good morning. i call this hearing to order. today's oversight hearing will

focus on the status of the fbi headquarters consolidation project. we'll hear testimony from the general services administration and the federal bureau of investigation. last august, this committee held a hearing on the search for a new fbi headquarters. the hearing was in response to gsa's abrupt cancellation of their plan years in the making to consolidate fbi headquarters at a new location in either maryland or virginia. the plan involved astriditradin crumbling hoover building to partially offset the cost of new construction. senators weren't notified of the cancellation in advance and first heard of the decision through the press. this isn't what accountable government looks like. nonetheless, the hearing ended on a positive note, both the gsa and fbi committed to return to congress with a workable solution for the fbi headquarters. the plan was to do that by november 30th. a week before that deadline, gsa and fbi indicated they would require an additional 60 days to

develop and submit a report detailing a workable solution. response to this request ranking member carper and i sent a letter emphasizing the importance of receiving a thorough plan from gsa. we granted the extension request to ensure gsa and fbi had ample time to consider differing financing options for the project. the new deadline was set for january 29th of this year and we expected it to be met. the deadline came and went. to make matters worse, gsa's ultimate recommendation contained within the report was leaked to the press two full weeks before the report was delivered to this committee. as was the case last summer, members of congress should have been notified well in advance of the media. on february 12th, the committee finally received dprgsa's overd report. the report contains a revised plan which recommends the hoover building be demolished to make way for the construction of a new headquarters facility in the same location. instead of consolidating all

10,600 fbi headquarters staff into one campus location, the revised plan would move 2,300 headquarters staff to 3 new facilities around the country. the plan estimates that the total cost of the new project at $3.3 billion, and it indicates the administration will be seeking $2.175 billion in appropriations to fully fund demolishing and rebuilding the hoover building. while this appropriations request is more than double the $800 million previously requested by gsa, the report estimates the new plan's overall cost will be lower than that of the old plan. the revised plan is a significant departure from previous plans. the revised plan eliminates many of the fbi's security requirements. it scraps the concept of a consolidated campus. it abandons the need for a remote truck inspection facility and it discards the requirement

of a detached central utility plant. under the old plan, these features were considered critical for fbi's security. now they're gone. so the question is, what happened? it's been nearly seven years since this committee first directed gsa to follow through on this project, yet the need for a new fbi headquarters remains as pressing as ever. the men and women of the fbi who work around the clock to keep america safe require a modern and a functioning office building that meets their needs. it is past time for the gsa to implement a workable plan, one that can hold up to committee scrutiny and deliver the long overdue replacement for the aging hoover building. the members of this committee want what is best for the american taxpayers and what is best for the hardworking men and women of the fbi. the federal government has already spent over $20 million in 13 years planning for an fbi headquarters. the revised plan starts the process from scratch. i hope that today's testimony will clarify how this plan will succeed where previous efforts

have failed. i'd now like to recognize ranking member carper for his opening statement. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to welcome our witnesses today. thank you -- i want to thank our colleagues especially from maryland for urging us to have this hearing and i commend you, mr. chairman, for holding it. our friends from gsa and the fbi, welcome you. we thank you for you and your colleagues for the work that you do, especially at the fbi. thank you very much. the hearing today is is a follow-up to our hearing in august of last year, a hearing we held on the cancellation of the frprocurement for a consolidated fbi headquarters. at the conclusion of that hearing, the witnesses from gsa committed to providing our committee with a workable solution to meet the fbi's needs for new headquarters. after an extension, the

committee received the promised report on february 12th. and the report is a complete, as the chairman suggests, a complete reversal of a plan for the fbi that was more than a decade in the making. it abandons previous efforts to consolidate fbi's operations away from the bureau's current location at the j. edgar hoover building. frankly, this about-face is concerning, maybe even troubling. all members of this committee should be concerned about this new plan for the fbi, not just the members of the committee but senators who are not on this committee. it raises serious questions from the impacts on national security to the excess costs that this decision may likely impose on our federal government at a time when our budget deficit is going to exceed $1 trillion in just one year, the kind of money that we're talking about here is alarming. i hope that today's hearing can answer some of these questions and alleviate members' concerns,

including my own. what is not in question today is the fact that the fbi needs a new headquarters. chairman's already said that. we agree. current facilities in dangerous disrepair which not only affects the day-to-day operations of the fbi but also has significant national security implications. one of the main motivations to consolidate the fbi into one location was to ensure that fbi headquarters maintains necessary security standards. there are also efficiencies to be gained by reducing departmental fragmentation. this new plan, however, appears to do just the pop sit. opposite. and instead of moving people with common tasks closer together, this report recommends moving approximately 20% of the current headquarters staff to locations around the country. congress has already appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for this project, as you know, including the millions of dollars that have already been spent on the previous procurement. as stewards of the federal purse, we should be working to

save taxpayers dollars, make our government more efficient, including with respect to property management. we've seen examples where consolidation is working or has the potential of working. one is the development of a consolidated department of homeland security campus on the grounds of the former st. elizabeth hospital in southeast washington, d.c. personally, i was initially skeptical of that project. however, after working with the previous administration and through oversight conducted as chairman and ranking member of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, i'm now convinced that it is in the best interest to have consolidated campus in the capital region. at the end of the day, though, we need to do what is right for hardworking men and women of the fbi and do so in a manner that makes the most sense for national security while also being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. how we achieve those goals is by ensuring that we have all the information we need to make informed decisions. as you know, mr. chairman, we have had some previous challenges in obtaining

information from the gsa that is necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities. for over a year, i've been requesting documents from gsa about the trump hotel, specific i have been asking about gsa's questionable determination that the trump hotel lease somehow does not violate the ethics requirements that prohibit an elected official from being a party to a federal lease to financially benefit from that lease. sadly, the administration's response to my questions or our questions today has not been satisfactory. of the almost 12,000 pages worth of documents that gsa provided last fall, only 22 pages, 22 pages, 1/10 of 1% were written within the relevant time frame and directly pertained to the question we had raised about the lease. fewer than 1/0.1% of those page actually spoke to the question that we had raised. not a single one of those 22 pages contains the analysis that i was seeking.

think about that. in contrast, there are hundreds of pages about the location of a clock, about the location of starbucks in the hotel, about the maintenance of smoke detectors. really? moreover, gsa told me it was withholding information relating to the sum of my specific requests, for example, gsa would not tell me whether the trump hotel buys trump wine or other trump products, the sales of which would clearly benefit president trump financially. this is unacceptable. i would ask unanimous consent to submit portions of the gsa response to my letter into the record. >> without objection. >> i would also like to express my dismay about the information received with respect to the fbi project. we were discussing today, the committee learned of both the cancellation of the procurement and the release of this new plan from the press. i'm just very disappointed that we continue to find out about developments on this project in this manner.

