U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

68–482 PDF 2012

REVIEW AND STATUS OF THE MULTIBILLIONDOLLAR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

RELOCATION PROJECT IN WASHINGTON, DC, AND 

ITS IMPACTS ON THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

(112–52) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

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 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Bathurst, Hon. Donald G., Chief Administrative Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 4 

Currier, Vice Admiral John P., Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, 

United States Coast Guard ................................................................................. 4 

Peck, Hon. Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration .............................................................................................. 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 19 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bathurst, Hon. Donald G. ....................................................................................... 21 

Currier, Vice Admiral John P. ................................................................................ 24 

Peck, Hon. Robert A. ............................................................................................... 26 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 68482.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 68482.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 68482.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 68482.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 68482.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 68482.006
(1) 

REVIEW AND STATUS OF THE MULTIBILLIONDOLLAR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY RELOCATION PROJECT IN 

WASHINGTON, DC, AND ITS IMPACTS ON 

THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to review the current plan to 

move the Coast Guard headquarters to the west campus of St. Elizabeths hospital in Anacostia. The subcommittee has long had concerns with the plan to move the Coast Guard headquarters to St. 

Elizabeths. Specifically, the subcommittee has been concerned with 

the adequacy of access to the facility. Isolation of the Coast Guard, 

if no other entities move to the campus, would be a big question 

mark. 

Any additional cost that would be borne by the Coast Guard to 

move to the new facility and to support its operations would also 

be another huge concern and the impact of those costs will have on 

the ability of the Service to conduct their critical missions. 

In 2006, the authorization bill for the Coast Guard prohibited the 

Service from moving until the General Services Administration provided a plan that identified another DHS agency that would be 

moving to St. Elizabeths around the same time as the Coast Guard, 

what improvements would be made to access the facility, and how 

the move would affect the Service’s operations. The GSA provided 

that plan, but now, due to funding constraints, it will not be followed. 

House appropriators have not provided funding in fiscal year 

2012 to complete the new Coast Guard headquarters, and Senate 

appropriators have provided what may be just barely enough to enable the Coast Guard to move but no funding for construction for 

any other DHS component, and this is a matter of huge concern. 

And now the Secretary is saying that she would rather spend her 

limited funding on front-line operations than on St. Elizabeths’s 

2 

project. While I wholeheartedly agree with her Coast Guard frontline operations are critically important, however, we are concerned 

that that position leaves the Coast Guard further in limbo. 

At our July 2011 hearing, the subcommittee was informed that it could cost the Service over $54 million in fiscal year 2013 to 

move its headquarters and that it could cost over $20 million annually in additional rent in each of the following years. In the current 

fiscal environment, those are significant numbers; and they could 

have significant impacts on the Service’s front-line operations, 

which is something none of us want to see. 

We all know the Coast Guard is hard pressed to meet its current 

mission goals. The Service has testified before this committee that 

it lacked the manpower and assets to effectively respond to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill or to conduct safety inspections of commercial vessels or to continue to conduct port security operations 

at the current tempos or to upgrade housing for its 

servicemembers. The list just goes on and on. Before the Service is 

forced to spend tens of millions of additional operating dollars on 

rent, perhaps we could focus on addressing these priorities first. 

In addition to the cost of resource issues, there are several 

logistical issues that I think further complicate this move. There is 

currently insufficient road access to St. Elizabeths. The Department’s consolidation plans call for construction of a new off ramp 

from I–295 because the current access to St. Elizabeths is inconvenient and, maybe more importantly, inadequate. Unfortunately, 

the construction of this off ramp is not planned until several years 

after the Coast Guard relocates to St. Elizabeths. And that is when 

it is planned for. So when it will actually happen remains a big 

question mark. 

In addition, there are several hundred less parking spaces available to Coast Guard personnel at St. Elizabeths than there are at 

the current headquarters location. This will force a large number 

of personnel to rely on public transportation and a contracted shuttle bus, which may or may not be able to meet the demand. So I 

am very concerned about the message that we are giving to the 

personnel who have to move out there as well. 

So I hope our witnesses will be able to address these logistical 

issues. 

The subcommittee does not oppose moving the Coast Guard 

headquarters to St. Elizabeths. We understand the value in consolidating DHS headquarters in one location. However, the subcommittee was promised by the previous administration that moving the Coast Guard would not unduly burden the Service financially, undermine its mission readiness, or leave it isolated at St. 

Elizabeths. Unfortunately, it appears as though our worst fears are 

coming true. 

Before this plan can move forward, the Department and the 

Service need to work out an arrangement that does not disrupt 

front-line operations or leave the Service out there on its own. Otherwise, we will be forced to take action to keep taxpayer dollars 

from being needlessly wasted and to ensure that the Coast Guard 

stands ready to do its job and protect the American people. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. We 

look forward to their testimony. 

3 

And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this morning’s oversight hearing to review the status of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s consolidation project in Washington, DC. Our 

focus is on the relocation of the U.S. Coast Guard to a new headquarters facility that is currently under construction at this particular site. 

The Coast Guard, among its diverse missions, functions as the 

lead Federal maritime law enforcement agency responsible for domestic maritime security. As such, the Service is engaged in several activities vital to homeland security, including port, waterway, 

and coastal security operations, vessel and cargo inspection, and illegal migrant and drug interdiction. 

