U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–875 PDF 2016

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 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

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 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

(III) 

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 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98875.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98875.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98875.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98875.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98875.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98875.006
(1) 

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. 

2 

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. 

3 

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 com- mitted 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. 

4 

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 

5 

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 TechVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\3-1-16~1\98875.TXT JEAN
6 

nology, the University of Maryland University College’s 

cybersecurity program, which is approximately 21⁄2 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. 

7 

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, 

8 

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 

9 

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. 

10 

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, 

11 

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. 

12 

[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. 

13 

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 

14 

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. 

15 

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? 

16 

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 recommendaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\3-1-16~1\98875.TXT JEAN
17 

tion 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. 

18 

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 longterm 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 

19 

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? 

20 

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 

21 

[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. 

22 

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 moneylosing 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. 

23 

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 

24 

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 adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\3-1-16~1\98875.TXT JEAN
25 

dress 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 

26 

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 

27 

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. 

28 

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 

29 

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. 

30 

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. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

31 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98875.007
32 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98875.008
33 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98875.009
34 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98875.010
35 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98875.011
36 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98875.012
37 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98875.013
38 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98875.014
39 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98875.015
40 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98875.016
41 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98875.017
42 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98875.018
43 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98875.019
44 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98875.020
45 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98875.021
46 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98875.022
47 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98875.023
48 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98875.024
49 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98875.025
50 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98875.026
51 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98875.027
52 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98875.028
53 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98875.029
54 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98875.030
55 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98875.031
56 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98875.032
57 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98875.033
58 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98875.034
59 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98875.035
60 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98875.036
61 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98875.037