[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE COSTS
=======================================================================
(114-36)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-875 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina Columbia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia DINA TITUS, Nevada
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex VACANCY
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Panel 2
Hon. D. Brooks Smith, Chair, Committee on Space and Facilities,
Judicial Conference of the United States:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Norman Dong, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General
Services Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Barbara
Comstock, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 51
Richard L. Haley II, Assistant Director, Facilities and Finance
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Barbara
Comstock, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 60
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY REDUCING FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE COSTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing, offer testimony and ask questions.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review major
construction projects planned or proposed by the General
Services Administration and examine GSA's use of its authority
to carry out real estate transactions for the Federal
Government.
I want to welcome Representative Hoyer. I look forward to
his testimony on the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation]
Headquarters.
There are two significant construction programs we will
examine today: the construction of a new consolidated
headquarters for the FBI, and the judiciary's courthouse
construction program. These two programs alone total more than
$3 billion.
That is why I want to thank Judge Smith, Chair of the
Committee on Space and Facilities for the Judicial Conference
of the United States; Mr. Haley, CFO [chief financial officer]
of the FBI; and Public Buildings Service Commissioner, Mr.
Dong, for being here today.
For fiscal year 2016, nearly $1 billion was appropriated
for new courthouses. This committee has worked closely with the
judiciary on improving its courthouse program. And, I want to
thank the judiciary and the work of Judge Smith to reduce the
costs to the taxpayer in courthouse projects.
Steps the judiciary has taken include improving the
evaluation process for new courthouses; adopting courtroom
sharing policies; recommending less costly alternatives to new
construction when appropriate; and reducing the judiciary's
overall space footprint.
Now we must continue to work together to ensure new
courthouse projects stay on schedule and within budget. I look
forward to hearing today from GSA and the judiciary on the
strategies they will put into place to ensure we stay on track
with these projects.
The FBI Headquarters consolidation is another significant
construction project. The new headquarters is proposed to
include 2.1 million square feet of space. The project is
intended to consolidate scattered FBI Headquarters functions
into one location, reduce the FBI's footprint by 30 percent,
and reduce the costs to the taxpayer.
I have three major criteria with respect to the FBI
project. First, the project needs to be a good deal for the
taxpayer. Two, it needs to meet the FBI's security and
financial requirements. And three, the process has to be fair
for the three jurisdictions involved.
In the fiscal year 2017 budget, the administration has
requested a total of $1.4 billion, split between GSA and the
FBI. This committee has also received a GSA prospectus to
authorize a portion of the funding.
As we review this proposal, there are many unanswered
questions. For example, the prospectus does not include a total
estimated project cost for the FBI Headquarters, something that
is required by law to be included in GSA prospectuses.
Understanding what the total cost is to the taxpayer will
be important for Congress to effectively evaluate the proposal
before us.
GSA previously proposed constructing a new FBI Headquarters
using its exchange authority. Members of this committee
expressed concerns regarding the use of this authority to
construct a $2 billion headquarters without any congressional
authorization.
Now GSA is proposing the project be funded with a
combination of direct appropriations and the exchange of the
Hoover Building.
While we now have a prospectus for the FBI project because
of the appropriations request, GSA has planned other major
projects using its exchange authority for which no
authorization has been sought. The committee has encouraged GSA
to better utilize all of its authorities, particularly related
to the public-private partnerships.
However, we also expect there to be proper congressional
oversight, particularly of projects with billion-dollar price
tags. That is why we included in H.R. 4487, the Public
Buildings Reform and Savings Act, a bill I introduced along
with Ranking Member Carson, a number of provisions that would
clarify and strengthen congressional oversight over these
projects.
Finally, there are a number of other topics I hope we can
discuss today. Last November, for example, the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims voided the lease award for the TSA
[Transportation Security Administration] Headquarters. What is
the current plan to get this project back on track?
And how does GSA interpret the ruling as it relates to its
authority to acquire properties?
I hope we can get answers to these and other questions
today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
And thank you.
I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Carson, for his opening statement.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome to today's hearing. I am very pleased to have my
good friend, Minority Whip Hoyer, as a witness testifying on
behalf of his great constituents in Maryland.
As the Federal Government's landlord, GSA has the
responsibility to work with other Federal agencies to make
decisions that will reflect both the will of the administration
and Congress. This committee has worked diligently, to the
chairman's remarks, with GSA and tenant agencies to identify
opportunities to improve their space utilization.
This can save taxpayer dollars, help agencies spend less on
real estate, and improve their ability to provide their core
services to those who need them.
We have held roundtables across the Nation, and we have
secured commitments from leaders of various agencies and
secured the approval in many ways of people from the respective
municipalities.
I commend GSA for the efforts and fully expect them to
continue their efforts. It is just as critically important in
these times of fiscal cuts and austerity measures to use space
efficiently as it is to ensure that existing building stock is
properly maintained. Proactive maintenance and repair is almost
always more cost efficient than reactive maintenance.
This is why I am pleased to see that the administration has
committed to over $2 billion in construction, repair, and
maintenance projects in their fiscal year 2017 budget. These
projects range from major repair jobs to the exchange
contemplated by GSA to provide a new consolidated FBI
Headquarters.
Now, many of these projects represent Federal agencies
significantly downsizing their current real estate footprint.
There is a real opportunity to achieve long-term savings for
taxpayers by effectively managing real estate.
Included in the fiscal year 2017 request is $10.7 million
for long overdue repair and alteration projects to undertake
structural upgrades of the parking lot garage, for example, in
my district, of the Minton-Capehart Federal Building, which
will stimulate economic activity in Indianapolis.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts. For many years this subcommittee has
worked collaboratively with the Federal judiciary to better
understand their space needs and to determine where savings can
be found.
The committee held multiple hearings, initiated several GAO
[Government Accountability Office] reports, and ultimately
requested a moratorium in 2010 on the administration
constructing new courthouses.
After much discussion, the Federal judiciary has committed
to judges sharing courtrooms, a close adherence to the ``U.S.
Courts Design Guide,'' and eliminating the use of judgeship
projections in determining courthouse construction needs.
As a result of the Federal judiciary adopting these reforms
and adopting a new capital planning process developed in tandem
with the subcommittee, Congress appropriated nearly $1 billion
for new courthouses in fiscal year 2016, and today the chairman
and I hope to hear from the Federal judiciary about how they
plan to spend and prioritize their request for the
authorization of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2016.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Whip Hoyer, and I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
On our first panel today we have the Honorable Steny Hoyer.
I ask unanimous consent that our witness' full statement be
included for the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Representative Hoyer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Hoyer. Chairman Barletta, thank you very much for
giving me this opportunity to testify. I want to say how
pleased I am to be here with your ranking member as well, Mr.
Carson, my dear friend; Mr. Sires, and Ms. Frankel, and
particularly, of course, Donna Edwards, my colleague from
Maryland. She and I represent two of the three sites in Prince
George's County that are being viewed and have been asked to be
the subjects of proposal.
Mr. Crawford, good to be here with you. Mrs. Comstock is
not in the room right now, but it is good to be with her as
well. I thank you for this opportunity.
Also, you are going to be hearing from Mr. Haley.
Let me say that my office has been working on this project
for over 6 years. We believe it is one of the most important
projects for Americans, not just for Maryland or Virginia, but
for Americans generally to make more efficient and effective
the agency on which we rely so heavily not only to keep us safe
from those who commit crimes, but those who would terrorize our
country from abroad.
Mr. Haley will be testifying also.
Lisa Jackson of Prince George's County is also here. Lisa,
who works for our county executive in Prince George's County,
is very strongly in favor of this, and as you know, Governor
O'Malley already put up money for transportation around one of
the sites so that we are looking forward to being very
competitive on this.
But the bottom line is the FBI needs a new facility. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify about an issue of great
consequence both to our homeland security and to growth and
development in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District. The
administration's fiscal year 2017 budget submission, as you
pointed out, included requests for $1.4 billion.
As you know, last year we put $390 million in the budget.
So that is close to $1.8 billion. The balance is obviously
contemplated by an in-kind transfer of the existing FBI
Building, and of course, one of the questions is what would the
valuation of that property be.
A new FBI Headquarters will improve Bureau capabilities,
reduce facilities cost, and ultimately reduce the amount of
space, as you pointed out as well, Mr. Chairman, that the FBI
Headquarters will need.