Through these activities and more, the Service ensures our coastal resources infrastructure are protected, that our ocean, Great 

Lakes, and inland waterway commerce remains safe and stable, 

and that our maritime industries continue to provide jobs and economic opportunity. 

With the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the 

Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation and become part of the new Department of Homeland Security. Notwithstanding the normal growing pains that are to be expected with any significant Government reorganization, that movement has provided more or less mutual benefits to the Coast Guard 

and DHS. 

The Congress and the Bush administration in 2007 begin the 

joint process of designing and building a consolidated DHS headquarters facility to better leverage the capabilities of this newly 

created Department and to promote mission integration and reduce 

duplication. These objectives remain as relevant today as they were 

in 2007. 

Located at the 338 acre St. Elizabeths campus across the Anacostia River from the Capitol in Southeast Washington, when construction concludes in 2016 the new DHS’s campus will provide 41⁄2

million square feet of office space for approximately 14,000 employees and servicemembers. 

I might also add this project, which is providing hundreds of 

high-paying jobs, has been delivered on time, within budget—no 

small accomplishment. While there are some critics expressing concern about the cost associated with the Coast Guard’s relocation to 

this new facility, something that the Service fully supports and 

which the GSA insists remain on schedule, the reality is that these 

costs have always been known and accounted for. 

Moreover, DHS, GSA, and the Coast Guard are presently developing an equitable cost-sharing strategy to ensure the Coast 

Guard’s operational capabilities are not diminished. On this point, 

I agree entirely with Chairman LoBiondo. The Coast Guard should 

not have to pay more than its fair share when it relocates to its 

new facility at St. Elizabeths, and I urge the agencies to finalize 

a cost-sharing arrangement as soon as possible to ease any of our 

concerns. 

Another issue looming is that we may lose many of the cost savings and other benefits that have been realized thus far unless 

Congress itself renews its commitment to fund construction of St. 

4 

Elizabeths. Homeland Security is simply too important for the Congress to allow this project to drift off course to an uncertain future. 

No one has questioned the need to complete the consolidation. 

For that matter, no one has seriously proposed its termination. Yet, 

remarkably, the House appropriations bills do not fund this project, 

even though the end result will mean significantly higher costs, 

scheduled delays, higher unemployment, and, worst of all, a DHS 

that is less efficient, less coordinated, and less effective that it 

could be if this project was successfully completed. I hope everyone wants to maximize the value of our $1.4 billion 

investment. It will require a small additional investment to achieve 

it. Unfortunately, that investment to date will be nearly worthless 

unless we finish it. 

Again, I share the chairman’s concern for potential impacts to 

the Coast Guard’s operations budget as a result of the Service’s relocation to St. Elizabeths. But we should not lose focus on the fact 

that it is Congress that controls whether or not this consolidation 

project is completed on schedule and within budget. So to the extent that we can work together to keep this larger project on track 

for timely completion we will also attain our mutual goal of insuring a more effective U.S. Coast Guard. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my opening statement. 

I also have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to Rule 3(e) of the committee rules that Congresswoman Norton be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Welcome, Ms. Norton. Thanks you for joining us. 

Our panel of witnesses include Coast Guard Vice Admiral John 

Currier, the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support; Mr. Donald 

Bathurst, DHS Chief Administrative Officer, and the Honorable 

Robert Peck, Commissioner of Public Buildings for the GSA. 

I welcome you and thank you for being here today and for participating. 

Admiral Currier, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN P. CURRIER, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR MISSION SUPPORT, UNITED STATES 

COAST GUARD; THE HONORABLE DONALD G. BATHURST, 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. PECK, 

COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL 

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Admiral CURRIER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. Good morning, Ranking Member Larsen, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today with Mr. Donald Bathurst and Mr. Robert Peck to speak about the Coast Guard 

headquarters’ move to St. Elizabeths. 

The Coast Guard is committed to the vision of a unified Department of Homeland Security headquarters campus, and we look forward to being the first to relocate to St. Elizabeths. GSA, DHS, and 

the Coast Guard team have been working since 2005 in preparation of the Coast Guard’s move to St. Elizabeths, and we look forward with anticipation to completion of phase 1 construction in 

2013. 

5 

For the Coast Guard, St. Elizabeths represents improved working conditions for our people, as well as occupy a brand new class 

A office space. The facilities include not just Coast Guard headquarters building but also space required for personnel support. 

Those activities include a medical, dental clinic, child development 

center, cafeteria, fitness center, parking, and a Coast Guard Exchange. GSA is committed to completing all of these facilities prior 

to our move, which is scheduled to begin in April of 2013. 

I have walked this site several times, sir, and I am most impressed with both the setting, the quality, the layout. It is really 

coming together as a fantastic new location for Coast Guard headquarters. 

However, the GSA/DHS Coast Guard plan is dependent on funding. The 2012 President’s budget included funding for both DHS 

and GSA, and if not supported that would leave the project without 

adequate resources to facilitate the move or for the construction of 

key access roads. Without this funding, the Coast Guard’s move to 

St. Elizabeths will be impacted. 

Additionally, when I testified before you this summer, I spoke regarding my concern regarding operating costs of the new facility 

and our ability to fund the lease. I report to you today that DHS 

has assured the Coast Guard that they will provide the requisite 

resources to support the move and any additional recurring cost incurred with the relocation. The Secretary told the commandant 

that she is committed to ensuring the move to St. Elizabeths does 

not impact front-line Coast Guard operations. 

