GSA since Mr. Mathews has got there is better than
    it has ever been in my 25 years.
        Senator Cardin. I asked a pretty simple question.
        Mr. Haley. And I believe I gave you an answer, sir.
        Senator Cardin. No input at all from the White House?
        Mr. Haley. This decision is not----
        Senator Cardin. No input from the White House?
        Mr. Haley. This decision----
        Senator Cardin. No input from the White House? Yes or no?
        Mr. Haley. Not on this decision, no.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think you can both understand why we are having major
    whiplash up here, given the long history of positions that both
    your agencies have taken on this project.
        Mr. Haley, are you familiar with the GAO report that was
    written back in November 2011 about this project?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. And as part of that, they looked at the
    demolish and rebuild option, did they not?
        Mr. Haley. I believe that was one of the pieces that they
    did look at.
        Senator Van Hollen. That is right. That was option two,
    alternative No. 2. And it said that this was not a preferred
    option because the FBI's security concerns about its
    headquarters would remain.
        Your testimony today is that rebuilding at the current
    location would be less secure for the FBI than moving to one of
    the other campus sites, isn't that correct?
        Mr. Haley. I think my testimony today and what I have said
    in the opening is that we have looked at a number of factors
    that were not necessarily----
        Senator Van Hollen. I am just trying to get confirmation to
    what you said within the last 5 minutes. You just told Senator
    Cardin that those other campus sites would provide more
    security. Isn't that true?
        Mr. Haley. So that a 300-foot setback----
        Senator Van Hollen. Isn't it true that the other sites
    would provide more security than relocating at the current
    site?
        Mr. Haley. I wouldn't say----
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes or no?
        Mr. Haley. I wouldn't say more security. From a setback
    standpoint, yes, sir, the setback would provide for that aspect
    of security. There's multiple processes of the security
    protocols. There are other ways of getting to some of those
    same security outputs. But yes, you are correct, a 300-foot
    setback is intuitively better than a 75-foot setback, yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. I would suggest it is not just
    intuitively; that is according to the facts and the experts.
        Are you familiar with Mr. Kevin Perkins?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, know him very well.
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
        Mr. Haley. He was the SAC in Baltimore, Maryland.
        Senator Van Hollen. That is right. And he was Associate
    Deputy Director of the FBI, correct?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. OK. And he testified, Mr. Chairman,
    back in March 2013, at a hearing in the House of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and here is what
    he said: ``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 the agencies in the
    intelligence community.''
        Do you agree with that statement from your fellow FBI
    representative?
        Mr. Haley. I believe he was talking about the current
    building, and yes, the status quo today is not acceptable.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, he was referring to the current
    location. Do you want me to read it again? Do you agree that
    the current location of the FBI building ``is probably the
    worst of all the agencies in the intelligence community,'' from
    a security standpoint?
        Mr. Haley. You are quoting what he said?
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Haley. I acknowledge that that is what----
        Senator Van Hollen. Has the FBI changed its position on
    that fact?
        Mr. Haley. We believe that the site at Pennsylvania Avenue,
    with the right construction, protocols, and the other mission
    requirements can be secured in an appropriate way.
        Senator Van Hollen. In an appropriate way, but clearly not
    as secure as the others, which is so obvious, and you have said
    it already, but I think it is important for the record here.
        We have also had testimony over the years from GSA, Mr.
    Mathews. Dorothy Robyn, did she have the position you currently
    have?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
        Senator Van Hollen. That is right. And she also testified
    at that March 13th hearing of the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee and she indicated, and I quote, ``The
    building, with its high profile location and limited perimeter
    setback, cannot meet and will not meet, cannot meet and does
    not meet the FBI's requirements for level 5 security under the
    Interagency Security Committee standards.''
        Have you changed your position, has the GSA changed its
    position on that?
        Mr. Mathews. She was correct, the current building could
    not meet that.
        Senator Van Hollen. Here is what she says. She says, ``With
    its high profile location and limited perimeter setback.'' It
    still has a limited perimeter setback; we just heard that,
    right?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, but it is connected to the building, and
    that current building cannot withstand--well, the current
    building has very significant limitations.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we
    have looked at the demolish option in the past.