As you are aware, the GSA is considering three locations to
house the new FBI Headquarters, two of which are in Maryland's
Prince George's County, as I say, represented by Donna Edwards
and by myself.
Consolidating the FBI Headquarters would offer the FBI an
extraordinary set of advantages, as would selecting a site in
Prince George's County. First, consolidating the FBI
Headquarters would enhance the Bureau's effectiveness at
responding to emergencies by improving communications between
divisions and departments currently housed separately in 13
separate facilities around the city.
Currently, roughly half of the FBI Headquarters staff work
out of leased space around the region in 13 additional
locations as a result of insufficient space at the current J.
Edgar Hoover Building.
According to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission
report in 2005, the FBI had difficulty sharing information even
within its own organization before 9/11, a challenge that was
exacerbated by not having a consolidated headquarters.
We talk a lot about the synergy of coalescing divisions. I
know I represent Pax River and the synergy of putting together
both administration and research, development, test, and
evaluation has paid off big dividends since we did that in the
1990s.
Consolidating the headquarters will contribute to efforts
already underway to improve FBI emergency response, crisis
management and terrorism prevention.
Director Comey testified last week, and I quote, ``A key
challenge inhibiting our ability to address these threats is
the lack of a headquarters facility that fully fosters
collaboration, intelligence sharing, and is dynamic, enabling
special agents, intelligence analysts, and other professional
staff to combat evolving threats as they arise.''
He went on to say the building occupied by the FBI since
1974, over 40 years ago, is obsolete, inefficient, and faces a
number of security vulnerabilities, a very important issue in
terms of required setbacks, Mr. Chairman, as you so well know.
Now, Mr. Comey went on to say currently the facility only
houses half of the headquarters workforce, requiring personnel
to be disbursed in multiple locations within the National
Capital region. He went on to say this makes it extremely
difficult to adapt to rapidly developing threats and
collaborate across divisions and programs.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Prince
George's County offers the FBI's workforce a range of
convenient and efficient transportation options for access to
area airports. We have the Baltimore-Washington International
Airport, National and Dulles, but just as importantly, Andrews
Air Force Base is some 20 minutes away in terms of foreign
deployment of Air Force aircraft; Metro, Amtrak and major
highways next to one of the sites that is being considered and
1 mile from another site that is being considered.
Twenty-five percent of the region's Federal workforce
currently lives in Prince George's County, and Maryland is
already home to many of the FBI employees.
Third, the sites being considered in Prince George's County
offer close proximity to some of our Nation's most important
national security and cybersecurity agencies as well, as world-
class research institutions.
Director Comey has identified cybersecurity as one of the
FBI's priorities, and Maryland is home to the U.S. Cyber
Command at Fort Meade, the National Security Agency, the
Defense Information Systems Agency, the National Cybersecurity
Center of Excellence Headquarters at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the University of Maryland University
College's cybersecurity program, which is approximately 2\1/2\
miles from this site, and the Department of Defense's Cyber
Crime Center, DC3, as they call it.
Prince George's County is also home to private-sector
companies and contractors in the cybersecurity field.
Fourth, according to a 2011 report, Mr. Chairman, by the
FBI, consolidating the headquarters would save taxpayers at
least $44 million per year due to the elimination of
inefficiencies from housing its divisions in multiple
locations.
Consolidating the FBI, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most
important homeland security initiatives in years, and selecting
a site in Prince George's County will best achieve--in my view
and in the view of our Governor, Larry Hogan, a Republican
Governor--the goals of such consolidation. This is a bipartisan
effort in our State, and we are dedicating resources and the
Governor has money in his budget this year to facilitate the
selection of one of these sites.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for this opportunity to
share my views, and I hope Members will fully support the GSA's
efforts with regard to the FBI consolidation.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, just for your consideration I
have been a strong proponent of building this building on a
lease-to-own basis because I thought (a) that was from a fiscal
standpoint an easier way to get from where we are to where we
want to be.
The administration and GSA have chosen not to go that
route, but I would hope the committee would keep that in mind
as an option. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to
answer any questions.
Mr. Curbelo, good to see you, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Hoyer.
It has been our policy that we will refrain from any
questions because we know you have a busy schedule, and I want
to thank you for your being here today.
The lease-to-own idea you talked about is actually in our
bill, something that we also feel is a tool that we should use,
and I think we all agree that the case for a new headquarters
is perfectly clear.
Our challenge is to make sure that it will be built in a
cost-effective manner to better serve our country. As you said,
this is a national issue very important to our country. Your
testimony will help inform the subcommittee as we review this
important project.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
Mr. Barletta. For our second panel today, we will have the
Honorable D. Brooks Smith, Chair, Committee on Space and
Facilities, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Mr. Norman Dong, Commissioner, Public Buildings Services,
General Services Administration.
And Mr. Richard L. Haley II, Assistant Director, Facilities
and Finance Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Each of you is now recognized for 5 minutes, and, Judge
Smith, if you are ready, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. D. BROOKS SMITH, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON SPACE
AND FACILITIES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES;
NORMAN DONG, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND RICHARD L. HALEY II,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND FINANCE DIVISION, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Judge Smith. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and
members of the subcommittee, I am D. Brooks Smith, a judge of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and I Chair
the Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities.
Thank you for the invitation to testify.
As this subcommittee pursues the topic of saving taxpayer
dollars by reducing Federal office space costs, I can assure
all of you that the Federal judiciary has been actively engaged
in accomplishing that very objective.
As the third branch performs its paramount constitutional
duties, we are focused on being good stewards of the resources
Congress has provided, while also meeting the needs of the
public and ensuring that security and safety concerns are met.
To this end, the judiciary has implemented a number of
plans, policies and procedures which shape the way we think
about how to plan and use space. While my written testimony
provides greater detail on these topics, I want to use the time
you have generously provided me to briefly discuss three
points.
First, the Federal judiciary has adopted a number of
initiatives to manage the space it currently occupies.
Second, we have reformed our courthouse construction
program to ensure that as we plan for future space requirements
each project will satisfy the housing needs of the particular
court in the most cost-efficient manner possible.
Third, the judiciary in cooperation with the General
Services Administration is mindful of its stewardship
responsibility. The courts are committed to managing our
resources in a responsible manner and spending appropriated
funds in the most cost-effective way we can.
First, the Federal judiciary currently uses a number of
tools to manage existing space, including our space reduction
program, circuitwide policies to assure no net new space
growth, the integrated workplace initiative and courtroom
sharing policies. The space reduction program alone has already
generated an annual cost avoidance of $11.8 million, as we have
released nearly one-half million usable square feet back to
GSA. We are on track for additional space reductions, which
will accomplish further savings.
Second, over the past 10 years, the Judicial Conference has
made a number of changes to its courthouse construction program
in an effort to reduce costs, increase efficiencies and
prioritize requirements on the basis of urgency of need. Many
of those changes were in response to GAO recommendations and
guidance from Congress, specifically from this subcommittee and
the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Reforms the third branch has undertaken in regard to our
courthouse construction program include adoption of the asset
management planning process, known as AMP; reprioritization of
all construction projects according to the results of the AMP
process; and modification of the old 5-year plan now designated
the Federal judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities plan, CPP.
With these reforms, the Judicial Conference is now able to
submit a planning document to Congress that provides a
combination of both flexibility and reasonable predictability.
Third, while we are carefully managing our existing space
and prudently planning our future requirements, the judiciary
is working closely with GSA to manage funded construction
projects in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner.
Recognizing that there are courts that for too long have
been housed in aging facilities with serious space, security,
and operational deficiencies, Congress provided $948 million
for courthouse construction. After congressional authorization
this money will fully fund the top eight projects on the CPP
and partially fund the ninth project on the plan. GSA and the
AO [Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts] are preparing the
spending plan which must be submitted to the Appropriations
Committees by mid-April 2016.
Because the spend plan is still under development, I am not
yet able to comment with specificity on the contents of that
plan, but I can describe some of the actions we are taking.
That effort includes implementing a portfolio management
strategy; refreshing program requirements; reviewing design
guide exceptions; developing plans and coordinating actions
necessary for the successful execution of the courthouse
projects funded in the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Act.
I have personally emphasized to each court that each
project should stay at or below its budget planning number.