In addition, GSA has made a commitment to waive double occupancy rent costs for the facilities at Buzzards Point and St. Elizabeths to reduce our move-in costs in fiscal year 2013. We understand that we are moving out of a campus that will still be under 

construction, and that will create unique challenges for our workforce. Given the imminent move over the past year, my staff has 

developed a communications plan to inform our people regarding 

the move, identify questions and concerns from our workforce. 

In addition to publishing information on all-hands announcement 

on our Web site, I recently personally hosted town hall events with 

the headquarters’ workforce. Questions ranged from parking to 

shuttles to status of construction; and with the cooperation of DHS 

and GSA, I was able to reassure our workforce that their concerns 

are in fact being addressed. I intend to continue to work with DHS, 

the project staff, and GSA to assure that, despite ongoing construction, a safe, secure, and functional environment is provided for all 

of our employees. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Admiral. 

Mr. Bathurst, you are recognized. 

Mr. BATHURST. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in support of our efforts to consolidate 

the Department’s headquarters. 

I am Don Bathurst, the Chief Administrative Officer for the Department of Homeland Security; and I am pleased to be here today 

to update you on the program toward establishing the DHS consoliVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\9-23-1~1\68482.TXT JEAN
6 

dated headquarters at St. Elizabeths, with particular interest on 

the Coast Guard’s move. 

The Secretary’s first priority is to support our front-line missions, 

and in this challenging fiscal environment difficult decisions have 

to be made. The Secretary and the administration remain committed to consolidating the Department’s headquarters, as evidenced by the President’s fiscal 2011 and 2012 budget request, and 

will continue to work with Congress to move this project forward 

while maintaining front-line operations again during these challenging fiscal times. 

With bipartisan support, the phase 1 construction of the DHS 

consolidated headquarters, the Coast Guard building, started in fiscal year 2009 with appropriations to both DHS and GSA. The Recovery Act provided the project with sufficient funds to meet our 

planned fiscal 2010 requirements for the project. This project was 

on schedule and on budget with the submission of the fiscal year 

2011 budget. DHS and GSA were poised to start the critical next 

segments of the headquarters—the departmental headquarters segment and the construction of the DHS operations center. 

Bringing the component operation centers together into the DHS 

operations center will resolve deficiencies in operational management, which was noted in various lessons learned reports and Government Accountability Office reports after Hurricane Katrina. In fiscal year 2011, DHS received $77.4 million of our $287.8 mil- lion request; and GSA received $82 million for their entire nationwide new construction program, of which $30 million was allocated 

to the St. Elizabeths project. This reduction has disrupted the integrated sequencing of the project, delayed the schedule, caused a 

loss of planned construction efficiencies, and, as a result, will increase the cost of the project. 

The fiscal year 2012 request is critical to both DHS and GSA for 

on-schedule completion and occupancy of the Coast Guard. Of the 

combined $378 million requested between DHS and GSA, we need 

$132 million for Coast Guard to occupy phase 1 as planned. DHS 

would need $56 million for IT equipment, commissioning, outfitting, and the move costs. GSA needs $76 million for transportation 

and utility infrastructure. The funding requirements are co-dependent. Without both, the new 1.1 million square foot Coast Guard 

building will not be fully ready for occupancy. 

Completion of phase 1 of the St. Elizabeths campus is the first 

priority for this project, followed immediately by the construction 

of the DHS operations centers. We are committed to do this and 

to ensure the support of the front-line missions. This will allow the 

Department to maximize the taxpayer investment and resolve 

major lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and other operational experience. We urge your continued support for this critical 

investment that provides better operational efficiencies and saves 

money in the long run. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning; 

and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Peck, you are recognized. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Ms. Norton, and other members of the subcommittee. 

7 

I have a written statement which we want to submit for the 

record. 

I appreciate the opportunity to join you today to discuss our continued progress toward moving the Coast Guard headquarters to 

the consolidated DHS headquarters at the St. Elizabeths campus. 

And you can see on the screens in the room construction progress. 

That photo was taken this month. 

Congress, Coast Guard, DHS, and GSA developed and agreed 

upon the consolidation strategy for DHS in 2006, the first facility 

scheduled to come on line as a Coast Guard headquarters building 

worthy of the Coast Guard’s vital missions, enhancing its ability to 

achieve those missions and providing a building customized to meet 

its specific requirements and security needs. 

Throughout its brief history, DHS headquarters functions have 

been scattered in more than 50 locations throughout the national 

capital region. This fragmentation has resulted in operational challenges for the agency. Many of these locations are leased space, 

which is not cost effective in the long term and cannot offer the 

same degree of security or efficiency as a campus such as St. Elizabeths. Consolidation into one secure campus will facilitate communication, coordination, and cooperation across the agency and increase operational efficiency, while also providing a more cost-effective and secure workplace for the long term. Construction of the $350 million, 1.2 million square foot Coast 

Guard building built to the exact specifications of the Coast Guard 

is on budget and on schedule for completion in fiscal year 2013. It 

also represents a significant product milestone in housing the first 

3,600 employees of the total of 14,000 Homeland Security employees who eventually will be housed on the campus. 

In addition to completing the new Coast Guard headquarters 

building, GSA is in the process of renovating several St. Elizabeths 

campus buildings, constructing the security’s perimeter fence, gatehouses and utility tunnels. This construction, coupled with the 

adaptive reuse of historic buildings on the campus, will provide secure space and sufficient amenities for the Coast Guard while other 

components are constructed and development occurs in the surrounding community. 