it's no way to do business. no way to do business. as we move forward, it's my hope that gsa and fbi will be more forthcoming with our committee, and members of our committee, so that we can conduct our oversight in effective and productive manner. i look forward to hearing the -- let me just say -- there used to be a tv show, mr. chairman, you and i probably used to watch it as a kid, before these ladies were born, but the fbi and a guy named jack webb was an fbi agent and he would make calls on an investigation and he would say to whoever answered the door, ma'am, just the facts. we just want the facts. that's what we're interested in today. just the facts. and we want them from gsa and certainly the fbi. we look forward to testimony and look forward to working with our colleagues, especially the ones from maryland, the "mar" of delmarva. if we know the truth, we will not make a mistake. thank you so much. and i apologize to our witness. simultaneous to this hearing is a mark-up that's going on in one of my other committees. i'll be right back as soon as that's over. back soon.

thank you. bear with me. >> thank you. since both the states of maryland and west virginia are involved in this, i would invite first senator capito to make an opening statement and then the senators from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i am going to be going to the billy graham event so i apologize for the quickness, but thank you for granting me this privilege with consideration for my colleagues from maryland, we may have a bit of a different view on how this would -- this could roll out and i would like to say, welcome to mr. matthews who we served together when i was over in transportation and infrastructure on the house side so it's nice to see you. just briefly in the revised plan, there is a plan of consolidation occurs downtown and mr. healy, you refer this to this in your remarks, the center in clarksville would have several hundred jobs moving into west virginia. that's -- that would be an important development for me, obviously, as that facility continues to grow and become more professional, more highly technological and we would

welcome those -- that prospect of having those employees move out into west virginia as many have moved there before and have realized the wild and wonderful life is a pretty good one out in west virginia. so, with that, thank you very much, mr. chairman. i look forward to getting -- i know this has been a winding road and i join with mr. carper -- what senator carper was saying, we need to hear the facts, and i think those will bear out today. thank you so much. thank you. >> thank you, senator capito. senator carden. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator capito, let me just say, i don't think we're going to have a disagreement here. we want the fbi to consolidate in its most efficient ways and we understand that some of the functions may be better performed in other locations, so i'm not sure we'll have any disagreement on that particular point. senator brasso, i really want to thank you. the united states senate delegates to this committee the responsibility for authorization and oversight of public

buildings. and chairman brasso has taken this responsibility has a very high level, which i think is very important for our committee, so i want to thank our chairman for paying great attention to this and giving us an opportunity to better understand why the original propeck us the was terminated abruptly and now we have before us a different recommendation. so i thank the chairman for much for this opportunity. mr. chairman, we're just puzzled. we're puzzled. we've gone through 12 years where the fbi, gsa, intelligence community have all said that the fbi needs a facility to not only meet its current needs but to meet its needs in the future. and that requires a facility that can handle the personnel and the security needs that is estimated to be between 45 to 55 acres. that's been consistent in the

report of 2011 and kevin perkins' testimony before the house of representatives on march 6, 2013, and mr. hailey's testimony before us on march 1st of 2016. it's hard to understand how that's going to be met on a 6.6-acre site with 2.6 million square feet. it's hard to understand how that's going to meet the security needs as determined by the department of homeland security. department of homeland security, in fact, consistently, there's been the issue raised about the security, the j. edgar hoover building does not meet interagency security committee standards for an intelligence committee graded building. that's from testimony of m mr. haley in august 2017. the report from the fbi in august 2011 points out that the

department of homeland security has determined that the fbi headquarters should be housed in isc level 5 facility. it then goes on to say why, that -- with -- that -- well, the report from the gsa points out the reasons why this level of security is needed and i would like to put that sbood record. perimeter protection and standoff distance are the most effective means of limiting damage from a bomb attack. there is no practical way to adequately secure and protect the j. edgar hoover building. the real risk is that the fbi operations are more vulnerable and could be disrupted potentially at a time when these capabilities would be most needed. now all of a sudden we are changing the direction here. it's very difficult for us to understand that. the chairman and the ranking member asked for detailed information about the plans. we got this glitzy 22-page, more

photographs than details, about the proposal. and when you take a look at the cost comparisons, many of the costs are not even included in this. for 20% smaller building, you don't include the swing rental issues or building out the new rental spaces. so, mr. chairman, it's difficult for us to understand this. mayor browser has said that she believes that the bests use of this space for the use for the people of the district of columbia is for it to be in private development hands so we're not even paying attention to the local community. so, there's a lot of questions here. i appreciate our witnesses being here. i just would make one last comment. i know the urgency of this. the fbi desperately needs new facilities. but it's been the agencies that have delayed this for 12 years. 12 years!

hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. and now we find out about this information through press accounts. we still don't have adequate information in order to move forward. we certainly have not delayed this. and for the men and women who work at the fbi, for the people in this nation who depend upon their work, this has been just a major mishandling by the agencies for them to have adequate facilities to carry out their responsibility. >> thank you. senator van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to also thank you and the committee for taking this issue with the seriousness it deserves. this is a textbook example of how the federal government should not operate. over a period of time. it is an example that people will use for decades to come about how the federal government

misled people from start to finish, failed to provide information to the congress when requested, and constantly changed its assessment of what was required. required for the fbi. people who were bidding on this projects, invested lots of money, mr. chairman, in proposals, only to see whiplash when the fbi totally changed its testimony and the gsa totally changed its position on this. there are gao reports from years ago, analyzing all the options, including the option that you're proposing here today to demolish the current building and rebuild. there have been hearings in the house and senate on this issue for years. and the testimony is all there on the record. i'm looking forward to, mr. chairman, having a conversation and question for these witnesses, because representatives from the gsa and

fbi have made statements repeatedly on the record that are totally at odds with the position that these agencies are taking today. and that is something that does not give the public any confidence in how their federal government is operating. so, i hope, mr. chairman, we can get to the bottom of all this. all of us want an fbi building that allows them to complete their mission and ensures their security. and is it the best cost for the taxpayer. and i'm hopeful that we will arrive at a sensible solution. i appreciate your holding this hearing. >> thank you, senator van hollen. we have dan mathews, the commissioner of the general services mer services administration and richard haley, the chief financial officer for the federal bureau of investigation finance divisionme.

your full written testimony will be made part of the record today so please try to keep your statements to five minutes. i look forward to your testimony and we'd ask you to please begin, mr. mathews. >> good morning, chairman, ranking member carper and the members of the committee. the purpose of my testimony today is to explain why the previous procurement failed, how the recommendation changed from a suburban camera us the ppus t on the current site and why this is the preferred solution. please let me be clear. this proposal budoes consolidat the fbi headquarters and reduces its real estate footprint significantly and meets its mission requirements. since my arrival, mr. haley and i have met on a regular basis with our teams to develop this proposal. although i did not work at gsa at the time i think it's important to explain why the previous prokuala lumpcurement cancelled in july.