We in the third branch are appreciative of the commitment
Congress has made to the courthouse construction program. We
look forward to working with this subcommittee and the full
committee as the projects come to you for authorization.
We are also well aware of the concerns raised over past
construction efforts. We have responded to those concerns and
will continue to do so. The judiciary is committed to managing
our current space, to planning for future space in a
responsible and economical manner, and to exercising good
stewardship over our resources consistent with our
constitutionally mandated duties to deliver justice.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Judge Smith.
Commissioner Dong, welcome, and you may proceed.
Mr. Dong. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Carson, and members of this committee. My name is Norman Dong,
and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at
GSA. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning.
There is a simple way of thinking about our work at GSA. We
support our Federal tenants in meeting their space
requirements, but we must do so in the most fiscally
responsible way. That means balancing our commitment to our
tenants with our commitment to the taxpayer, and our mandate is
to help our Federal tenants spend less on rent so they can
devote more of their limited resources on agency mission.
At GSA, we are focusing on four key priorities:
First, reducing the Federal footprint;
Second, promoting greater competition in our leasing
activity;
Third, disposing of underutilized properties far more
aggressively than we have in the past; and
Four, delivering capital projects to consolidate agencies
into federally owned facilities.
In recent years, GSA has supported the governmentwide
effort to reduce the Federal footprint. Since 2012, the
inventory of office and warehouse space has declined by nearly
25 million square feet. As leases expire in the coming years,
we see even more opportunity for agencies to co-locate,
consolidate and reduce their rent spending.
The consolidation activities program is an important part
of our effort to improve agency space utilization. The funding
that Congress has provided over the past 2 years will reduce
the Federal footprint by more than 1 million square feet and
save taxpayers more than $76 million in lease cost savings each
year.
As we consider the size of the Federal footprint, we also
must consider the cost of this footprint, and that is why our
approach to leasing is so important. While we emphasize the
importance of federally owned space, we will continue to see a
significant amount of leased activity in our portfolio.
Therefore, we need to get the most competitive lease rates for
our tenants and for the taxpayer.
In previous hearings, we discussed how GSA is promoting
greater competition in our leasing process. To do this we are
starting our planning work much earlier in the process. We are
broadening delineated areas, and when it makes sense to do so,
we are promoting longer lease terms in order to get lower
rates.
GSA has been working with each of our regional offices to
examine the pipeline of expiring leases to secure agency space
requirements and to promote greater competition for those
follow-on transactions. As a result of this improved long-term
planning, your committee will be receiving more lease
prospectuses earlier on in the process as GSA works to avoid
costly holdovers and extensions.
We are also doing more to get rid of our underutilized
assets and for good reason. We face significant operating costs
in maintaining properties that we no longer need, and these
underutilized buildings have a significant backlog of unmet
maintenance and repair needs which we will never be able to
afford in this current budget environment.
Finally, we see significant opportunity to tap into the
value of our underutilized assets that no longer have utility
to the Federal Government, but reflect far more value to the
private sector.
Our efforts are making a difference. Over the past 2 years,
GSA has disposed of more than 500 assets, which has generated
close to $100 million in sales proceeds. But there is more that
needs to be done. That is why for the first time GSA has
developed a multiyear pipeline that provides greater
transparency and accountability for us to get rid of those
assets that we have identified for potential disposal, exchange
or out-lease.
Finally, I want to discuss how we are delivering capital
projects to consolidate agencies into federally owned
facilities. There are significant economic benefits of moving
out of expensive leases and consolidating into federally owned
buildings.
In addition, co-locating agency components also enhances
mission effectiveness through increased collaboration and
coordination.
We appreciate the support that this committee has provided
in our efforts to develop federally owned headquarters
facilities for our major tenants. One major example is the
consolidation of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] at the
St. Elizabeths campus. The St. Elizabeths project will
consolidate millions of square feet of space that we are
currently leasing into one federally owned campus.
The consolidation at St. Elizabeths will also enhance DHS
mission effectiveness while redeveloping an underutilized asset
that is already in our portfolio. And I am pleased to report
that we are on track with this project.
GSA has also committed to delivering a new headquarters
facility for the FBI. This new facility will consolidate FBI
employees from 13 different locations across the National
Capital region to a modern and secure facility that enhances
FBI's national security, intelligence, and law enforcement
missions and saves millions of dollars in leasing costs each
year.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with
you on our progress at GSA. I look forward to working with this
committee to improve how we manage real property in the Federal
Government.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Commissioner
Dong.
Mr. Haley, thank you for being here, and you may proceed.
Mr. Haley. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson,
committee and I also want to thank your staff. They have been
terrific in asking questions and dealing with this.
On behalf of Director Comey, the FBI family, thank you for
letting us be part of this hearing to talk about what is
obviously a huge endeavor and opportunity.
I also want to thank you first though beyond headquarters
and what that iconic symbol is and operational. There are 400
or so locations across the country, many of those in your
jurisdictions, and that is the tip of the spear for us, those
field offices and resident agencies where the work gets done.
And really just to take a short period of time to talk
about two aspects of that, and one is the operational aspect in
that coordination and collaboration, what has, since 9/11, both
for the field and headquarters, changed the way the FBI has
done things.
The Director talked about that with our Appropriations
Committee where we came just last week, being a reactive
organization with not much IT or technology to an organization
today where we have over 6,000 State and local task force
members. We have foreign law enforcement intelligence
organizations working in our facilities, and that technology
and how that works, if a building is at its best, it is
invisible to that operational user. Unfortunately, especially
at headquarters, our building is not invisible to the users and
to the agents and intelligence analysts and professional staff,
and has a lot of problems in terms of us being able to just get
collaboration there.
It was a police precinct when it was built, a national
police precinct, poured concrete for efficiency and cost at the
time. That same efficiency that was built back in the 1960s and
1970s is today inhibiting where we can actually make the
appropriate space, run wiring and cabling throughout the
building. Projects take way too long.
We can talk about obviously the footprint. We are looking
at over 800,000 square feet, being able to reduce in our
headquarters facility with this consolidation. That has
obviously, as mentioned before, a lot of cost savings.
The security footprint is obviously another area with the
setbacks at that downtown location compared to our other
intelligence partners, but it is really that operational piece
that I think is most important to us.
The other piece that I think the Director would want us to
mention is that aspect of full consolidation, that this project
in any way it is done and wherever it is located, being able to
consolidate all of those pieces. The organization historically,
cases were done in the field. Headquarters are more of an
administrative burden to the field.
Today, which started in our counterterrorism side but has
expanded across all of our national security cases, as well as
our criminal and cyber cases, is that national global
coordination center over all of those things that are happening
in the field. The Director has mentioned before that Bonnie and
Clyde may have robbed on a good day two or three banks in one
small area. You now have cyberhackers and attacks going on
where $80 million, $90 million can be stolen from all across
the country, and how that coordination occurs has a lot to do
with how we bring those different skill sets and those
different capabilities together, and that right now is an
inhibitor for us.
So I look forward to answering you questions today, and on
that good deal and meets security at least on the first two you
mentioned earlier, good deal and meets security and financial
piece, as CFO and steward for all of our facilities and
logistics, I agree with you. Whatever happens in this project,
however it is funded, it needs to meet that, and the Director
would want me to convey to you that he believes strongly in
that as well.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Haley, and
I would like to thank all of you for your statements.
I will now begin the first round of questions, limited to 5
minutes for each Member. If there are any additional questions
following the first round, we will have additional rounds of
questions as needed.
Before I begin the first round of questions, I want to
recognize Judge Smith for your hard work to bring some much
needed reforms to the courthouse program. I know it has not
been easy, and I appreciate how much progress that you have
made. And I do hope that the next Chair will continue your good
work.
Judge Smith. Thank you. That is very kind of you, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate that, and I am looking forward to there
being a new Chair. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Dong and Judge Smith, you have a limited
amount of funds, and there are a lot of projects on the 5-year
plan, and we want to fund as many of them as possible. That
means every new courthouse project must be planned, designed
and managed in a way to ensure that they are on schedule and
under budget.
What steps are you taking to ensure that this happens?
Who wants to start? Either one.
Judge Smith. Mr. Chairman, what we have undertaken is a
very collaborative effort from the start in the wake of the
appropriations bill. We, of course, have been very grateful to
have now $948 million for purposes of building new courthouses
and/or annexes to existing courthouses.