GSA recognizes that while the House appropriation action for fiscal year 2012 so far has eliminated our proposed $218 million in 

construction funding for St. Elizabeths, the Senate mark includes 

$65 million. The Senate mark also includes $56 million in funding 

for DHS to complete their portion of the project for the Coast 

Guard move in. 

The consolidation of the DHS particularly at this time presents 

a variety of opportunities to save taxpayers’ money and make good 

long-term housing decisions. The unfortunate downturn in the construction market has given us an opportunity to achieve more with 

current funding levels. This is the right time to invest in the Nation’s infrastructure. Funding delays result in construction cost escalations and present real cost increases to taxpayers. 

Additionally, consolidation allows us to eliminate the dozens of 

leases currently housing DHS. The Government Accountability Office has long focused on the Federal Government’s overreliance on 

leasing as a high-risk concern. By converting from lease to owned 

8 

space, GSA will generate revenue for reinvestment needed for our 

public buildings infrastructure, rather than paying higher costs in 

private buildings. 

The Coast Guard headquarters alone will represent the conversion of nearly 1 million square feet of space from leased to Federal 

ownership. This conversion of lease to owned space saves taxpayers 

money in the long term. Based on the net present value analysis 

for the consolidated campus, taxpayers will save approximately 

$500 million in net present value, versus the cost of leasing the 

same amount of space over the next 30 years. 

GSA and DHS are proud to work together in delivering this essential campus. While the timeline of the remainder of the DHS 

headquarters consolidation project will have to shift due to funding 

limitations, both DHS and GSA as well as this administration remain committed to the success and completion of this project in as 

short a time as possible and at the least cost. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I know I have not answered 

all of your questions in my statement, and I look forward to our 

conversation this morning. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Admiral Currier, the Coast Guard may be required to pay the 

cost of moving personnel and equipment as well as the cost to simultaneously lease space at its current headquarters location and 

the new headquarters building at St. Elizabeths. At our subcommittee hearing in July, you estimated that this could cost the 

Service an additional $54 million over the current fiscal year’s expenditures. Is that number still accurate? 

Admiral CURRIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

During the July hearing when I testified to that figure, that was 

our best estimate at the time. We have been engaged, fully engaged 

in partnership with DHS and GSA. We worked to achieve better 

fidelity in the figures. We have arrived in an arrangement with 

GSA and DHS. Their double occupancy will not be charged, which 

was a large portion of that $54 million. So I am pleased to say that 

as we continue to work toward our move that we have materially 

reduced that $54 million figure, and we continue to work to reduce 

it even further. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, that is good news, but we would sure like 

to have a hard number or close to a hard number. And, of course, 

timing is of importance here. 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The current headquarters lease costs about $36 

million annually. The subcommittee understands that the new facility will cost the Service $53 million a year, about a 42-percent 

increase in rent. Do you feel those numbers are accurate? 

Admiral CURRIER. Sir, they continue to be evolved. I hesitate to 

give you a number at this point. And I am not trying to be evasive, 

but we continue to work toward reducing those numbers. 

But the offset on this is there is an enhanced footprint for us. 

We have got a larger child care facility. We have better IT. We are 

going have a more secure campus that we are not on and quite vulnerable today. 

9 

So I am not trying to be evasive, and I can provide a figure for 

the record as we mature it. We are working closely in partnership 

with the other agencies to reduce that to the max extent. 

I guess the overarching theme, sir, is that the Commandant and 

the Secretary and everybody involved is committed to the fact that 

whatever costs are incurred here will not affect Coast Guard frontline operations. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, might I add? 

The comparison of current lease costs to the lease costs that GSA 

will charge to the Coast Guard and DHS at the site are comprised—the gap is comprised of a couple factors. 

One, the building that we are building for the Coast Guard is 

custom designed for it. The building they lease is not. The building 

that we are building is a first-class building designed for the operations of the Coast Guard. The current leased location is not. 

One of the current lease locations is in the 100-year flood plain. 

We are not sure we would be able to renew the lease at that location. But, if we do, the building, in any event, both for the flood 

plain issues and the fact that the building is old and needs a lot 

of work, will require extensive renovation; and that would increase 

the lease costs at the current lease location, too. 

So the gap that the current lease costs does not quite reflect 

what we think the costs would be in the future, even were we to 

lease. 

And then, finally, as I noted in my testimony, leasing space in 

the long run for the Government, as this committee has always reminded us, is a bad fiscal deal for the taxpayers. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Bathurst, Admiral Currier just made a statement that Secretary Napolitano’s commitment to move forward is 

unwavering, and I would just like a clarification. 

On September the 8th, the Secretary was reported in the press 

to have stated that she would prefer to spend her limited dollars 

on front-line operations, rather than the St. Elizabeths project. She 

also indicated that she was reexamining moving the Coast Guard 

headquarters out there. Was this press account accurate? 

Mr. BATHURST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t believe the press account was completely accurate. I think 

it was taken out of context. 

As I said in my testimony, there were very, very difficult decisions have to be made in these trying fiscal times. Front-line mission has got to be supported. We have got to support our men and 

women on the pointy end of the spear. 

That said, the support activities, the buildings, and the like are 

a large cost of any organization; and we have got to be very prudent as how we move forward with those. 