why the lack of appropriations was a significant factor and i think that's where most of the discussion has taken place, it's not the only reason. the incorporation of an exchange greatly complicated and increased the risk of that procurement. under the contract, the federal government was obligated to turn over the existing facility as partial compensation for the new campus. however, without full funding of the appropriated portion of the project, meaning the delta between the estimated value of the hoover building and the actual cost of the facility, that new facility could not have been completed. the fbi would have been unable to move, to relocate out of the hoover building and the current site could not have been turned over in accordance with the contract. the legal and operational risks were sympatimply too great with type of structure of the procurement to proceed without full funding in hand. although the procurement was terminated as you all have mentioned, the need and urgency for a new headquarters does continue. each year, a delay increases the

project cost by about $84 million by a combination of construction escalation and investments that we need to make in the facility. when gsa and the fbi project team regrouped in august, we removed the exchange from the project and considered all options for bridging that gap between the project costs and the available funding. the first step in that process was the fbi reassessing the scope and mission requirements of the headquarters in an effort to lower costs. from a real estate perspective, which is what i'm really going to be talking about today, the most important change the fbi made was in reducing the personal requirement for this facility from 10,600 to 8,300. we applied this smaller requirement to a campus construction scenario and the total cost savings were less than one would typically expect. this is because the larger campus infrastructure costs are essentially the same for housing 10,600 people as they are for housing 8,300 people.

this led to the consideration of smaller sites in an effort to reduce land acquisition, perimeter security and other campus-specific costs. most significantly, the reduction in the personnel requirement made the current pennsylvania avenue site a viable option for housing the consolidated headquarters function. again, from a real estate perspective, there are several distinct advantages at the current site over other potential locations. first of all, the current site's federally owned and under gsa's custody and control. demolition costs are considerably less than site acquisition, preparation, and relocation costs. a central utility plant, a new truck inspection facility, because there is an existing one, would not be needed. the classified communications cabling and major utility fees that are necessary to serve a facility like this are already in exist and are in place. the site is served by several metro lines and existing road networks, eliminating the need

for expensive parking garages and transportation infrastructure and the current site is located in the center of the fbi's key mission partners and departmental headquarters across the street. gsa and the fbi considered three options for reusing the hoover site. a phased renovation, a renovation of a fully vacant facility, and a demolition and rebuild at the current site. a phase renovation would take almost 15 years and cost more money and give you -- deliver a less successful product. new construction allows us to build a facility that can house 8,300 people instead of a smaller number in a renovated facility. in addition, new construction can mitigate security threats more effectively with tailored designs, newer materials, and current construction techniques. in short, demolishing the current building and replacing it with a new building enables gsa to deliver a more secure and efficient headquarters faster, cheaper and with less risk than a renovation. as directed by the committee,

gsa and the fbi considered a variety of funding options, including lease construction, lease with a purchase option, a ground lease lease-back arrangement, phased appropriations and full funding appropriations which ultimately we recommended. while alternatives were discussed at length, the bipartisan budget act of 2018 provides a unique opportunity to secure appropriations for a new headquarters. that opportunity didn't exist a year ago and i don't know if it will exist two years from now, but it does exist today. and in conclusion, the proposal achieves a strategic consolidation of the fbi headquarters, reduces its footprint and provides a good value for the taxpayer. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. mr. haley? >> thank you, chairman, ranking member carper and i appreciate the kind words of the men and women of the fbi and i look forward to taking that message back. members of the committee, thank you for incriteriaing me to testify before you today. i'll be very short in my oral

comments. the last time i was here, we discussed the decision to cancel the prior procurement and difficulties presented by the previous exchange proposed strategy and lack of available funding to move forward. building commissioner has gone into that. gsa and fbi committed at the hearing to provide you with a comprehensive report on the best way forward for the fbi project. as you are aware, that report has been provided to the committee and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss it today. during the past six months, since we met before, we have reviewed all the funding options that have been available or that could be available and have taken a comprehensive approach on how best to move forward with this project. at the core of the review, and i can assure you, in terms of what the fbi's part in this review was, to follow the criteria laid out by this committee. one, to ensure that a way forward best meets the fbi's mission requirements and is in

the best interest for the men and women of the fbi. and second, is a good deal for the american taxpayers. and we have not wavered from that commitment to look at those. as reflected in the report, after looking at all the options, and going back for more than a decade, reviewing the lessons learned and studying the core requirements for this project, we, the fbi, have, in conjunction with gsa, agreed that reutilizing the existing headquarters site has been identified as the best path forward. this recommendation has not been provided lightly. and it's the culmination of a number of factors. and we are aware that potential frustrations based on that decade-plus of moving this forward have had with a number of individuals, including senator cardin, senator van hollen. redefining, first of all, in terms of us looking at it, i think most critical has been us relooking at and redefining what a mission focused fully

consolidated fbi headquarters requires. we strongly believe that a multi-headquarters set of sites across the country will enhance our resiliency and operational effectiveness. this is something we've talked about to a number of other entities, not just in the government, private sector, there's a number of private sector companies that are looking for resiliency through other headquarters at this time. that has been part of that learning process. these other sites that we have identified have been part of our physical portfolio for many years. and while the way forward includes enhancing the use of these sites, these sites are not new to the fbi. we have had a presence in huntsville, alabama, since 1971, the pocatello site since 1984 and our presence, we've been in clarks bur clarksburg since 1995. those are all owned sites by the

fbi that we are talking about n increasing their presence and moving additional haeeadquarter pieces out to those locations. all of that said, the fbi still requires a strong national capital consolidation. we're not talking about the 10,600 positions coming into the national capital region facility, we're still talking 8,300 positions, that's 3,000 more seats than we currently have available at the hoover building in over a 50% growth. secondly, and part of the piece that we really looked at hard within the fbi, is the day-to-day mission tempo. we have a unique relationship with the department of justice, which is across the street from us as well as the hundreds of mee meetings that occur each day with other partners and oversight, including the congress. this was a piece that had been looked at and not necessarily addressed in the previous plans in terms of not necessarily the director or executives like

myself but how do the men and women, the middle and lower parts of the organization, that are all across town, how do they get back and forth in an effective way and get their job done, and this was a big part of what we've looked at for the last six months. we also do not believe we're wavering on an aggressive security requirement improvements. we looked at what the status quo is now and it's unacceptable. and we believe we're still maintaining an appropriate security posture. what we give up in space, obviously, needs to be made up for many thickness of concrete and other security ways of getting to those same type of assurances that we're meeting that requirement. and i think one of the things that is not a physical or necessarily a quantitative part of what we've looked at and this is a conversation that we've had internally as well as with gsa is the fbi's public facing presence. we are indeed a part of the ic community but we are also part

of the law enforcement community and we are the premier national law enforcement agency. and we believe a public facing fbi is critical and that has gone into this factor. our brethren in the ic have moved on to campuses not only for the security but also because they want to be out of the sight of the american public for what they do and the missions they have, whereas we believe that's a strong tenet to have in terms of our presence on pennsylvania avenue. in closing what remains clear this n this revised strategy is a need for a new facility that meets the mission requirements for the fbi, the current j. edgar hoover building is an impediment and continues to decay as note fwid building commissioner, these delays are costing over $80 million a year. status quo is not acceptable. building continues to deteriorate. and we estimate that it's going to cost about $300 million just to maintain the building at this point for just basic operations.