        Mr. Haley, when the GSA decided that it would not go
    forward with the original options, that is when the FBI decided
    to take another look at its mission requirements, right?
        Mr. Haley. Absolutely, yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. And prior to that, you were fully
    prepared to go forward with the other options, isn't that
    right?
        Mr. Haley. Yes, sir. If the funding would have been
    provided in the previous procurement, we would have a
    construction site most likely going on right now; yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. Well, I want to get to that
    point because I think it is really important, the funding. Did
    the GSA and FBI request funding for this project as part of the
    previous Administration's budget request?
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, it did.
        Senator Van Hollen. How much did it request?
        Mr. Mathews. I believe the combination was--the last
    request was, I think, 700-some million dollars.
        Senator Van Hollen. It didn't request full funding, did it?
        Mr. Mathews. It wasn't enough, no.
        Senator Van Hollen. Right. So the Administration's position
    at the time was we want to move forward with these other
    options, but we are not going to provide full funding. But now
    it is because, supposedly, Congress didn't provide full
    funding. The Congress actually provided more funding than the
    Administration requested, didn't they?
        Mr. Haley. Well, in the previous request, with the exchange
    included, the funding that was being asked for, if it would
    have been appropriated, would have allowed the project to move
    forward.
        Senator Van Hollen. OK. Let me just say at the time of the
    decision last July, Mr. Chairman, where the GSA decided to pull
    the plug on the other options, the statement from GSA, from Mr.
    Michael Gelber, stated, and I quote, ``It's fair to say that
    the cancellation of the procurement was not the desired
    outcome.''
        Does that remain the position of the FBI, that that was not
    the desired outcome, the cancellation of the original?
        Mr. Haley. Well, in Senator Cardin's point, the longer that
    this project doesn't move forward is the longer we are in this
    disruptive state, yes, sir. So, just to clarify, the funding
    that was being asked for in the previous Administration's
    budget request, along with the exchange, was the amount needed,
    $1.4 million with the exchange, to move forward. Only $500
    million was provided. So, it was because of that and the fact
    that that procurement was going beyond its original expected
    time period.
        There were considerations in that contract that if the FBI
    wasn't out of the building at a certain point, we were going to
    be paying penalties back. There were costs that were included.
    The teams that the different construction entities were putting
    together, all of that, as it was aging, was making that
    procurement ineffective. So, without the funding, the FBI
    agreed with GSA's consideration that the contract needed to be
    canceled.
        But you are absolutely right, if that project would have
    moved forward, we would be building at one of the three sites
    today, most likely. The Committee--and in good faith, when we
    came up here before, and what we have done in the interim, is
    go back and look at everything involved in this project; not
    just the brick and mortar, definitely the security, but we have
    also looked at all the operational pieces as well, and that is
    where we are coming forward today.
        Senator Van Hollen. I understand. Just because time is
    limited, you mentioned security. It is very clear that this is
    obviously a less secure facility.
        And I was--Mr. Mathews, I have to say, a little amused by
    your referencing the bipartisan budget agreement as the path
    forward for additional funding. That budget agreement was
    reached here on the Hill after you had already made your
    decisions to move forward, right? I mean, that was just a
    couple weeks ago. Isn't that the case?
        Mr. Mathews. Actually, the final recommendation came
    forward at that same time.
        Senator Van Hollen. But if it is a funding issue, which is
    what the testimony was with respect to the decision, Mr.
    Chairman, to not move forward, given the bipartisan budget
    agreement, I would suggest that we now can look at the funding
    for the original project, which would have gone through at one
    of the other three facilities and met what the FBI has told us
    for years would meet its mission requirements.
        The last question I have, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the
    swing space rental payments. I am really confused about this.
    You are in a current building; you are paying some rental
    payments now, I don't know how much, and now you are going to
    move for a period of 5 to 6 years to other locations, we don't
    know where right now, and you have not included the costs. This
    PowerPoint specifically says you have not included the costs of
    those rental payments. Can you get back to this Committee,
    please, and give us what the costs of those rental payments
    will be? Because a lot of people who have looked at this
    believe those dramatically change your cost assessments.
        Mr. Mathews. Yes, we would be happy to get back to you with
    those additional figures.
