[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]