chairman, ranking member carper, senator cardin, senator van hollen, i thank you for the opportunity to come back and testify on the new fbi headquarters project. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you both very much for your testimony. there are a couple of questions that we'll have and starting with you, mr. mathews. the report indicates the revised plan costs roughly $200 million less than the previous plan but to me the math doesn't add up. when you're considering the revised plan consolidates fewer employees into the hoover location, no longer includes a building exchange to offset the cost, doesn't account for temporary relocation costs and rent space and asks for spifg y significantly more appropriations. can you explain why this is a better deal for taxpayers. >> yes, i'd be happy to answer the question about the cost. the first thing i would say, when you're comparing these costs to the previous project, i would say this committee didn't have the full cost before. and in this report, this is

really the first time you've seen the full cost of the previous project, the 10,600 person campus consolidation. you did not see those fbi fitout numbers. in fact, those are normally kept separate from the project. you usually just see the gsa portion of the project. you're actually seeing all of it here, what we think this project will actually cost to deliver at the best of our ability to estimate this cost at this point in time. so i'd start off by saying the comparison, that's why we have it in that report, the left-hand side of that column, those are the previous costs of the cancelled procurement and you did not see those before. that's new. and we think it's important that you have a full appreciation for what that project was costing. you mentioned a number of things, swing space, for example. that this report here shows, i believe, it's $427 million for the swing space costs. and what we're showing there are the additional costs to fit out

space for the temporary location. the -- whether we swing them out or if they were sitting in place in the hoover building, there's considerable expenses to operate and maintain the hoover building and those are roughly equivalent to the rental of space costs for swing space. so we left those out because they're basically on both sides of the ledger, no matter what we're doing, and they cancel themselves out. the extra costs that we included were for building out the swing space so that they could occupy it. that would be above and beyond sort of the normal operating costs. again, on the reusing the current site, like i said in my testimony, there's some very specific advantages to reusing the current site. we're not building a 2.6 million square foot parking garage. we're not building a separate central utility plant. separate visitors center. in fact, when you look at the structure, under the current proposal, we'd be building almost 5 million gross square

feet of facility. this one, we're building about 2.65 million gross square feet of facility and the acquisition costs actually, you know, constructing it, that's about a third of the life cycle costs of a facility. so actually having a significantly smaller facility, cost-wise, over time, the life cycle cost of that facility, it's very much tied to how large that facility is. >> thank you. it's disturbing, i think, to all the members of the committee here that you say they aren't costs the committee has ever seen before. i understand you weren't in the position at this point, but it's concerning to all of us here when we hear we haven't been getting all the information that we as a committee and this congress have been requesting. mr. haley, over the course of this project, which has spanned now more than a decade, the fbi has consistently indicated the need for a fully consolidated campus. fbi further requested that such a facility be equipped with

certain specifications, remote truck facility, detached central utility plant, the revised plan contains none of these requirements. has the fbi, in a sense, lessened its security requirements for this project and if so, when and why did the requirements change? >> we do not believe we've lessened our requirements. i think the learning process we've gone through and again i'll re-emphasize, as we have been pursuing the process forward, we have spent considerable amount of time talking to myself, probably 35, 40 fortune 500 companies, intel community, members not only here in the u.s. but also our partners overseas in terms of how best to get to all of the pieces you're talking about. a campus provides many opportunities, and we know that from some of our brethren agencies. but we also think that we can get those same capabilities. we have a truck inspection facility, a remote truck

inspection facility in maryland today that we would, in this plan, continue to use. we believe that we can meet the requirements of the site as the building commissioner has mentioned. we believe that a more efficient building -- you can't take the current hoover building, obviously, and renovate it or do what would be needed. we had not, honestly, looked at a new building on that site before. by looking at these other locations, which was really driven by the resiliency, the opportunities in these other locations to get a talented -- expanded, talented workforce, a diversified workforce, by getting that number down to a 8,000-person range, we believe this building can meet the requirements we've been identifying throughout this project and the public-facing piece and that operational tempo were two of the critical pieces that into that. >> one last question before turning over to senator carper. under the revised plan, the fbi

is going to be forced to move the entire hoover headquarters location to temporary swing space locations for five years, the way i read this, if everything goes on scheduled time. is the fbi concerned that this could hinder or compromise the ability to carry on its mission with all this activity. >> yes, sir. and that's the hardest piece of this whole thing is how do you maintain that mission tempo and that period of time. and i will not tell you it's not going to be hard. we're looking at this as a 50-year project. so what happens in that five years and that's one of the conversations that we have had with gsa in thamerms of we can' take that lightly. how we're going to do that, those pieces that need to be close together, the mission, the operational pieces that have to go into that, that's some of the cost you're seeing in that swing space. what we believe, though, in the longer picture is that we can do that right, put the pencils to

paper noodle that correctly. we will get a longer term better option for the fbi at this point. >> senator carper. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and again, our witnesses, we're grateful to you for your testimony and your responses to our questions. let me start, if i could, mr. mathews, with a question for you. so far, the gsa and fbi have provided limited details on this new proposal. when can this committee expect in depth details on the proposal, not solely a 22-page powerpoint presentation. when does the gsa anticipate transmitting a new prospectus? >> i don't have a firm date on when a new prospectus could come, but i believe the earliest we could probably send one up would be later this spring or in the summer. >> so, later this spring would be may, june? or summer lasts until september. >> it would be closer to the august recess.

june, early june, for spring, july. >> okay. question if i could, mr. haley, for you. this plan proposes to move star into temporary swing space while the current hoover building is demolished and rebuilt. there are, i understand, about 5,600 staff personnel located in the current facility. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> proposal is not -- as i understand it, proposal does not include payments for rental space for temporary swing space. is that correct? >> it doesn't include the rent. it includes what would be required to fit out the swing space, right? so, it's the cost of what that swing space would require in terms of us making that secret or top secret required space. it just doesn't include the rent payments. as the building commissioner mentioned, we would be working -- the rents that we are currently paying for the hoover

building through gsa and some of those costs would be offset by what would be going to the temporary swing space. >> would bit a wash? it seems to me that the rental payments could be extraordinary. >> we have some estimates on it. when we look at the two projects in total and we can go through with yourself and your staffs the numbers, we believe in terms of what the project to maintain the downtown location with all the swing spaces and all those other requirements, when you compare that total cost and things that you offset where you're not going to have a parking garage and not have utilities and transportation requirements, we believe the costs are comparable. one of our tenets to this was that it be a good deal to the american taxpayer. so we believe that the two costs, the previous plan and this plan, are similar in cost. there's ups and downs on both of them but we would be not coming here, honestly, if we thought this was significantly more expensive, even with the swing space and that requirement.