        What I was trying to say, explain earlier, is there is a
    cost of currently occupying the Hoover Building. Under this
    scenario, they would move out. Those costs would end; they
    would terminate because we would demolish the building.
        So we wouldn't be paying to operate and maintain the Hoover
    Building, and that is what I am suggesting is offsetting the
    base rental payments for the swing space. But to occupy a swing
    space, as Mr. Haley said, we would have to bring that up to the
    standards, and that is the $479 million that is detailed here.
        Senator Van Hollen. You have the rental payments.
        Mr. Chairman, if I could one last.
        Senator Cardin asked you a little bit about this, but Mr.
    Mathews, have you had conversations with the director of OMB
    about this project, Mr. Mulvaney?
        Mr. Mathews. I have not, but this is part of the budget
    submission of the Administration, so this is absolutely
    supported by OMB. The funding request was part of that fiscal
    year 2018 additional request that was put forward, so this is
    an official budget request; it has the approval of the OMB----
        Senator Van Hollen. Are either of you gentlemen--are either
    of you familiar with any conversations that any members of your
    agency have had with the President of the United States about
    this decision with respect to the FBI building? And I mean the
    decision to not move forward with the original alternatives and
    the decision to remain at the current location. Are you aware
    of any conversations that anybody in the Administration has had
    with the President of the United States about this project?
        Mr. Mathews. Again, this was a joint decision----
        Senator Van Hollen. That is just yes or no. Are you aware
    of any conversations had by any member of the Administration
    with the President of the United States about this project?
        Mr. Haley. What I would say----
        Senator Van Hollen. That is a yes or no.
        Mr. Haley. I don't think it is, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. It is.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the Committee deserves an answer to
    that question. It is a yes or no question whether people are
    aware of any conversations that anyone in the Administration
    has had with the President about this project.
        Mr. Haley. I was going to try to answer it. With respect to
    the decision of staying in the downtown location, this
    decision, and any conversations that have happened with that
    decision, and the Building Commissioner and I have had summary
    conversations at the worker level of OMB on what this decision
    is; we obviously didn't come out here without a coordination
    with our OMB oversight, but with respect to the decision of
    staying at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, tearing down the current
    building and building back, that is an FBI driven decision, in
    coordination with GSA.
        I am not aware, in terms of that decision, regardless of
    whether it has come up in any other venue, the decision to stay
    at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue is an FBI decision, and we have had
    that conversation with GSA. Any entities outside of the FBI and
    GSA, whether they have been informed about it, whether it has
    come up in conversations, it hasn't been a factor in the
    decision of that project.
        Senator Van Hollen. That was not my question. My question
    was not whether any conversations had with other people outside
    the FBI were a factor. My question is very simple: Are you
    aware of any conversations or communications that any member of
    the Administration has had with the President of the United
    States about the project?
        Mr. Haley. I can't speak for the Building Commissioner. I
    have not been a part of any of those conversations.
        Senator Van Hollen. I didn't ask that. I didn't ask whether
    you have been a part of that. I understand that you were not
    talking to the President of the United States about this. I am
    asking about whether you are aware of any conversations that
    anyone in the Administration had with the President of the
    United States about this project, meaning either the decision
    not to go forward with the original plan or the current
    alternative.
        Mr. Haley. I don't believe I am in a position to answer
    that question because I was not privy to those conversations. I
    have not been part of those conversations.
        Senator Van Hollen. That is not my question. My question is
    not whether you know the content. My question is whether you
    were aware of any conversations having been had.
        Mr. Haley. I don't believe I am in a position to answer
    that question.
        Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I would hope--I mean,
    this is a Committee that is trying to take its responsibilities
    of oversight seriously. This is a legitimate question for the
    public.
        Senator Barrasso. And I think that the witnesses have tried
    to answer to the best of their abilities, and the question has
    been asked and answered a number of times.
        Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Mathews, the same question to you.
        Mr. Mathews. Same answer, Senator.
        Senator Van Hollen. OK. Just for the record, neither
    witness has answered the question, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
    pretty clear from the record.
        Senator Barrasso. We will head to a second round if people
    have additional questions.
        Let me just ask one.