The Secretary was really discussing the environment that we are 

in, in that our request in 2011 had been reduced drastically in the 

2011 continuing resolution; and at the time she made that statement the House appropriations committee mark for the project was 

zero. And, in that, that puts the project at risk. And with those 

marks, the issue was we are not going to take money out of the 

front-line mission to make up those differences. We are going to go 

have to live within the means that the project is appropriated, 

10 

which will then impact the cost and schedule long term on the 

project. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We are trying to get some clarity, so I don’t—I 

really want to make sure you don’t think I am trying to nitpick at 

you here. But there is a lot of money at stake. And I note in your 

testimony that it did not—unless I missed it—include any assurances that the Department is doing everything it can to ensure the 

move to St. Elizabeths will have no adverse affect on the impact 

of Coast Guard front-line operations. Was that maybe just an omission or—— 

Mr. BATHURST. I think, as Admiral Currier said, we are working 

with the Coast Guard on their operational support costs. It is our 

commitment that the Coast Guard and any other occupants of the 

headquarters space, as we continue to build out the campus and 

bring other components there, will only pay their fair share. We 

are committed to that. 

Issues of outfitting the space, the move costs for the Coast Guard 

are all being borne by the project office. Those are not costs that 

the Coast Guard has to come up with. They only need to pay their 

occupancy costs once they are there. 

Again, we are looking at what the current costs are, which there 

are a lot of different elements to that, into a consolidated operating 

support cost that will be at the consolidated headquarters location. 

And as that analysis is still, as Admiral Currier said, being refined, 

we believe that the current costs and the future costs will be comparable. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So are you prepared to give us that assurance 

now? 

Mr. BATHURST. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, without any hesitation. 

I will be finished here in just a minute, Rick. 

When do you expect an agreement on cost sharing between the 

Coast Guard and DHS and GSA? 

Mr. BATHURST. Well, the analysis is ongoing. Certainly we will 

have, I believe, good numbers with the President’s budget request 

that will come up here in the next 5 months. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to yield my time to Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me his time, 

and I thank the chairman for allowing me to appear at this subcommittee of which I am not a member, although I am a member 

of the full committee. 

Admiral Currier, do you have any reluctance about being the 

first to move to this site? Do you believe that others have to be on 

this site in order for the Coast Guard of the United States to feel 

that it can move to the site? 

Admiral CURRIER. No, ma’am. Thank you for that question. We 

have no reluctance. We are quite enthusiastic. We see this move as 

very beneficial to our operational efficiency, to our habitability concerns for our people. We are not wavering at all in our commitment 

to move. We are not concerned about being first. We have been 

first in the planning since day one, and we are very enthusiastic 

about making this move over to St. Elizabeths. 

11 

Ms. NORTON. Well, actually I am not surprised. You are the 

United States Coast Guard. I couldn’t believe that the United 

States Coast Guard would be reluctant or wouldn’t want to be the 

first to move to a new site, not our United States Coast Guard. And 

it seems to me quite appropriate that the Coast Guard lead the 

way, as the Coast Guard so often has led the way in our country. 

I certainly thank you for all you did in Hurricane Katrina, because you certainly saved the day there. 

I note that the Coast Guard is leading by example. The Commandant tells me that he has already moved his residents to be 

closer to this new facility. Is that not the case? 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, ma’am. We were able to enter into an 

agreement with the Air Force to actually move the top four people 

in Coast Guard headquarters over to Bolling Air Force Base, which 

is quite a cost avoidance for us. We were able to save some money 

doing that. It clearly is probably a 5- to 10-minute commute to the 

new facility. So it is a win, win for everyone. 

Ms. NORTON. Admiral Currier, you are going to be—except for 

the Secretary herself who will be located here, of the 22 agencies 

that are a part of Homeland Security Department, the Coast Guard 

gets to be the lead agency located there and one of the few agencies 

that can be located right there on the headquarters site. You indicated in a publication called the Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, that, first and most important, the Federal Government response organizations must be collocated and strengthened 

to manage catastrophes in a new management operations center. 

Do you expect that the Coast Guard headquarters—the location of 

the Coast Guard headquarters as part of a national operations center will improve the operations of the Coast Guard itself as an entity and within the Department of Homeland Security? 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, ma’am. I think that is clearly the case. 

What we have seen over the past year even with our response 

to the Haitian earthquake, response to the Deepwater Horizon spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico is that increasingly these complex responses 

involve whole of Government. For us to be able to, as the Secretary 

has articulated, be in one location building a DHS culture and actually being collocated as we coordinate the response from DHS I 

think is a huge benefit and clearly is the way forward for us. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Bathurst, I served on the special Homeland Security Committee when it was a special committee. I was on the 

committee when it became a permanent committee. The only reason I am not on it now is because the number of committees was 

reduced to two. The Department was under constant criticism from 

the committee, and much of that criticism really had to do with the 

failure of the Department to become a coherent, integrated organization. Do you believe that the DHS complex, beginning, of course, 

with the Coast Guard but involving the Secretary and headquarters operations as well, will reduce that criticism of the agency 

as essentially the same sprawling bunch of 22 agencies it was before Congress made the fateful decision to make one Department 

of these agencies? 

Mr. BATHURST. Yes, the short answer. That is really the focus of 

the project, is to bring the departmental headquarters with all of 

12 

the component headquarters together around a consolidated operations center. 