>> we want to -- we look forward to drilling down on that with you and your folks. >> yes, sir. >> follow-up question if i could. does temporary swing space exist that would meet the security requirements of the fbi and would any new temporary swing space costs include necessarily security upgrades? i think you mentioned that. but security upgrades that might not to be made to it. >> we've been having discussions already with gsa. there are, you know, in terms oflof the requirements, there are spaces that we're aware of that are either vacant or becoming vacant. there are intel community spaces that are in the region, so we're looking at all that. i can't tell you today exactly where that would be. all of them would probably require upgrades to security and that goes into the cost that we've estimated. our hope would be those costs that you're seeing in the report would come down. but those are kind of the high level water marks on what we would expect. our space, generally, for the

fbi is secret level, and then we have a portion of our operations that are obviously in top secret, so any space we would go into that would meet the mission requirement would have to be bought up to those security requirements as well as the ballards and barricades in that period of time. also, in that investment, the other conversation we've had with gsa is that we would vacant those back into the permanent building, that those potential sites would be able to use for other tenants, other government tenants so we would be building that not just for ourselves but others would be able to use that in the future. >> one last question. in 2016 and in 2017, i sent four letters to gsa regarding its determination that the trump old post office is in compliance with the conflict of interest lease provisions for a trump international hotel. when gsa testified in front of this committee in august, i asked gsa to commit to respond to questions for information from any member of this

committee. and i was told that gsa would only respond to questions for information from our chairman. i know that my colleagues on both sides all found that to be an entirely unacceptable position. and as chairman. my colleagues and i found that to be an entirely unacceptable position. they did send my 11,860 pages of documents but not a single one answered the question i asked. i am going to ask the question i ask in august again. will you provide any member of this committee the documents and answers that we ask for whether it relates to the fbi headquarters, trump hotel or any other legitimate area of interest. yes or no, mr. matthews? will you do that? >> as i said when i first arrived here, we -- one of the first things i did was met with

your chief of staff to thaeansw that question, would we respond to the ranking members? absolutely we will. we believe we did. consistent with past practice and all administrations, it doesn't mean we can turn everything over all the time. my commitment was to turn over all the information that we believed we could. if there were certain things we believed we could not provide because of privilege or other reasons, we would clearly identify what those were and why we believed we were not able to turn them over. that is what we did. i know that the trucks of thcru matter for you was legal interpretation, legal advice, between the office of general counsel and the contracting office. that information is internally

privileged. we explained that. >> i am not sure i understand that. gsa said it had determined that the president would not benefit from the trump hotel lease while he is in office. if the trump hotel buys it, the president would be benefiting from the trump hotel lease even if the lease proceeds were being held in a trust. so i believe you are telling me that the question of whether or not the trump hotel buys trump wine offer is protected by attorney/client privilege. is that what you are saying? i find that hard to believe. >> with respect to that specific question, what we said was the contracting officer found the hotel in compliance with the terms of the lease and that the specific question about beneficial interests, that is the subject of, i think, two pending lawsuits at the moment. we had to defer to the department of justice on that.

>> thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank both of our witnesses. mr. matthews, i'm having a hard time accepting what you are saying. i'm going to be perfectly blunt. you say a major reason of terminating the original perspectus is the transfer of the hoover building. that was something you all wanted and we didn't want. congress didn't like that idea. you said it was something you needed to do to get it done. now, we are supposed to believe that's the reason why you terminated, for something that you wanted. secondly, the consolidation, one of the major reasons for the consolidation on costs is to save rental costs. that's what you have told us all along. it is more expensive to have places outside of the central location. now, you are saying it is a

wash. can you understand why i am having a hard time accepting the information you are presenting? >> yes, senator. >> i agree with you on the transfer of the building. it didn't make sense. you insisted on it? >> personally, i came here in august. >> your agency insisted on it. >> yes, they did. >> the information you gave us now may be likewise. you have honestly told us that the disruption to the mission of the fbi will be a factor during this transition. seven years ago, we started down this path and we haven't got ton the conclusion. do you believe you will be in this new facility by 2025 when we are not going to get the

perspectus until the earliest, the spring? don't you recognize the fbi's mission, that if we start down this path, it will be another 12 years and your mission is going to be compromised during that period of time? >> i appreciate that, sir. we definitely don't want another 12 years. the status quo is not acceptable. on those other sites, they will be owned sites. they are not leased sites. we still believe we are getting a consolidation in the national capital region. the idaho facility is being constructed as we talk. it is part of a larger department of justice consolidation of justice centers. we are going through major renovations. >> my point is you said very honestly that you have concerns about being able to carry out the missions as you relocate and are in various locations for the next umpteen years. >> yes, sir.

>> what i'm suggesting to you, make it two times umpteen years. that's how this process has unfolded. >> mr. matthews, you acknowledge a new perspectus. i understand there has been a request made we include money with fi-18 for this progress. you recognize you cannot proceed without congress' authorization, correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> if you take the same position you took before, unless you have every dollar appropriated, you won't proceed? is that correct? >> yes, to award the contract, we need to have the money in hand. >> all the money in hand? >> for the contract, yes. >> it is a pretty big sum of money. >> yes, it is. >> did you figure that into your projections, the realities of politics? >> yes, we did. >> let me understand, mr. haley, when we get to the fully.