        Mr. Mathews, GSA indicates the total cost of the project
    under the revised plan is $3.3 billion. The plan assumes the
    entire project is going to take 5 years, and these employees
    will be able to return to the new headquarters within that
    timeframe, relocation, demolition, new construction, to get
    back to the new headquarters.
        My experience has been projects take longer and cost more
    than predictions are. Do you really believe that we can
    complete the entire project in this budget in 5 years?
        Mr. Mathews. I believe it is possible if we have the
    funding. This will be done as a maximum price contract. A lot
    of the unknowns that are typical with construction projects,
    given that this is an existing site, we know this site, we know
    the demolition costs, those came forward in the previous
    procurement.
        We had a variety of estimates for that, so we feel pretty
    good and confident about those estimates. Again, we know that
    site, we control the site, so a lot of those types of things
    that come into play that can hold up a project at the initial
    phases really aren't present here.
        But again, it comes down to funding. If we have the
    funding, and we would need to have the funding in hand for the
    design and construction portion of the contract in order to
    award a contract. This would not lend itself to a phased
    approach. We can't build a foundation and then wait for money
    and then build the next piece; we would have to have the design
    and construction component of it up front.
        But if we have that in hand, we should be able to meet this
    project. The key would be to make sure that we avoid change
    orders. As with any large project, we need to make a plan, what
    we are going to build, and stick to it and not change it
    midway, once we start.
        Senator Barrasso. Avoid change orders. For any of us that
    have had involvement in any kind of remodeling project, whether
    it is just a home building project----
        Mr. Mathews. Yes. It is the bane of cost control.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper. If not, or Senator
    Cardin, whichever.
        Senator Carper. I am interested in the truth. I think that
    is what is expected of you; it is what is expected of us.
    Sometimes my colleagues hear me quote Thomas Jefferson: ``If
    the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake.'' And I
    think the question that Senator Van Hollen has posed is not an
    easy question, not an easy question maybe to answer.
        Chris, would you just state once again the question that
    you have asked both witnesses?
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes, Senator Carper. The question was
    pretty straightforward: whether either of these gentlemen are
    aware of any conversations that took place between any member
    of the Administration and the President of the United States
    about this FBI project, meaning the decision not to move
    forward with the original alternatives or the decision to
    rebuild at the current site.
        Are you aware of any? I am not asking if you were in the
    room; I am not asking you for the content; I am asking whether
    you are aware whether any such conversations took place.
        Senator Carper. And I am not a big fan of yes or no
    questions and answers, but this really is one, and we would
    like for you to tell us the truth.
        Mr. Haley. Sir, I am the Chief Financial Officer and Head
    of Facilities for the FBI. I have meetings with all types of
    people in the Department of Justice, at OMB and other places.
    When the question is presented as am I aware of anybody in the
    Administration that has talked----
        Senator Carper. No, that was not the question. That was not
    the question. With all due respect, Mr. Haley, that was not the
    question. It is a pretty straightforward question, and I think
    it deserves a straightforward answer.
        Mr. Haley. I think I have answered it as best I can.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Mathews, have you answered that
    question as best you can?
        Mr. Mathews. My answer is I am not in a position to answer
    that question.
        Senator Carper. Well, the ways you have responded to that
    question certainly raise for me, and I suspect for a number of
    my colleagues, the question whether the President did somehow
    intervene and express a view. The way that you are answering it
    simply encourages suspicion.
        Mr. Haley. I am not trying to bring suspicion on whether
    there was--I have tried to be, at least from an FBI
    perspective, very explicit on whether there was any intervening
    from the Administration or the White House, and when I tell you
    that the FBI has come to this decision and we would not be
    putting forward a decision, and I say this with emphasis from
    our leadership, we would not be putting forward, nor would we
    be agreeing to an approach that did not meet the FBI's mission
    requirements, so----
        Senator Carper. Let me just say this. If the President did
    not intervene in some way, and you are aware that he did not
    intervene in any way, just say that. Just say that, and this
    suspicion just goes away. But your inability to say that, or
    refusal to say that, simply heightens, heightens that
    suspicion, and that is not a good thing for anybody.
        OK, my time has expired. I will have some questions for the
    record. Thank you both for being here.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. I just want to underscore the point that
    Senator Van Hollen made in regards to the congressional
    appropriations on the original project.