But we recognized at the outset that what we had to do was
to undertake steps to assure that we, as responsibly as is
humanly possible and as efficiently as we could, spend that
money to see that facilities were provided for the judiciary
that allowed us to do the job that we could do.
The collaborative effort I have referred to has involved
the entire court family and all those who have courts and
venues that will eventually have new courthouse construction.
I, at the end of January, convened a phone call of all the
constituents involved and made sure that I reached out to them
and emphasized the need to stay within costs. These are
projects that have been waiting for a long time, many of them,
and not all of the data is up to date. It needs to be
refreshed. We are in that process now.
But the word has gone out, and we have engaged not only the
court but our friends at GSA as well who have worked with us in
numerous meetings since then and in phone conferences, and I
know that Commissioner Dong can speak to that level of
cooperation as well.
Mr. Dong. Chairman Barletta, I am extremely pleased with
the strength of the partnership and the quality of the
collaboration that we have seen between GSA and the courts, and
our objective is the same, and that is to maximize the impact
of the funds that have been appropriated for the courthouse
program.
Every day we are coming together to work through specific
issues at specific courthouses, and we are really seeing some
terrific progress here, but I think it really comes back to
that commitment to collaboration to make sure that we are able
to deliver on the program for these courthouses.
Mr. Barletta. As you know, the Harrisburg Courthouse is
number 9 on the list. There is funding currently available for
eight and partially some for nine. You know, I want to make
sure that we stay on or under budget so that the partial
funding for the Harrisburg Courthouse remains there and does
not get used up on the top eight and the Harrisburg Courthouse
would fall further back.
Judge Smith. We are certainly keeping an eye with a view
toward Harrisburg. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Harrisburg is
almost in my backyard. I am very familiar with the existing
courthouse. I am very familiar with the court, and I have seen
the court numerous times.
I am in conversations with the chief judge, Chief Judge
Connor of that district, and we are taking every step possible
to make sure that there are sufficient monies after one through
eight on the construction list to address at least the
beginning of the courthouse project in Harrisburg.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Mr. Dong, currently we only have one prospectus for a
courthouse on the judiciary's 5-year plan. When can we expect
the others, including the prospectus for the Harrisburg
Courthouse?
Mr. Dong. We were talking about the terrific planning work
that we see between the courts and GSA, and right now we are
going through courthouse by courthouse to make sure that we
have got detailed program requirements that will meet the space
needs for each project.
And as we complete those requirements, we will be
submitting prospectuses to the Congress.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Carson for his
questions.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Haley, as the FBI continues to move forward with this
consolidation, have you considered your ability to retain
employees if you leave the center of the region?
Mr. Haley. Thank you, sir.
We have. Obviously at the core of this project is the human
capital. That is what we are about, 36,000 people within the
FBI. This building right now, the Hoover Building, holds about
5,500 of our downtown personnel and the rest of them are
scattered.
We have looked at it in two ways. One is depending on where
the site gets located, how that affects current employees from
an agent's standpoint, agents tend for the most part to move
around. So as the project gets identified and moves closer to
completion, we believe that the agent population will migrate
to wherever that location is.
It is more in terms of the current population of that
professional staff which is rooted in communities around the
area. We have looked at the transportation routes. We have
looked at the quality of everything from schools to all of
that.
So it is something we are very much involved in, and we
have workforce planning. We have two initiatives right now, one
looking at workforce planning and the other one looking at how
the future FBI employees will operate, what type of space, what
type of interaction will they do. So all of that is being
looked at.
We think that for all three sites we are obviously agnostic
to which site. We are the tenants of GSA, and they get to make
that decision ultimately, but we believe all three sites can
meet that requirement going forward. But it will be something
we will have to work at. It is not something that is just going
to naturally get us there.
I will say one other thing on the recruiting piece. One of
the things that we are seeing more and more in terms of the new
generation of employees, when they come to work we are somewhat
stifled by all of the TV shows and movies on the FBI and what
is expected of an organization that has national law
enforcement and domestic intelligence responsibilities. When
they get there it is an understatement to say they are somewhat
underwhelmed by what they are getting.
So from that standpoint, we think that a headquarters
operation that meets our operational requirements will help
facilitate that recruitment effort in the future.
Mr. Carson. We have not even covered the reconstruction of
Quantico, but that is another subject.
Judge, how does the judiciary plan to proceed with adding
more projects to the capital courthouse projects priority plan?
And does GSA in your mind have enough feasibility plans in
the pipeline so that the courts can effectively put together a
new capital priorities plan in the near future?
Judge Smith. First of all, the projects that are currently
on the list have all undergone feasibility studies and must
undergo a feasibility study before they are able to be placed
on the list. So we are prepared in that regard to deal with
those eight projects that have been generally referenced here
today.
What we must do and where the real work is being done right
now both by the courts and the Administrative Office and
Commissioner Dong's people, are to refresh the programming
requirements for each of those eight as well as the Harrisburg
project, and that is consuming a considerable amount of our
time right now.
But I am very pleased with the progress that has been made.
I have been very pleased with the attitude that has been
demonstrated by our court family, and the relationship that has
developed between the Public Buildings Service and the courts
in recent years has allowed us to really negotiate our way
through some old data in an effort to get ourselves into a
position where we can, first of all, develop a spend plan,
which we must have completed by mid-April, and then be able to
submit to the Congress and with GSA developing the necessary
prospectuses that each project will require.
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Commissioner Dong, lastly, is it
possible to even build a new FBI Headquarters without
exchanging the current FBI Headquarters?
And would redeveloping the Pennsylvania Avenue site into a
new Federal complex make financial sense for GSA?
Mr. Dong. We think the exchange is an important part of the
process of delivering a new headquarters facility for the FBI
because it really allows us to tap into the value of the Hoover
Building.
We see significant development interests on that site, and
it is an important element of our larger funding strategy and
our larger commitment to developing a new consolidated
headquarters facility for that agency.
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Representative
Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
Mr. Haley, real quickly, how much do you think you have
saved? What is the estimate on saving construction costs when
the consolidated headquarters is built?
Mr. Haley. Sir, are you talking about the actual building
or what we are saving right now in terms of rents and that?
Mr. Crawford. What is a new consolidated headquarters?
Mr. Haley. The part that I can talk to is the 13 lease
sites around the Washington, DC, area plus the Hoover Building.
We are spending about $130 million in lease costs and
utilities today, and that does not even count the fact that
each one of those facilities requires security. They each have
their own IT apparatuses in those facilities.
So as we look at those costs and consider the options of
that all being on a campus where we are not securing multiple
facilities, we are not paying rent, we are not paying for air
conditioning and utilities on off-hours that we are having to
do across these different locations, we think it is
considerable.
Since the 2011 study that was cited previously, that number
I think was mentioned at about $40 million. We have not done an
updated study until we get closer to kind of seeing where the
final location will be, and that is kind of in GSA's lane, but
we do know it will be tens of millions of dollars. I think
there is another----
Mr. Crawford. You are going to save tens of millions of
dollars with this consolidation?
Mr. Haley. On an annual basis.
Mr. Crawford. Let me ask you this just while the time is
clicking here. During our last hearing, the FBI testified the
need was for 1.9 million square feet for the headquarters.
Today the request is 2.1 million square feet. Why the change?
Mr. Haley. The number has not changed. The current
footprint is about 2.9 million square feet. That 2.1 million
square feet, I think, is the gross square footage. I think the
actual space that people would occupy is the 1.9 million square
feet.
Those two numbers get kind of bantered back and forth. It
is about 2 million square feet. It is about 1 million square
feet less than we have today.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Mr. Dong, as new Federal courthouses are
built, what is GSA doing to ensure that vacant courthouses are
reused, sold, or otherwise redeveloped in a timely manner?
Mr. Dong. It comes back to what we were talking about
before in terms of looking at our portfolio, including our
vacant courthouses and being much more aggressive in terms of
identifying opportunities to either dispose of those
courthouses or exchange those courthouses or look for out-lease
opportunities.
And we recognize that we cannot afford to keep these
properties on the books. So we are moving far more aggressively
than we have in the past.
Mr. Crawford. Let me go back to Mr. Haley. I understand
that the funds requested for the FBI are intended to be out of
GSA's funds to complete the basic construction of what is
called a ``warm lit shell,'' but additional funds will be
needed for FBI's buildout.