Again, Coast Guard is first to move over. They have had a longstanding need for consolidation of their headquarters, and the St. 

Elizabeths site was perfect for that with the continuation of the 

build-out of the DHS consolidated operations centers and the departmental headquarters. That is why we had a very aggressive integrated construction schedule and the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 

requests were to start the work on the operations center and the 

secretarial offices and the departmental headquarters. 

With the reductions in the funding for fiscal year 2011 in the CR 

and with the uncertainty of fiscal year 2012, it is impacting out 

ability to bring the Secretary’s office and to build out the consolidated operations center. But when we get those done I think, as 

Admiral Currier said, it will have a significant, positive impact on 

our operational capabilities and coordination. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I understand what you are saying, Mr. Bathurst. This was a $3.4 billion building. I must say I give great credit 

to GSA for keeping on time. I don’t know how you have been able 

to do it so far. We did get a big tranche of money out in the beginning which has allowed you to move forward. 

But I think the Coast Guard has every reason to be concerned. 

Of course, Coast Guard and, for that matter, none of us on this podium controls what Congress in fact appropriates. Is there enough 

money appropriated in the Senate appropriation to complete this 

building and to move the DHS and the GSA part of it, since both 

have been funded forward as anticipated? 

Mr. BATHURST. The combined President’s request was $377 million in fiscal year 2012. That included $159 million for DHS and 

$218 million for GSA. Of that total, we need $132 million to complete the Coast Guard’s occupancy in accordance with the schedule 

and all agreements for transportation. We currently have a mark 

in the Senate for DHS at $56 million and a subcommittee mark of 

$65 million for all of GSA’s construction programs. It is uncertain, 

but, right now, those marks don’t rise to the level that we had 

planned for. 

You mention how we have been able to keep this project on 

track; and GSA, I agree, has done a phenomenal job of coordinating 

all the contracts and the trades. We will find a way to keep this 

project moving forward. However, we will not be able to keep to the 

schedule, and some impacts on transportation can be expected. And 

as the committee has said, there are much concerns about transportation. And this is a very, very delicate and intricate dance that 

we are doing with the neighborhood and the like. 

We believe that with the President’s request we can bring this 

project forward, deliver the first phase, and meet the transportation needs. If there is something less that that, there is going to 

be impacts on the transportation side, but we will do all we can to 

bring the project forward as close to the schedule requirements as 

we can. 

Ms. NORTON. I am over time, so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

go again if you are going to have a second round. 

13 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Bathurst, is the decision to move the Coast 

Guard headquarters to St. Elizabeths under review by the Department? 

Mr. BATHURST. No, sir. We are looking at the entire phasing of 

the project for phase 2 and phase 3 because of the impacts of the 

fiscal year 2011 mark and the uncertainty of 2012. We are going 

back—the original strategy for the project was really one that was 

a little bit different than most Federal construction, where normally the idea is you get all the money you need to deliver everything that you need all at one time. Because of the complexity of 

this project, and we looked at it and felt that, working with GSA, 

we developed a strategy for an integrated construction schedule, 

not unlike you do in the private sector, and you only draw the 

money that you need at the time that you need it. What that has 

led us to, though, here is where we have had a reduction in that 

funding stream. It has impacted those original plans. 

So we are going back to relook at the strategy to go back to those 

deliverable segments into the future. And that is going to impact 

future occupancies, but the idea is we want to try to bring those 

on as quickly as fiscally allowable. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Landry, do you have questions? 

Mr. LANDRY. Oh, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Admiral, thank you for your service. The Coast Guard is 

one of my favorite agencies. Of course, it is not without some selfish motivation. I fish offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. If I ever get 

stranded, always remember my kind comments, please. 

Mr. Peck, I reviewed some of these photos of the new Coast 

Guard headquarters. That is a pretty interesting design dig you all 

have made on the side of that hill. What is the elevation change 

of the construction site? 

Mr. PECK. Depends on where we measure. From the Anacostia 

Metro station to the top of the hill, 110 feet. That is not the elevation of the building itself, though, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Why did you have to dig the whole hillside up? 

Mr. PECK. I think the short answer is that the St. Elizabeths 

campus, while it is a large campus, is both—has a number of historic buildings and is itself an historic landscape. So when the master planning was done at the project we did all we could to make 

reuse of the historic buildings and to fit in new construction where 

we could. In this case, a building as large as the Coast Guard headquarters had—what was the largest open site we could use happened to be on a hillside. 

Mr. LANDRY. So how much did that site work cost? 

Mr. PECK. That is a—I don’t—I have various numbers for excavation. If you want me to isolate it to the Coast Guard building 

itself, I will submit that for the record. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. Do you have an idea? Five, ten million dollars? 

Mr. PECK. The cost of excavation—and I am being advised by Mr. 

Ebadi, who, in answer to Ms. Norton, is probably the one single 

reason why from the GSA on this project is on time and budget. 

We also have a good partnership with DHS. The cost of excavation 

for this building is about $29 million, and that is the cost of hauling the fill out, also. 

Mr. LANDRY. So it was GSA’s decision to dig the hillside up? 

14 

Mr. PECK. It was a decision made when the master plan was created and agreed upon in 2006. 

Mr. LANDRY. And the master plan, the decision to dig the whole hillside up at the cost of $26 million or better was made by you all 

to protect some view? 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. The building—first of all, there was—in order 

to get the building on the site, any building requires excavation. 