if this building is renault tov the way you want, 8300 employees will go into it? >> yes. >> supposed you need the mission that you have for those 8300, by the time you get into this building, require another 500, 600, 700. can you put them in the building? >> first of all, appreciate the question. we have looked at this. one of the reasons we feel comfortable about this is that we were already looking at huntsville. >> my question is, you have 8300. you have a limited size facility. you have to harden it as best you can. it is going to take some space. you have height limits on how you can build. do you have the ability -- i was reading every letter. you said you want a facility for

today and tomorrow. do you have a facility for tomorrow o? a are you going to be able to put another 500, 600, 1200 people in this? >> yes, sir. we have been looking at huntsville and west virginia and idaho for a number of years for that specific purpose, that we don't want to have a building that's at capacity the day we move in. so these other facilities are not facilities that -- >> this building will be at capacity? this hoover rebuilt building will be in capacity? >> even with the previous plan. >> how many more people could you put in after construction over the 8300? >> when the building gets done, we will still have the ability to put additional positions in. >> how many? >> 500 to 1,000. >> so the square footage that you are giving per employee is not accurate? >> no, sir. >> wouldn't it be less if you put more people into it? >> the current building today, which only holds 5500 is a very

inefish yu inefficient building. >> the information presented to us, square footage per plemploy is based upon 8300? what is the capacity of this building? >> if we add people, the square footage per person would decrease, that's right. >> i would submit to you that you don't have the capacity to expand on site and that was one of the reasons you wanted 45 to 55 acres, so you have a facility that can meet the needs today and tomorrow. >> we are comfortable this plan will meet the fbi requirements for the next 50 years. >> i appreciate the chairman. he told me he would be a little more lenient on the clock. do you disagree with gsa, mr. haley, where they said the perimeter protection and standoff setback and distance are the most effective means of

preventing or limiting damage. do you disagree with that. >> the setback is the most effective -- >> how much are you going to have on this building? >> it won't be the same. >> does that concern you for the safety of people or the attractiveness of trying to do damage because you don't have a setback? >> this will be a significant improvement. >> but not like a perimeter security that you have on a campus facility. >> absolutely. but we believe there are three ways you can get to security. >> i understand all of that. >> you can put berms -- >> the bad guys, they want to do something spectacular. when you are on the road, it gives temptation, does it not? >> we have looked at this. we believe that we are going to get amble security and a day to day operational tempo. >> not as good as you have

perimeter security. >> i won't argue with you. a 300 plus setback is a ample. >> we are going through this now with our embassies and paying a heavy price because we listened to some people that wanted to be in a particular location and now we have serious security problems we are trying to correct at a high cost to the taxpayers of this country. >> in this facility, much of what's going into the security p posture is based off of the standards but we have had conversations with some of our foreign i.c. partners who have similar situations. >> they had that situation. we are building that situation today. >> we are building it. >> we have a choice not to do it and we are doing it if we follow this recommendation. >> yes, sir. from a risk approach, we are looking at it and all the other tradeoffs i mentioned in my opening statement. >> the last question i have, with the chairman's indulgence, who was in the room when this

decision was made? i assume gsa was in the room. i assume the fbi was in the room. who else was in the room that decided we were going to rebuild the hoover building and not go to a campus facility? >> this was an fbi decision we have done in partnership. >> this was your agency's recommendation? this was what you want, no outside influence at all? is that what you are telling me? >> based on the status quo. >> a simple question. >> yes, sir, it is an fbi decision. >> i asked who was involved in making that decision, solely fbi? >> fbi and gsa have brought this -- this has always been -- >> no input from any other agencies, no input from the white house? this was strictly the two agencies, is that what you are telling us? a simple answer. >> yes. this is an fbi decision that -- >> i know it is an fbi decision. i am asking who else was involved in making that

decision? >> in the decision i have been a part of and our newest building commissioner who we have worked with very well following the last hearing. the relationship we have with gsa since mr. matthews has got there is better than it has ever been in my 25 years. >> i asked a simple question. >>ible i ga i believe i gave yo answer. >> no input from the white house? >> not on this decision, no. >> senator. >> i don't understand why we are having major whiplash up here i have been go the long history of positions that both your agencies have taken on this project. mr. haley, are you familiar with the report that was written back in 2011 with this project? >> yes. >> they looked at the demolish and rebuild?

>> that was one of the pieces they did look at. >> that was option number two, alternative number two. it said this was not a preferred option because the fbi's security concerns about its headquarters would remain. your testimony today that rebuilding at the current location would be less secure for the fbi than moving to one of the other campus sites, isn't that correct? >> i think my testimony today and what i've said in the opening is that we have looked at a number of factors that were not necessarily -- >> i'm just trying to get confirmation of what you said within the last five minutes. you just told the sen torey that those other campus sites would provide more security. sthant true? >> i said that a 300-foot setback would- would-- >> snisn't it true the other sis would provide more security? >> from a setback standpoint,yes, sir. there are multiple processes of

the security protocols. there are other ways to getting to some of the same security outbacks. a 300-foot setback is intuitively better than a 75-foot setback. >> i would suggest it is not just intuitively but according to the facts and experts. >> are you familiar with mr. kevin perkins? >> yes, i know him very well. >> he was associate, deputy directory of the fbi? >> yes, sir. >> he testified back in march, 2013, at a hearing in the house, transportation and infrastructure committee. the security concerns are significant for us specially as we are where we are located at the current time that is probably the worst of all the

fbi agencies. do you agree with that? >> i believe he was talking about the current building and the status quo is not acceptable. >> he was referring to the current location. do you agree that the current location of the fbi building is probably the worst of all the agencies in the intelligence community? from a security standpoint? >> you are quoting what he said. >> yes, i am. >> i acknowledge that that's it. >> has the fbi changed its position on that fact? >> we believe that the site at pennsylvania avenue with the right construction protocols and the other mission requirements can be secured in an appropriate way. >> but clearly not as secure as the others, which is so obvious. you have said if already. i think it is important for the record here. we have also had testimony over

the years from gsa, mr. matthews. dorothy robine, did she have the position you currently have? >> yes, that's correct, senator. >> she also testified at that march 13th hearing of the transportation infrastructure committee. she indicated, and i quote, the building with its high profile location and limited perimeter setback cannot meet -- cannot meet and does not meet the fbi's requirements for level 5 security. have you changed your position? >> she was correct, the current building could not meet that. >> here what is she says. she says with its high-profile location and limited perimeter setback. it still has a limited perimeter setback? >> yes, but it is connected to that building and that current

building cannot withstand. the current building has very significant limitations. >> as i mentioned, mr. chairman, we have looked at the demolish option in the past. mr. haley, when the gsa decided that it would not go forward with the original options, that's what it's fbi decided to take another look at the mission? >> yes, absolutely. >> prior to that, you were fully prepared to go forward with the other options? >> yes, sir. if the funding would have been provided in the previous procurement, we would have a construction site most likely going on right now. yes, sir. >> i want to get to that point. i think it's really important, the funding. did the gsa and fbi request funding for this project as part of the previous administration's

budget request? >> yes, it did. >> how much did it request? >> i believe the combination, the last request was 700 million. >> it didn't request full funding? >> it wasn't enough. >> the administration's position was we want to move forward with these other options but we are not going to provide full funding but now it's because supposedly congress didn't provide full funding. the congress provided more funding than the administration requested, didn't it? >> in the previous request with the exchange included, the funding that was being asked for, if it would have been appropriated, would have allowed the project to move forward. >> let me just say at the time of the decision last july, mr. chairman, where the gsa decided to pull the plug on the other options. the statement from gsa from mr.