Is that correct? And how much would the FBI's buildout
costs be and where would the funds come from?
Mr. Haley. Yes, sir. So the resources that have been
identified that were appropriated in 2016 and that are in the
President's budget for 2017 are for the overall building cost.
Those have been split between GSA and the FBI.
In addition to that, like any of our field offices or
resident agencies, the headquarters building, those above
standard costs would be an additional amount that we would be
working with our appropriators and OMB [Office of Management
and Budget] to identify.
Some of those we have made a commitment because of the
importance of this project that we would be identifying those
within our own resources. That is things like information
technology, above standard security requirements, furniture and
that type of stuff.
Mr. Crawford. I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Ms. Frankel for 5
minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and
the ranking member for accommodating my request to sit in today
and thank the witnesses for being here and for your service.
I specifically wanted to come here today because I
represent the south Florida area that is served by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and
I am assuming that some of you are familiar with that
situation.
The district is one of the largest Federal judicial
districts in the country. It spreads across 15,000 square
miles, reaching from Vero Beach in the north to Key West in the
south, its jurisdiction over Federal civil and criminal issues
arising in south Florida, serving 6.3 million people from nine
counties. In 2013, 8,000 civil cases were filed, making it one
of the busiest jurisdictions in the country.
Its central courthouse and the only one in Broward County
is located in Fort Lauderdale, and that is the one I want to
talk about.
It was built 40 years ago, obviously before 9/11, and so it
has quite a few security issues. It also has the plague of
south Florida mold, roof leaks, flooding and so forth.
In 2015, the Judicial Conference of the United States,
which I am sure Judge Smith knows, named Fort Lauderdale
Federal Courthouse as most in need of replacement in the
country and urged a feasibility report.
Our committee, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, did pass a resolution, and we asked that we
receive a feasibility report by September, but we have not
received it yet.
We have a preliminary. We do not have the final. I am just
wondering where it is.
Mr. Dong. GSA is committed to addressing the space needs of
the courts in Fort Lauderdale. As part of our process over the
past few months we have actually conducted a detailed
feasibility study to get a more detailed estimate of the cost
associated with various options.
We have finished up that process, and we will be submitting
the 11(b) report to the Hill in the coming weeks.
Ms. Frankel. OK. Thank you.
If I could maybe ask both of you, I do not know what your
report is going to say, but just for these purposes, I assume
it will have a conclusion similar to the preliminary which was
a recommendation of a new facility, but let's say that is the
recommendation, not to put words in your mouth.
Where would Fort Lauderdale then be in the priority of this
process? How many more courthouses are out there that need to
be funded? Could you give me an idea?
Judge Smith. Congresswoman Frankel, first of all, let me
ascribe to everything that you have said relative to the
current condition of the courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. Our
committee actually visited there a number of years ago when we
held a meeting nearby, and I personally visited the courthouse
just a year ago and walked through it to observe its continuing
deterioration. Fort Lauderdale needs a new courthouse.
And as Commissioner Dong has indicated, the full-scale
feasibility study should be completed sometime in the near
future, at which point it will come to the attention of the
Space and Facilities Committee.
We will need to assess that specific project based not only
on the feasibility study but our AMP process, which requires us
to take into account the urgency evaluation that Fort
Lauderdale receives as part of that very objective process.
As Chair, as a member of the committee, I cannot, of
course, commit to what the committee will do, but I can assure
you that the committee is well aware of the need, will receive
the feasibility study, will look very seriously and discuss how
we should place and rank Fort Lauderdale.
Because our CPP process that I referred to in my statement
is new, it has only been in effect since last September's
approval by the Judicial Conference, we have yet to deal with
the addition of anything new on our list, but I can assure you
it will receive very serious attention at our June meeting.
Ms. Frankel. Do all the courthouses that have been
recommended or that are on your plan but have not yet been
funded, will they be ahead of Fort Lauderdale or does Fort
Lauderdale if they get a feasibility study that recommends a
courthouse, will they all be considered equally?
Judge Smith. Under the former 5-year plan, a new courthouse
that is a venue that had received a feasibility study would
have been placed at the bottom in the queue. That, however, is
not required under the new process.
Because we have not yet had to add and because the
committee has yet to develop a specific policy or protocol, I
cannot tell you how that will be resolved, but one of the
reasons we adopted the new plan was so that we were not fixed
with the previous process of simply adding someone to a new
list.
We will be studying all alternatives, but I want to make it
very clear the seriousness with which we regard Fort
Lauderdale. I have seen the leaks. I have smelled the mold.
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Judge Smith. I have seen the hurricane damage. You need a
new courthouse.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Comstock for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I know we had my colleague Mr. Hoyer here earlier.
Being from Virginia, obviously I have a little different view
on the FBI Building. So I wanted to highlight obviously I do
believe that Virginia has the best site and the best proximity
to the Bureau's employees.
A study released last year concluded that FBI employees
would save between 3 to 4 hours, on average, each month
commuting to the Virginia site over the two Maryland sites. So
obviously that is a greener footprint. Obviously for the
congestion issues in our Washington metropolitan area that
would also be an improvement.
And the site is closer to a number of the other national
security agencies, including the Marine base at Quantico, CIA
[Central Intelligence Agency] which is in my district, the
Pentagon, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.
So I certainly hope that the GSA keeps this process running
smoothly and keeps those important notes in mind, and I know my
colleagues and I in Virginia, you have a lot of our information
that we have provided over the months that predates me with my
predecessor, Congressman Wolf also, and so I certainly would
like to associate myself with all of that.
I will be submitting some additional questions for the
record on that front, but I did want to turn to another matter
that had been highlighted for us and ask Commissioner Dong a
couple of questions about a lease that was brought to my
attention with the International Trade Commission.
They apparently started working with you in 2014 toward a
long-term solution that includes a reduction in footprint, even
though they do not have to technically comply with the Freeze
the Footprint administrative order.
So to make a somewhat long, complicated story short, in
2015 ITC's [International Trade Commission's] current landlord
submitted an informal proposal to GSA for their current
location and included a significant reduction in rent.
Both GSA and OMB officially approved a succeeding lease
prospectus in August of 2015 and would allow ITC to stay at the
current location. I do believe that this is, you know, a good
idea, and I know there have been deadlines that have come and
gone here, and now there is sort of a different direction going
here.
So I know you are now proposing a replacement lease, and
you know, given they are significantly reducing their costs and
right now we are in some very sensitive trade issues going on
back and forth that we are all familiar with, I wanted to just
ask a few questions on that front in terms of kind of having
this type of major disruption that we would have to have if
they were moved.
So why exactly did the GSA sort of backtrack on this
original agreement?
Mr. Dong. Whether we are talking about the ITC lease or
whether we are talking about any other expiring lease, when we
talk about our commitment to competition at GSA, we are serious
about it, and we want to make sure that for any transaction
where you have a lease that is expiring that we embrace
competition in a meaningful way, and that is what we are trying
to do with the ITC lease, and that is what we are trying to do
with all of our expiring leases that we see.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. But as you are looking at this now in a
competitive sense, the fact that they have been able to get
that reduction there and would not have to move, are all of
those costs and all of that disruption going to be taken into
account?
Mr. Dong. Whether we are talking about the ITC lease or any
other expiring lease, one of the things that we will consider
is move and replication costs. But, again, we want to make sure
that we go through the discipline of the process to have some
healthy competition in the process to make sure that we are
getting the best leasing rates for our tenant agencies and for
the taxpayer.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. Well, I do have some followup questions
that will also be submitting on that, but I did want to
highlight that because particularly given the sensitive trade
negotiations going on right now, and their very demanding
schedule and role, I hope that all of that would be considered
and the entire cost, too, to make sure that that is all
included.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
I guess I will start with Judge Smith here, just following
up on Mr. Barletta, the chairman's question regarding the
Harrisburg courthouse when you said ``the beginning.''
Can I ask you what ``the beginning'' includes when you said
we are going to look at the beginning of that? Certainly after
the eight courthouses in front of it are addressed, we are
going to be looking at, and those are your words, ``the
beginning.''
What does that mean?
Judge Smith. Well, first of all, we are encouraging every
court that is on our list, and that includes Harrisburg, to
take into account not only the prospect of a new building, but
also the prospect of an annex, something short of a complete
new courthouse.