Mr. LANDRY. I understand. But not moving a whole hill. What 

did ya’ll do with all the dirt? 

Mr. PECK. It would be really hard to build—this was a pretty 

steep slope. 

Mr. LANDRY. You normally don’t build on a pretty steep slope. I 

am trying to understand. What did ya’ll do with all the dirt? 

Mr. PECK. A lot had to be hauled out of the site. Some of it was 

contaminated and had to be hauled away. 

Mr. LANDRY. It was contaminated? 

Mr. PECK. On most construction sites, some of it, yes, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. We could have used that on the coast, Mr. Chairman. It was a lot of dirt. 

Mr. PECK. We didn’t have to take it that far, Mr. Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. And so couldn’t we have saved the taxpayers some 

money by moving it a little further on top of the hill where we 

didn’t have to excavate the whole hill? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Landry, we were trying to put on this site several 

million square feet of office space. To utilize this site as a consolidated campus, some part of it would have to occupy this part of the 

site, which would require excavation. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, then who picked the site? 

Mr. PECK. That was before my time in the General Services Administration. But in an effort to find a site for the Department’s 

headquarters, which began when the Department was established, 

we were looking for a central location in the national capital region. This was a piece of large land that was already owned by the 

Federal Government, which means we saved a considerable 

amount of money by not having to go out and acquire a site. 

Mr. LANDRY. We couldn’t have put it further up on top of the hill. 

Is that impossible? We couldn’t put it up there by that I guess that 

hospital up there? 

Mr. PECK. Well, we don’t have a site plan up, but I think you 

will be able to see, if we show you the entire site plan, that, but 

for sloping areas of this site, I don’t believe there would be an area 

in which you could fit in a building of this size unless we were to 

demolish a good number of the historic buildings. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Currier, you say—you express a concern with which I 

am in complete sympathy. One of the key concerns expressed by 

our employees is transportation due to reduced access to nearby 

parking as compared to other current locations. I think the chairman raised this same concern, and I wish you would speak to it. 

Mr. Peck, if the infrastructure isn’t perfectly in place at the time 

the building is completed and all of the movement has taken place 

to get the employees there, would there be transportation from 

15 

public—would there—of course, we always encourage people in the 

Federal Government to use public transportation. Would there be 

shuttle transportation provided? Would there be any limits on providing such transportation as needed? How much parking will be 

on the site? 

Mr. PECK. We will have for the—to start with the last question, 

we will have on the site for the use of the Coast Guard approximately 900 parking spaces in the structured parking garage, which 

is being built and which is on the far right-hand side of the photo 

that you see on the screen. 

To get to that parking, we do need to complete an access road 

through First Sterling and when it parallels the 295 freeway. If we 

do get the funding, even the mark we got in the Senate, which is 

less than we requested, we can complete that access road on time 

for the building’s occupancy. 

The Anacostia Metro station is three-quarters of a mile from this 

building, which is closer than the current Maiden leased location 

that the Coast Guard—closer by a quarter of a mile than the current leased location of the Coast Guard is to a Metro station. 

One thing, if I may add, although I know it sometimes sounds 

counterintuitive, the lack of funding and the hiatus in funding on 

the project in the end costs more. The fact that we got no funding 

in fiscal year 2011 for that project has already caused us to take 

$30 million that we would have spent on other projects to redesign 

and reposition utilities for the campus so that when the Coast 

Guard building is opened and its operation center opens we can actually have a functioning building. Because all those utility tunnels 

and conduits were going to go in various different places, it was 

going to be less expensive in the long run to continue straight on 

to phase 2. We have been able to move funds around so that the 

building will be functional when it opens. 

Finally, to answer your question, the Department of Homeland 

Security, under normal procedures, would fund the shuttle service 

to the Metro station; and they do intend to do that. In any event, 

we will be funding a shuttle to the Metro station, whether or not 

we have the access road complete at that time. 

Ms. NORTON. Admiral Currier, we have some information that 

there has been some flooding in the buildings that house the 

present headquarters. Would you describe the condition of your 

present headquarters building? 

Admiral CURRIER. The present headquarters building—well, the 

site contains two buildings—what we call the Jemal building and 

the Transpoint building—our headquarters is very low to the river, 

very close to the level of the river. When there are tidal surges as 

a result of hurricanes or serious storms, we occasionally get flooding inside the building. 

We had near-catastrophic flooding a few years back when we discovered that the building’s critical infrastructure, including generators and power lines, computer lines, were actually in the subbasement, were flooded and rendered the headquarters inoperative 

for some period of time. Subsequently, money has been spent to 

harden that site, but it is still barely adequate for our current function. 

16 

So that is the reason, ma’am, as I stated before, that we are truly 

looking forward to the move to a more functional, protected headquarters. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, Mr. Peck, the headquarters building of the 

Coast Guard now is a leased building, is that not the case? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am, the two buildings. 

Ms. NORTON. And those funds go to, of course, the owner of those 

buildings. Now, as I understand it, the Coast Guard will pay rent, 

as it were, to the Federal buildings fund. How will the Coast Guard 

benefit from these funds which go to the Federal buildings fund 

rather than to the lessor? 