michael gelber. it is fair to say the procurement was not the desired outcome, the cancellation of the original? >> to senator's point shall t, longer this project doesn't move forward, the longer we are in this delayed state. the funding that was asked for along with the exchange was the amount needed, $1.4 million, with the exchange to move forward. only 500,000 -- or 500 million was provided. it was because of that and the fact that that procurement was going beyond its expected time period. there were considerations if the fbi wasn't out of the building at a certain point, we were going to be paying penalties back. there were costs that were included.

the teams that the different construction entities were putting together, all of that as it was aging was making that procurement ineffective. without the funding, the fbi agreed with gsa's consideration that the contract needed to be canceled. >> if that project would have moved forward, we would have been building at one of the three sites today most likely. the xwhcommittee in good faith, what we have done is go back and look at everything involved in this project, not just brick-and-mortar. definitely the security. we have also looked at all the operational pieces as well. that's where we are coming forward today. >> because time is limited, you mentioned security. it is very clear this is obviously a less secure facility. >> mr. matthews, i have to say, i was a little amused by your referencing the bipartisan budget agreement as the path forward for additional funding.

that was reached here on the hillah you had already made your decisions to move forward. that was just a couple of weeks ago, isn't that the case? >> the final recommendation came forward at that time. >> if it is a funding issue, which is what the testimony was with respect to the decision to not move forward, given the bipartisan budget agreement, we can look for funding with the original project that would have gone through at one of the other three facilities and met what the fbi has told us for years would meet its mission requirements. the last question i have has to do with swing space, rental payments. i'm confused about this. you are in a current building. you are paying some rental payments now. i don't know how much but now you are going to move for a period of five to six years to

other locations. we don't know where right now and you have not included the cost, this power point. it specifically says you have not included the cost of those rental payments. can you get back to this committee, please, and give us what the costs of those rental payments would be, because a lot of people that have looked at this believe this dramatically changes your cost assessments. >> yes, we would be happy to get back to you. i was trying to explain there is a cost of currently occupying the hoover building. they would move out and those costs would end. they would terminate. we demolish the building. we wouldn't be paying to operate and maintain the hoover building. that's what i am suggesting is offsetting the base rental payments for the swing space. to occupy a swing space, as mr.

haley said, we would have to bring that up to the standards, that's the $479 million detailed here. >> you have the rental payments. senator cardin asked you about this a little bit. mr. matthews, have you had conversations with the director of o & b about this project? >> i have not. this is part of the budget of the administration. this is supported by o & b. this is an official budget request. it has the approval of the o & b. >> are either of you gentlemen, are either of you familiar with any conversations that any members of your agency have had with the president of the united states about this decision with respect to the fbi building? i mean this original decision to

not move forward with the original alternatives and the decision to remain at the current location. are you aware of any conversations that anybody in the administration has had with the president of the united states about this project? >> again, this was a joint decision. >> that's just yes or no. are you aware of any conversations had by any member of the administration with the president of the united states about this project? >> what i would say -- >> that's a yes or no. >> i don't think it is. >> are you aware -- mr. chairman, i think the committee deserves an answer. are you aware of any conversations the president has had with anybody about this project? >> with respect to the decision of staying in the downtown location, this decision and any conversations that have happened with that decision and we have -- the building

commissioner and i have had summary conversations at the worker level of o & b on what this decision is. we didn't come out here without a coordination with our o & b oversight. with the respect of staying at 935 pennsylvania avenue, tearing down the current building and bimding back, th bi building back, that is an fbi decision in coordination with gsa. i am not aware that the decision to stay at 935 pennsylvania avenue is an fbi decision. we have had that conversation with gsa. any entities outside of the fbi and gsa, whether they have been informed or it has come up in conversations, it hasn't been a factor in the decision of that project. >> that was not my question. my question was not whether any conversation was had with anybody outside of the fbi were a factor. my question is very simple, are you aware of any conversations

or communication that any members have had with the president of the united states? >> i can't speak for the building. i have not been a part of any of those conversations. >> i understand you were not talking to the president of the united states about this. i am asking whether you are aware of any conversations that anyone in the administration had with the president of the united states about this project, the decision not to go forward with the original plan or the current alternative? >> i don't believe i'm in a position to answer that question. i was not privy of those conversations. i have not been part. >> my question is not whether or not you know the content but whether you were aware of any conversations having been had. >> i don't believe i am in a position to answer that question. >> mr. chairman, this is a legitimate question. >> i think the witnesses have

tried to answer to the best of their abilities. the question has been asked and answered. >> mr. matthews, the same question to you. >> the same answer, senator. >> just for the record, neither witness has answered question, mr. chairman. i think it is pretty clear from the record. >> we'll head to a second round if people have additional questions. let me just ask one. mr. matthews, gsa indicates the total cost of the project is $3.3 billion. the plan assumes the entire project is going to take five years and these employees will be able to return to the new headquarters within that time frame, relocation, demolition, new construction to gret baet b the new headquarters. my experience has been that projects take longer and cost more than predictions are. do you really believe we can complete the entire project with this budget in five years? >> i believe it is possible if we have the funding to be done as a maximum price contract.

a lot of the unknowns that are typical with construction projects given that this is an existing site. we know this site. we know the costs that came forward. we feel pretty good and confident about those estimates. we know that site. we control the site. a lot of those types of things that come into play that can hold up a project at the initial phases really aren't present here. it comes down to funding. if we have the funding, and we would need to have the funding in hand for the design and construction portion of the contract in order to award a contract. this would not lend itself to a phased approach. we can't build a foundation and wait for money and then biltd the next piece. we would have to have the design and construction component of it up front. if we have that in hand, we should be able to meet this project. the key would be to make sure we avoid change orders. as with any large project, we need to pick a plan, what we are going to build and stick to it

and not change it midway, once we start. >> change orders for any of us that have been involved in any remodelling project whether it is just a home building project -- >> it is the bane of cost control. >> senator? >> i am interested in the truth. i think that's what is expected of you and us. if the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake, a quote from thomas jefferson. the question posed was not an easy question to answer. chris, would you just state once again the question that you have asked both witnesses. >> yes, senator. the question was pretty straightforward, whether either of these gentlemen are aware of any conversations that took

place between any member of the administration and the president of the united states about this fbi project, meaning the decision not to move forward with the original alternatives or the decision to rebuild at the current site? are you aware of any. i am not asking if you were in the room. i am not asking you for the content. i am asking whether you are aware whether any such conversations took place. >> i am not a big fan of yes, no questions and answers but this really is one. we would like for you to tell us the truth. >> sir, i'm the chief financial officer and head of facilities for the fbi. i have meetings with all types of people in the department of just it is and o and b and other places. am i aware of anybody in the administration that has talked -- >> that was not the question. with all due respect, mr. haley, that was not the question. it was a pretty straightforward question.