So that is a factor that is going to have to be considered
by the court family itself in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
But what I meant by ``the beginning'' is, and as was noted
by Chairman Barletta in his introduction and his question to
me, was an acknowledgment that the funding that has been
provided has not been funding that contemplates a complete
build of a courthouse.
It is our responsibility, that is, the responsibility of
the courts and the responsibility of the courts working with
GSA, to see to it that the eight projects that have been
contemplated be completed in such a fiscally responsible way
that there is a sufficient amount of money remaining for
Harrisburg to get a start on the process.
Mr. Perry. So does that mean design? When you talk about an
annex, does that mean acquisition of land or a study regarding
the size?
What does that mean in a tangible sense? I do not know if I
am not getting it or what, but I do not know what that means in
the sense that somebody can say there is something tangible
here at the beginning. What does that mean?
Judge Smith. We do not know yet what it means,
Representative Perry, in the sense that we do not know exactly
what Harrisburg will need, nor have they, as a court, indicated
to us finally what will be suitable for them.
As you well know, as the chairman knows, the discussion
over the years has been for a complete new build of a
courthouse. We have in more recent years, as fiscal realities
have taken place as they rightfully should, that we should look
at alternatives to new builds.
But this is a project that has been on the list for many,
many years.
Mr. Perry. Right.
Judge Smith. And the data that we have needs to be
refreshed. We do not have that refreshing yet.
Mr. Perry. OK. I just want to brief you back and you
confirm that I got this right because I have got to go talk to
these constituents, right? They are my bosses.
So the beginning means that, as you said, a refreshing of
exactly what Harrisburg thinks it needs and kind of a
validation of what it needs.
Judge Smith. That is the very beginning, sir, but we are
certainly hopeful that we will be making even more progress
than that depending upon how much money of the $948 million
that has been appropriated remains after the spend plan for the
other eight has been approved.
Mr. Perry. Do you have a date? Is there a timeline? Is
there a suspense date with getting that information from
Harrisburg? Is there something associated with that?
Judge Smith. Well, the spend plan that we are required to
submit is due in mid-April. After that, there will be
prospectuses provided by GSA, prepared by GSA and provided with
respect to all projects.
With respect to Harrisburg, we anticipate prospectus
development to follow at some point after that mid-April date.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Dong, I am going to turn to you regarding the FBI, I
think more than Mr. Haley. I am dealing with this, as the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management
Efficiency of the Committee on Homeland Security, St.
Elizabeths, the new site for the Department of Homeland
Security. It was supposed to be done by 2015. It is over $1
billion over budget.
I am just wondering as I read the narrative here that the
new FBI is somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion. That is
the narrative that I have here. I do not know where that came
from, but, you know, that is a 30-percent difference, right? I
would think we would be able to bracket it a little more
closely than $2 billion to $3 billion.
I do not see exactly what the cost is. I see that $75
million has been allocated to GSA's Federal Buildings Fund. I
see the $315 million in the FBI's budget for design, yet we do
not have a site yet.
Is there a timeline associated? Is that $315 million that
still remains since we do not have a site? Is the $75 million
in GSA's FBF [Federal Buildings Fund] for construction,
management and oversight? Does that still remain?
Because there has not been any construction, right? There
might have been some design, but it is really hard to do any
meaningful design without a site, right? And you are down to
three, but you have not selected one.
And then finally, we do not know right now the value of the
Hoover Building, right? GSA has backed off their exchange
program because I guess the value was not there, but what is
the current projected value so that we can see how that fits
into the $75 million, the $315 million, and the $1.4 billion
requested?
Can you make some sense of that for me?
Mr. Dong. Sure. First off, let me say that we appreciate
the funding that the Congress provided in fiscal year 2016 to
support the full consolidation of the FBI Headquarters. We want
to make sure that we are being fully transparent as we talk
about project costs. We are committed to following up with
committee staff after this hearing to provide additional
details on the project costs.
You asked about the value of the Hoover Building.
Ultimately that is for the market to decide, and we will have a
far better sense as the bidders submit their proposals at the
end of June.
Mr. Perry. So you have no appraisal? Do you have an
appraisal?
You might not want to divulge it, and I understand that,
but do you have an appraisal?
Mr. Dong. There have been appraisals conducted for that
site.
Mr. Perry. All right. Is that information available to
Members of Congress?
Mr. Dong. We can provide additional information to Members
of Congress and the staff after this hearing in terms of
project costs.
Mr. Perry. All right. What about the $75 million and the
$315 million that have already been allocated for
preconstruction and design activities?
You do not have a site. Is that money still sitting there
or has it been spent or a portion of it spent? And if so, what
on?
Mr. Dong. We have not yet obligated the dollars that were
provided in fiscal year 2016. Our expectation is that we will
be able to make a contract award by the end of this calendar
year where we would be able to obligate those funds.
Mr. Perry. So all of those funds still remain as they were,
$75 million and $315 million complete?
Mr. Dong. We have not yet obligated the funding for fiscal
year 2016.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mica for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to be back with the old subcommittee and some of
the leaders here.
Mr. Dong, a couple of quick questions. First, thank you for
your work on a number of projects that have languished and you
have helped move some of them forward. I appreciate that very
much.
Just a quick real snapshot at the Trump project, the Old
Post Office. Our first hearing of this subcommittee when I
became chair was at the Old Post Office in the annex. It was 32
degrees outside. We held it inside. It was empty at 38 degrees.
You were not there for that, but we made some great progress.
I hear it is on schedule and within budget. Can you tell us
about the Old Post Office-Trump project?
Mr. Dong. My understanding is the same as yours, is that
that project is on track for completion later this year.
Mr. Mica. OK. And we are losing about $6 million a year. I
think the deal is close to one-quarter of a million dollars a
month in revenue. You got a pretty good deal for revenue as
opposed to the loss, do you not?
Mr. Dong. Through this out-lease, we are now turning a
money-losing project into a revenue-generating project.
Mr. Mica. That sounds like a pretty good recipe for success
for the future.
Let's go now to Miami-Dade. We have a Federal courthouse in
Miami. We did two hearings down there on that vacant
courthouse. It is vacant now 6, 7 years, something like that,
costing us $1 million or more a year vacant.
We are very close. There is one sticking issue about the
renovations. I believe the renovations should be subject to any
laws that the State of Florida has. The State of Florida is
taking it over, and we are leasing that facility to them.
What do you think? Are there any improvements in the
building?
Mr. Dong. We are working through the remaining issues right
now with Miami-Dade College.
Mr. Mica. That is the only one I am told is pending.
Mr. Dong. I believe that is correct. We see that as an
issue. We do not see it as a deal breaker. We are committed to
working in partnership with Miami-Dade College to resolve this
and to complete the transaction.
Mr. Mica. Well, I think we should look at letting the State
when they take over these properties do what they want. I just
transferred. I have got on the President's desk transferring an
empty 120-bed nursing home to the State of Florida, and I think
they will be able to make those changes there. We should be
able to do it with other property at the most reasonable cost
to the taxpayers and under the current requirements of the
State.
So hope you will look at that.
Thank you.
I will go to FTC. Thank you for your work on that. Any
report? This is the Federal Trade Commission Building. They
tried to consolidate them.
I read your statement, a very good statement, about
reducing the footprint. Everything you put in your statement is
what we are trying to do for the National Gallery, reduce their
footprint, get them into the FTC Building and move the FTC into
the Department of Commerce.
When do you think you will be able to come back with a
report we talked about on that move?
Mr. Dong. As you know, we have been having some good
conversations that really focus on evaluating the different
options for meeting the housing requirement for the FTC, but
also looking at that current site and really asking the
question of highest and best use.
So we recognize that that conversation is still ongoing,
and we look forward to following up with your office.
Mr. Mica. I will meet with Ms. Norton and tell her the
latest and the ranking member that they have an excellent
location. They have a space available at the Department of
Commerce. They are renovating that building. They will be
adjacent to the White House. You cannot get much closer or
better view for all the Commissioners, and we will save a lot
of money.
But Mr. Dong is doing great work on that, and I think it
will be a solution everybody will be happy with.
And then finally, the Cotton Annex. We held a hearing in
the empty Cotton Annex. That has been part of the deal you
tried to broker with the FBI Building and I think also the
Hoover Building, the more you put into the equation, and I
understand some of that has collapsed last week, the more
difficult it is to do a deal to get that done.