        Mr. Mathews, you have indicated there were two reasons for
    the termination of the original contract: one, you didn't like
    the Hoover Building exchange, which was the Administration's
    proposal, not ours. We didn't like it. We gave you a lot of
    different options to pay for it. Second is you didn't have all
    the money in hand, and yet you never asked for all the money in
    hand from Congress.
        We gave you more money than you asked for. So, I just want
    the public to understand and the FBI to understand we should be
    breaking ground today but for the Administration. But for the
    Administration, we should be breaking ground today in Virginia
    or Maryland, and you would get the type of facility you need a
    lot faster; you would be able to carry out your mission. I am
    going to tell you it is going to be less costly and a very
    valuable piece of property ultimately would find its way into
    helping the people of the District of Columbia.
        Second point I want to follow up on, because I agree with
    Senator Van Hollen, I don't understand the math here; you have
    been telling us consistently that it is better to use
    Government facilities for costs than outside rental facilities
    for costs. Now we are being told it is a wash.
        And then I am looking at the bookkeeping here, where you
    are being charged internally for the costs of the Hoover
    Building, and you are telling us that that is going to be a
    wash, but it doesn't seem like it is going to be a wash for the
    taxpayers of this country, and they are the people we
    represent. It does seem like there is going to be an additional
    cost.
        Now, I want to tell you we did some of our own analysis on
    this with our economic development people, and admittedly, we
    don't have the information you have. And the number we came up
    with is about $1.2 billion additional cost because of the swing
    space. And if that is accurate, or even half-accurate, then we
    are spending a lot more to rebuild the Hoover Building with, I
    would suggest, less results for the FBI certainly today, and
    very concerned about the future expansion and needs of the FBI,
    because you are going to be really restricted in the rebuilding
    of the Hoover Building.
        So, if I could just make that one request that the Chairman
    made and the Ranking Member earlier, I hope, before you send us
    a prospectus for our consideration, that we have all of the
    detailed information available to us. The one thing you said,
    Mr. Mathews, that really concerned me is that we didn't know
    all the costs. Was it our responsibility to try to find out all
    the costs? I thought that is your responsibility. So why didn't
    Congress have that information originally?
        Mr. Mathews. I can't speak for the previous Administration,
    why they didn't provide it, but I can say that we are providing
    it, and we are giving you a complete----
        Senator Cardin. Well, you are not providing it right now
    because you are not giving us the swing space comparisons. We
    need a lot more information you have given us; don't you agree?
        Mr. Mathews. We will give you more information on the swing
    space, but at this point in time we have given you what we
    have. And with respect to your question about long term
    leasing, short term leasing makes a lot of financial sense for
    the Government; long term, for 30 years for a requirement to
    house out in a single lease location, that is where we start
    getting into some cost issues, but for temporary requirements,
    rental space is a great solution.
        Senator Cardin. So we should take our Government buildings
    and take short term leases rather than having people in our
    buildings?
        Mr. Mathews. Well, of course, this would be replaced with a
    Government owned, Government constructed facility.
        Senator Cardin. I understand.
        Mr. Mathews. This is temporary housing.
        Senator Cardin. What you are saying defies logic. What you
    are saying is that the FBI can save money if it starts taking
    its employees out of the Hoover Building and putting them into
    temporary short term leases. Doesn't make sense.
        Mr. Mathews. Well, we looked at renovating the facility
    with them in place, and that makes far less sense.
        Senator Cardin. Right.
        Mr. Haley. To clarify, in terms of what was in the report,
    and we definitely will get back to you, the swing space amounts
    that you are seeing in the report are those above standard,
    secure pieces that we believe that the rent costs--and we still
    are going to pursue, whether it is in the Government inventory,
    the intel community has space that we are aware of, whether
    that meets our mission needs, that would offset some of the
    rent.
        But the only piece that we don't believe that is in the
    report right now is the actual, what that final rent payment.
    And what the Building Commissioner articulated earlier, to just
    clarify, is we think that will be an offset to what we are
    currently paying.
        There is no question to your point that there may be, in
    that interim period, that 4 or 5 years, where we will be paying
    some marginal amount more for that temporary space, but then in
    the longer picture, when we get back into the owned facility,
    we think that is a better place to be.