i think it deserves a straightforward answer. >> i think i have answered it as best i can. >> mr. matthews, have you answered that question as best you can? >> my answer is, i'm not in a position to answer that question. >> the way you have responded to that question certainly raises for me and i suspect a number of my colleagues, the question whether the president did somehow intervene and express a view. the way that you are answering it, it simply encourages suspicion? >> i am not trying to bring suspicion on whether there was -- i have tried to be from an fbi perspective very explicit on whether there was any intervene f intervening from the president or the white house. when i tell you that the fbi has come to this decision.

we would not be putting forth a decision, i say with emphasis from our leadership, we would not be putting forward nora gre agreeing to an approach that did not meet the fbi requirements? >> if the president did not intervene in some way and you are aware that he did not intervene in any way, just say that. just say that. this suspicion just goes away. your inability or refusal to say that simply heightens that suspicion. that's not a good thing for anybody. >> my time has expired. i have some questions for the regard. thank you both for being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to underscore the point that senator van hollen made in regards to the congressional appropriations on the original project. mr. matthews, you have indicated there were two reasons for the

termination of the original contract. one, you didn't like the hoover building exchange, which was the administration's proposal, not ours. >> we didn't like it. we gave you a lot of different options to pay for it. second, you didn't have all the money in hand and yet you never asked for all the money in hand. we gave you more money than you asked for. i just want the public and the fbi to understand. we should be breaking ground today but for the administration. we should be breaking ground today in virginia oand maryland and you would get it faster and less costly. a very valuable piece of property ultimately would find its way into helping the people of the district of colombia. second point i want to follow up on, i agree with

senator van holland. i don't understand the math here. you have been telling us consistently that it is better to use government facilities for costs than outside rental facilities for costs. now, we're being told it is a wash. then, i'm looking at the book keeping here where you are being charged internally for the costs of the hoover building and you are telling us that that's going to be a wash. it doesn't seem like it is going to be a wash for the taxpayers of this country. they are the people we represent. it does seem like there is going to be additional cost. with did some of our own analysis. admittedly, we don't have the information you have. the number we came up with is $1.2 billion additional cost because of the swing space. if that's accurate, or even half accurate, then we are spending a lot more to rebuild the hoover

building with i would suggest less results for the fbi. certainly today, and very concerned about the future expansion and needs of the fbi, because you are going to be really restricted in the rebuilding of the hoover building. so if i could just make that one request, that the chairman made, and ranking member earlier. i hope before you send us a perspectus for our consideration, that we have all of the detailed information available to us. you said that -- the one thing you said that really concerned me was that we didn't know all the costs. was that our responsibility? >> i thought that was your responsibility. why didn't congress have that administration? >> i can't speak for the previous administration but we are providing it. >> you are not right now. you are not giving us the swing space comparisons. we need a lot more information

than you have given us. >> we will give you more information on the swing space. at this point in time, we have i have been go yiven you what we have. with your respect with long-term leasing, short-term leasing makes a lot of financial sense for the government. long-term single lease location, 30 years, that's where we get into cost issues. for temporary requirements, rent cal space a al space and solutions. this would be replaced with a government-owned. this is temporary housing. >> you are saying the fbi can save money if it starts taking their employees out of the hoover building and putting them in temporary, short-term leases. it doesn't make sense. >> we looked at rehabilitating

the facility with them in place and it makes far lessens. >> to clarify what was in the roo report, the swing space amounts are above standard. we believe that the rent costs, still going to pursue whether it is in the government inventory or the intel community has space we are aware of, whether that meets our mission needs and would offset some of the rent. the only piece we don't believe is in the report is the final rent payment and what the building commissioner articulated earlier to clarify. we think that will be an offset to what we are currently paying. there is no question to your point there may be in that four or five years where we will be paying some marginal amount more for that temporary space. in the longer picture when we get back into the owned facility, we think that's a better place to be. you are correct it could be a margin n

marginal amount difference in the rent. we think that will be offset with what we are already paying. >> i would hope you would give us the analysis on the hoover building getting less cost reimbursement that has to be made up some place else by federal taxpayers. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for mr. matthews, have you ever had any conversation or communication with either the president of the united states or any senior white house staff about this fbi project? >> i have not. >> i would ask if i could put into the record some of the documents i cited during my questioning as well as a "washington post" column discussing the president's interest in keeping the fbi building in its current site as to potential financial interest. >> without objection. >> it is an fbi decision. it is in the president's budget.

one would expect an administration to have interest in the final budget. is there anything either of you would like to offer in qualifying or things you would like to mention that you didn't have an opportunity to do today? >> two points on that last one. i'm not trying to not answer the questions with respect to the senator on your last point there, not saying something in terms of whatever those conversations, if they did occur, might have said but what i can tell you is to reiterate, this was an fbi centric decision in coordination with gsa. the one thing i would mention to clarify something that was brought up earlier in terms of that five to six year for this particular site. one of the challenges in comparison to the other three sites previously, the amount of road work and the amount of fre infrastructure that had to be done to get to the con sfrux of t the site where we offset the two

sites, we do own it and we could tear it down or build it back. that five years is going to be an inconvenience. that will be a hard period for us to figure out. we do believe that that's workable and some of the comparison we get to the two. i wanted to clarify that. >> anything else you want to offer for clarification. >> i understand it is a significant change from the previous request but with respect to the site, what really makes it possible to consider the site is the smaller requirement for the number of personnel. that makes it possible. there are, again, as i mentioned, some very distinct advantages to reutilizing the current site if you can fit the housing requirement on that site. >> i want to thank both of you for your time and testimony today. the hearing record will remain open. there may be some additional written questions. i want to thank you for your testimony. >> before you adjourn, i just

want to say thank you. thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for being so intelligent with our colleagues specially from maryland. it is obviously an important issue for them and the district of colombia and the neighboring states. you have been extraordinarily gracious and i just want to note that and say thank you. >> it is good to work with you. >> thank you very much. the meeting is adjourned.

we are covering another hearing live today. the house energy and commerce submit subcommittee are looking into the opioid crisis. live coverage gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's public cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress,

the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the reference billy graham will lie in honor at the u.s. capitol today and thursday for the public to pay their respects. a memorial service is underway with house speaker, paul ryan, and senator mitch mcconnell making comments. live today and we will show it again at 8:00 eastern. the rotunda viewing will be live beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. last april, president trump appointed the 25th secret service director and he addressed the atlanta press club about combatting cybercrime. former cnn president, tom