What is your latest take on how we can possibly separate
those and get the deal done?
Mr. Dong. We had originally proposed to exchange the Cotton
Annex along with the regional office building for renovation
work to complete the modernization of our headquarters at F
Street. Unfortunately that deal did not materialize.
But what we have decided to do with the Cotton Annex is to
move forward with a disposal.
Mr. Mica. Good.
Mr. Dong. And by doing so we will actually be able to
dispose of that property 2 years earlier than planned.
Mr. Mica. OK. You win my praises. We have got to move these
things. You went down a path. It did not work. I commend you on
all of the above.
He is doing a good job, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing and for this opportunity to clear up some issues that
are pending.
Mr. Dong, I have worked with the other side on language in
H.R. 4487. That is a bill that will be marked up tomorrow to
finally get the GSA to develop the very valuable property
facing Independence Avenue, essentially Mall property. It would
house the entire Department of Energy site with a smaller
footprint.
It would be consistent with the ongoing Southwest
Ecodistrict Plan.
Mr. Dong, given the delays that have been involved, the
false starts here, can the agency commit to completing the
program requirements for the Department of Energy by June?
Mr. Dong. Absolutely. Our plan, right now we are working
with the Department of Energy to develop their program of
requirements for their headquarters for the future, and our
expectation is that that will be complete by the summer.
Ms. Norton. Now, you just discussed disposal of the Cotton
Annex. First of all, I want to commend the agency for trying
out some of the strategies that are commonly used in real
estate, such as exchanges. That is what you tried out in order
to get development elsewhere, disposal of the Cotton Annex and
the regional office building nearby in exchange for
construction services, for example, at 1800 F Street.
Here we have a huge office building half done, and you are
trying, and I commend you for trying, to get that completed.
But I do not understand the strategy going forward. You
just said that you are going to dispose of the Cotton Annex.
That is in the regular process.
What are you going to do about 1800 F Street and that half-
finished building which you were trying to get done?
And what happened that you had to essentially throw up your
hands after the process that was underway for the exchange in
order to get 1800 F Street, the GSA Building, completed and not
left here as a kind of ruin waiting for something to happen?
What happened? Who underestimated what? Why were you not
able to get the value out of the exchange? Did you not know
that in advance?
Is that really rocket science?
Mr. Dong. What we observed with the Federal Triangle South
project is that as you introduce more complexity and risk into
the transaction, that gets factored in in terms of the
valuation and how the market looks at the value of our assets.
Ms. Norton. That is complexity that you did not foresee?
Mr. Dong. I think part of it is that we saw that what we
were trying to do here was to renovate an historic building,
1800 F Street, that currently had tenants in it. We have come
to recognize that that type of work has a lot of unknowns to
the developers, and through this process, we are learning from
that experience and applying it to how we approach exchanges as
we go forward.
Ms. Norton. Well, I certainly hope you do not cease to do
exchanges, but what is going to happen to 1800 F Street?
You talk about disposal of Cotton Annex, and of course,
this committee has been at pains to ask for disposal especially
in this most valuable of sites. But that just leaves you with
the ordinary process and 1800 F Street with no strategy for
moving forward?
Mr. Dong. We recognize that we have got to complete the
modernization of 1800 F Street. The building has only been half
renovated, but as we look at that question, we are also looking
at our larger portfolio of federally owned buildings across the
Nation. So we have got to make some tough choices in terms of
we have got significant need across the portfolio as the
portfolio ages.
And we recognize that there are some tradeoffs in this
tight budget environment, which is why we have asked for full
access to the Federal Buildings Fund because we feel that it is
important to take the dollars that we collect from our tenant
agencies and to reinvest them back into our Federal building.
Ms. Norton. So if you could use those funds from the
Federal Buildings Fund, which I thought were for purposes such
as that, you could get that building completed?
Mr. Dong. I think an important element here is to make sure
that every dollar that we collect in rent we are able to
reinvest back into the Federal portfolio. We appreciate funding
that we got in fiscal year 2016. We think that goes a long way
to helping address the backlog of repairs and modernization
needs that we see in the portfolio.
But if you look at earlier years, previous years, that was
not always the case.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I have more questions, but if I
have reached the end of my time, is there a second round?
Mr. Barletta. Yes, we are going to do a second round.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Meadows for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dong, I am going to follow up on the gentlewoman's
questioning because you equivocated. You are not answering her
question, and that is: specifically, are you going to reinvest
the money in that particular project and get it done? Yes or
no?
Because you talk about what we have not done in the past. I
mean, she wants to know if it is done, and let me tell you the
reason why it is like nails on a chalkboard when I hear you.
This is about our fourth hearing as we start to look at
excess inventory, decisions made by GSA, and as a previous real
estate guy, it really just bothers me to no end to see the way
that we are managing our Federal portfolio.
And so we have given a free pass a number of times, whether
it is here or in the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and I guess what I am asking you today is: can we start
to look at a real plan from GSA?
And I know you have got new leadership, and I am looking
forward to working with the new leadership.
Can we look at a real plan where you report back to this
committee on a plan to look at how we manage our portfolio,
whether it is excess, whether it is courthouses, or finishing
this particular project?
Mr. Dong. Absolutely. I talked earlier about our commitment
to moving far more aggressively to identify our underutilized
assets and to move them off the books, whether we----
Mr. Meadows. So when will we see a plan? Because far more
aggressive, the last aggressive plan that we had actually took
over 40 years to get rid of the excess inventory that we heard
from GSA.
So more aggressive could mean 30 years, and I guess the
chairman and the ranking member, I think, want to see something
that is more aggressive than that.
So at what point will you provide this committee a plan on
how we are going to look at properly managing the Federal
portfolio?
Mr. Dong. As I mentioned in my opening testimony, for the
first time GSA has developed a multiyear pipeline of potential
properties that we are going to either dispose of or exchange
or seek out-leases for. We are happy to share that with the
committee as a followup to this hearing.
Mr. Meadows. So we are looking at that. So let me ask this
specific question then. With this for the first time ever, this
pipeline, how many years will it take to get rid of the excess
inventory that is on your list?
I know you work with OMB and others as it relates to that,
but how many years are we looking at?
Mr. Dong. I think it comes back to having a stronger
project management discipline as we look at those assets one by
one to make sure that we have got a plan and that we have got a
schedule for each one.
Mr. Meadows. So what would you consider a reasonable
estimate to get rid of 90--let us back it out--75 percent of
the backlog in terms of excess inventory?
What is a reasonable timeframe to get rid of that?
Mr. Dong. What we will show as we follow up and provide
additional information to members of this committee is for
those assets we will have a sense of timing for each one.
Mr. Meadows. That is a great answer to a question I did not
ask. How many years would be reasonable? Ten years, fifteen
years?
I mean, obviously it is in your purview. You have looked at
this. What is reasonable at this point?
Mr. Dong. I do not have that answer today, but again, in
the information that we will share, we will be much more
transparent in terms of the time it will take asset by asset.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me ask you. Are you willing
to commit here today that within the next 30 days that you get
this committee a timeframe of which you are going to liquidate
those assets? A timeframe.
Mr. Dong. Absolutely.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you.
Let me go on a little bit further. The U.S. Court of
Federal Claims obviously put forth a ruling as it relates to
the TSA lease. And where are you in the process of procuring
another lease?
Mr. Dong. With regard to that transaction, we chose not to
appeal the decision that was made on the protest. Instead what
we did was we recognized the problem. We addressed the problem,
and we are continuing down the path of a competitive process
for that follow-on, for that expiring lease.
Mr. Meadows. Well, the ruling was very clear in terms of
the role of GSA, and it was very explicit in terms of what you
can and cannot do, and it said the executive branch does not
have the ability.
I think they were very exact in their ruling with regards
to being able to spend public funds without authorization.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Dong. I think the larger point is well taken in terms
of we are committed to being fully transparent in the process.
We are committed to abiding by the terms that we spell out in
the prospectus, as well as the terms that we spell out in our
requests for proposals.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So are you willing to commit then?
So let me follow up with that. Are you willing to commit to
this committee to give us a full briefing of the interpretation
of that ruling?
Mr. Dong. Yes, we can follow up on that.