        So you are correct that there could be a marginal amount
    different in the rent. But for the most part, we think that
    that piece, that widget, is going to be offset with what we are
    already paying.
        Senator Cardin. And I would hope you would give us the
    analysis on the Hoover Building getting less cost reimbursement
    from GSA that has to be made up someplace else by Federal
    taxpayers.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And just for Mr. Mathews, have you ever had any
    conversation or communication with either the President of the
    United States or any senior White House staff about this FBI
    project?
        Mr. Mathews. I have not.
        [The additional response of Mr. Mathews follows:]

        I write to clarify my response to a question posed by
    Senator Van Hollen near the end of the hearing. Specifically,
    the Senator asked me: ``Have you ever had any conversations or
    communications with the President or any senior White House
    staff about this FBI project?'' During the hearing, I misheard
    the question and believed the question was only referring to
    conversations or communications with the President. I responded
    by saying: ``No, I have not.'' Since my response was intended
    only to reflect whether I have had conversations or
    communications with the President regarding the FBI
    headquarters project--not senior staff--I believe it is
    appropriate for me to further clarify and extend my response to
    the Senator's question.
        As such, I would first restate that I have not had any
    conversations or communications with the President regarding
    the FBI headquarters project. However, I have attended one
    meeting with a senior official at the White House where the
    primary topic of the meeting was the FBI headquarters project.
    Additionally, I attended one meeting with a senior official at
    the White House where the FBI headquarters project was
    discussed briefly as a matter incidental to the subject of the
    meeting, and I have had several meetings with another senior
    White House official where the FBI headquarters project was
    discussed, but only in the context of a broader discussion of
    Federal real property acquisition financing.

        Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask if I
    could put into the record some of the documents I cited during
    my questioning, as well as a Washington Post column discussing
    the President's interest in keeping the FBI building in its
    current site as potential financial interest.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. I would just say, this is a FBI decision.
    It is in the President's budget, so one would expect an
    Administration to have interest in the final decision of how
    the budgeting process is made.
        Just in conclusion, is there anything that either of you
    would like to offer in clarifying or things that you would like
    to have mentioned that you didn't have an opportunity to do
    today?
        Mr. Haley. Just two points on that last one. I am not
    trying to not answer the questions with respect to Senators,
    but on your last point there, not saying something in terms of
    whatever those conversations, if they did occur, might have
    said, what I can tell you is, to reiterate, this was an FBI-
    centric decision, in coordination with GSA.
        The one thing I would mention, just to clarify on something
    that was brought up earlier in terms of that 5 year--5 to 6
    year for this particular site, one of the challenges in
    comparison to the other three sites previously, the amount of
    road work and the amount of infrastructure that had to be done
    even to get to the construction of the site, when we offset the
    two time periods, that is where we do believe that this site,
    because we do own it, we can tear it down, build it back, even
    though that 5 years is going to be an inconvenience.
        I will be honest with you, as I said, sir, that will be a
    hard period for us to figure out, but we do believe that that
    is workable and that that is some of the comparison that we get
    to the two. So I just wanted to clarify that.
        Senator Barrasso. And Mr. Mathews, anything else you would
    like to offer for clarification?
        Mr. Mathews. I guess I would just say that I understand it
    is a significant change from the previous request, but with
    respect to the site, what really makes it possible to consider
    the site, is the smaller requirement for the number of
    personnel. That makes it possible, and there are, again, as I
    mentioned, some very distinct advantages to reutilizing the
    current site if you can actually fit the housing requirement on
    that site.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, I want to thank both of you for
    your time and your testimony today. The hearing record will
    remain open. There may be some additional written questions
    from some of the other members. I want to thank you for your
    testimony on this important hearing, and the hearing is
    adjourned.
        Senator Carper. Before you adjourn, I just want to say
    thank you for holding this hearing, thank you for being so
    intelligent, especially with our colleagues from Maryland. It
    is obviously an important issue for them and for the District
    of Columbia and for our neighboring States, certainly for the
    FBI and the folks that work there. But you have been, I think,
    extraordinarily gracious, and I just want to note that and say
    thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. It is good to work with you.
        Thank you very much. Hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]