Mr. Meadows. All right, and you will further go ahead and
allow those whether the new prospectus would be submitted to
the chairman of this committee as well?
Mr. Dong. I am sorry?
Mr. Meadows. In terms of review of projects, future
projects, are you willing to submit those? Under that ruling it
would actually have to come to this committee so that they
could approve those particular projects.
Mr. Dong. I think it comes back to what we were talking
about before in terms of as we submit prospectuses, we lay out
the terms of each transaction, and we are committed to abiding
by those terms and being transparent with the committee.
Mr. Meadows. And you are willing to deliver those to this
committee?
Mr. Dong. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
I now recognize each Member for 5 minutes for any
additional questions they may have, and I will begin.
Mr. Dong, last week GSA did announce that it is canceling a
planned exchange involving the vacant Cotton Annex for
construction services, as you quoted again today. In the
article you said that as you introduced more complexity into
the equation, you are introducing more risk.
The FBI project is significantly more complex than swapping
a vacant building to renovate the GSA Headquarters.
My question would be then: why commingle the Hoover
Building in the transaction rather than sell the Hoover
Building outright to the highest bidder to maximize the return?
Mr. Dong. We see some distinct differences between what we
are proposing to do for the FBI project versus what we saw with
Federal Triangle South, and with the FBI project, there is far
less complexity and risk than what we saw with Federal Triangle
South in a couple of important ways.
One, as I mentioned before, with the Federal Triangle South
transaction, we were proposing major renovation of an historic
building that had tenants in it. With the FBI we are looking at
new construction.
Secondly, we think that there is far more development
potential with the Hoover site than with the sites that we are
proposing with Federal Triangle South.
And the third element comes back to our funding strategy.
With the FBI the exchange is just one component of a larger
funding strategy. We appreciate the funding that Congress has
appropriated for the FBI project last year and the amount that
we have requested in the fiscal year 2017 budget will fully
address the needs for that consolidation.
Mr. Barletta. In the prospectus submitted to the committee
for the FBI project, there is no total estimated project cost,
effectively giving GSA a blank check. Section 3307 of title 40
clearly requires prospectuses include an estimate of the
maximum cost to the Government of the facility.
How does the FBI prospectus comply with the law?
Mr. Dong. We recognize the importance of proper oversight,
and we recognize the importance of being fully transparent in
this process. We are committed to following up with the staff
of the committee to provide additional details on total project
costs.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
With that I will recognize Ranking Member Carson for any
additional questions.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner Dong, GSA was appropriated over $2 billion in
fiscal year 2016 for the construction and major repair and for
alteration projects. Sir, how does GSA approach encouraging use
of small businesses in awards for construction and alteration
projects?
And did the Public Buildings Service meet all of its small
business goals in fiscal year 2015?
Mr. Dong. Absolutely. We have a strong organizational
commitment to our small business goals, and if you look at our
track record in recent years, we have been hitting it out of
the park.
Last year, we exceeded by a significant margin our targets
in all categories.
Mr. Carson. What can GSA do to exceed the goals for 2016
moving forward?
Mr. Dong. I think it really kind of comes back to looking
for every opportunity within our award pipeline to ask that
question: is there an opportunity to support small business in
this process?
And we have got a very disciplined process within our
organization to do exactly that.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dong, I have written you a letter. It is a fairly
complicated issue, but it is an important issue.
Working with the other side, I was in the minority. If you
want to speak about disposal of property, perhaps the largest
property was the Southeast Federal Center located right on the
river, and we were able to work together on a bill that created
a master developer. The Senate passed this bill as soon as the
House had gotten it done. This subcommittee actually went to
the site to see the site involved and to understand its value.
All matter of development is ongoing there. It is probably
20 years of really wonderful development.
The question has arisen concerning office space because
both homes and, of course, offices, Federal offices, may be
developed there. We are often in need of Federal office space.
With homes, the ground comes with the home, but when it
comes to office space, we continue to own the ground, and the
master developer has to pay for ground rent.
Now, the master developer, it seems to me, has a legitimate
question and wants to know whether or not being obligated to
pay ground rent, how may it compete if it wants to compete in a
GSA competition for office space? The master developer does
office space and other developers do office space.
They argue that at the very least, the reversionary
interest in the property would be accelerated if they were
allowed to compete. I want to make sure that the competitive
process is truly competitive, and that this question is cleared
up because it does not seem to me to be fair to leave it wide
open. It should have been cleared up by now.
And I have asked for a response to a letter because I
thought it was sufficiently complicated that it should be laid
out in writing within 30 days, but since you are here and it
was early February when I sent my letter, I would like to hear
your take on that issue.
Mr. Dong. We share your commitment to the competitive
process. We also share your commitment to the redevelopment of
that neighborhood, and I am glad that you brought this issue to
my attention, and quite frankly, what we are doing right now is
we are taking an honest look at that question.
I look forward to following up with you in terms of how we
have evaluated that and our process going forward.
Ms. Norton. I have a question on the Secret Service
Building. You see the interest in this committee in disposing
of properties that everybody agrees should be disposed of, and
of course some are more complicated than others.
Webster School comes up every time we meet. It is one of
the most underutilized properties. Of course, it also happens
to be in the middle of town, which makes it very valuable if
the Government were to dispose of it.
GSA released an RFI [request for information] on the site
in October. Of course, the Secret Service is a neighbor, and I
commend you on getting an RFI so we could try to figure this
out.
Can you now provide us an update on where we stand on this
long outstanding, underutilized property which would bring the
Government so much in return were we able to dispose of it?
Mr. Dong. Absolutely. I think everybody recognizes that the
Webster School has been vacant for decades, and if you actually
go into that building you can see the impact of years of
neglect, and what we recognized was that, OK, time is up. It is
now time for action.
And what we have done through this RFI process is to see
that there is significant development potential here, and we
recognize that there is a way to do this that meets the
expectations of the Secret Service.
Ms. Norton. Well, that was in October. When can we expect--
--
Mr. Dong. We are moving forward with disposal of this
building.
Ms. Norton. But you have no idea what the timeframe is?
Mr. Dong. I have asked my team and the National Capital
region to just move this now.
Ms. Norton. Please give this some priority.
Mr. Dong. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. That is a lot of money on the table.
Finally, could I ask a question about an amendment?
Actually I filed it as a bill. I am ultimately going to ask the
chairman who has worked, it seems to me, so well with us on
other amendments if he would consider this if there is a
manager's amendment. I will call it my motherhood amendment.
I learned that there were not lactation spaces for Federal
employees after somebody wrote me to indicate that in the
Smithsonian there were lactation spaces in only one building.
I immediately contacted the Smithsonian. They acted
immediately. Then I thought about how this city is a tourist
mecca, and about how the Federal Government has given priority
through several administrations to encourage breast feeding. We
are still not getting enough of it, but it is one of the best
ways to protect an infant.
It is seldom that somebody would be visiting a Federal
office site or, for that matter, a Federal employee would need
lactation spaces, but this amendment that I will offer tomorrow
if it is not included in the manager's amendment would say that
the Federal agencies should set aside existing space, no new
space, that could be available in the event that someone
visiting the building needed lactation space or a Federal
employee needs it.
We have a very low birth rate in this country. That is why
I do not see why we would need a whole room that nobody could
use, but I wonder if you can identify whether or not you see
any cost implications if all we are doing is saying use this
room, but continue to use it for other purposes.
If a mother happened to visit at this time, then of course
this is a room that you will be prepared to leave for a half
hour to allow lactation to take place.
Do you see any cost implications to setting aside existing
space in office buildings that we own or rent?
Mr. Dong. We recognize the importance of this requirement,
and we are committed to finding a solution to make it work in
our Federal buildings.
Ms. Norton. And you have not as yet found any cost
implication if I am talking about current space?
Mr. Dong. If it is current space, we should be able to find
a way to make it work.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Thank you.
The FBI project is obviously a very important project, and
it is also important that we get it right. You know, large
projects have a history of running over costs and sometimes run
out of money halfway through, and we need to be careful that a
project as important and as big as this does not follow past
history.
You know, as we said at the onset of the hearing, it is
important that this project meets the needs of the FBI, and it
also a good deal for the taxpayers.
I would like to thank all of you for your testimony here
today. Your comments have been very helpful in today's
discussion.
If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
any addition comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again for their
testimony today.
If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]