Mr. PECK. Well, first of all, of course, even now the Federal cost 

of borrowing is less than a private-sector owner’s is. But the shortest answer is that when money comes in to the Federal buildings 

fund it is essentially a revolving fund, and we use the money to 

maintain and upgrade our buildings. Particularly over a long period of time, almost any investment study shows we, as stewards 

of the taxpayers’ dollars, end up better with an owned building in 

which we can plow the proceeds from the rent back into our building in the infrastructure than if it goes out to private-sector tenants. Particularly when we have a long-term function that we don’t 

need to move, we don’t intend to move out of, we don’t need the 

flexibility that you get from being in a lease that you might leave 

at a couple of years. 

One other thing I would just note is that the building is being 

built at least to a LEED gold standard. It will be more energy efficient. 

And I want to make two commitments to the Coast Guard, one 

we are going to make to all Federal tenants, which is, if we realize 

the energy savings that we hope we will see in running this building and having a separate co-generation plant on the site we will 

share those savings with the tenant. That is number one. 

Number two, if I may take a moment, I want to reiterate in public what Admiral Currier said. We have agreed on and committed 

to that the Coast Guard—neither the Coast Guard nor DHS will 

be responsible for any double rent that might be incurred by the 

fact that our leases on the current buildings will still be running 

at the time that the Coast Guard moves to St. Elizabeths. GSA will 

bear that liability. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Peck, is there any chance—could I have one 

more question? Is there any chance that this building could become 

a white elephant and what would be the effect of leaving this building uninhabited? 

Mr. PECK. We would still bear the cost of maintaining and securing an empty building. Aside from the embarrassment factor, there 

is the fact that the Coast Guard would continue to operate in a 

building that is less than optimal. As I say, we would have the expense of maintaining a significant investment. Because we are certainly not going—we would have to mothball the building, and 

there are costs to that. We would have to run utilities, and we 

would have to secure it. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen. 

17 

Mr. LARSEN. Admiral Currier, it is my prior understanding that 

all personal presently locate at the time at the two Buzzard Points 

buildings would be relocated, but now I understand that some nonheadquarter functions, such as the Marine safety center, does not 

intend to move to the new headquarters. When was that decision 

made? And the broader question, what elements and how many 

personnel will not be moving to St. Elizabeths? 

Admiral CURRIER. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

In the normal administration of the Coast Guard, we have what 

we call modernization. I think you have seen the results of that in 

some of our acquisition activities and others. 

As part of this modernization there was some reorganization. 

The civilian personnel entity, what we call Coast Guard 121, is a 

staff element of about 80 people, is being relocated to a separate 

command inside the beltway, but they will no longer be a headquarters element. They will be part of this separate personnel support command that exists. 

And the Marine safety center, as you noted, is not a headquarters function, and their rent costs is actually part our base. 

They will be relocated as well. We don’t want to collocate them at 

headquarters at St. E’s. 

Those are two very minor in the big-picture adjustments to our 

staffs, one of which was a reorganization; the other one is a relocation of a non-headquarters element. 

Mr. LARSEN. And so the Coast Guard has budgeted for the cost 

of the lease space, continue to lease space at the Buzzards Point 

for the Marine safety center and for the leased costs for moving the 

80 or so folks? 

Admiral CURRIER. No, sir. There are two groups of 80 people. 

Both will be relocated, none will be at Buzzards Point, and their 

rent costs are actually in our base. 

Mr. LARSEN. They are in your base. 

Admiral CURRIER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, great. That is good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Admiral Currier and Mr. Bathurst, there were 

what I think is some critical information and numbers and information for the subcommittee to be able to better understand this. 

You explained how you are working through this. Tell us when we 

can expect to be able to hear from you on some hard numbers. We 

are a little hesitant to just leave it open ended, because when we 

do those things then we take a blink and we are 6 months later. 

Mr. BATHURST. Most of those numbers really are—would be impacted in the next budget submission from the White House, and 

we are working right now to develop that information. So it is premature for to us talk about the numbers, but we will definitely 

have them with the budget request in February. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. In when? 

Mr. BATHURST. With the President’s budget request. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Could we ask for a December 1st update? 

Mr. BATHURST. I believe we can give you a status report of where 

we stand with the analysis, but I don’t think we will be able to actually discuss any specific numbers. But we can let you know 

where we are moving and moving toward. 

18 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, all of these—I think we were able to shed 

a lot of light on it today, but, you know, a lot depends on what is 

going to happen in the next month or two, of course, with continuing resolution, omnibus or how we move forward. Even if we 

went with a full Senate number that you have, it still looks like 

there is $10 million, $12 million short on how you do this. So as 

we move forward I would—I think it would be preferable, if you 

have the information, can share it with the subcommittee informally. But, depending on how it goes, we will just have to decide 

whether we call another formal hearing. 

Mr. Peck. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On thing I just wanted to clarify. While we had asked for $76 

million in fiscal 2012 and the Senate mark is $65 million, we have 

already taken a look; and it wouldn’t be the first time that we had 

to be agile to bend a building project to the amount of money we 

have. We are confident that we will do what we need to do within 

that mark as well to get the building open on time in 2013. But 

I also would be happy to give the—participate with DHS in giving 

you an update on whatever numbers we have on December 1st. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Sure. Well, we are hopeful that we can get some 

good numbers, but the task that is facing the Congress and the 

country by the end of the year with the debt limit, supercommittee, 

and all that is going into this, if those numbers slip substantially 

we have to be able to figure out what that means and what the implications are and try to put our brains together on this. 

So everybody good here now? 

Thank you. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

19 


Insert offset folio 7 here 68482.007
20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 68482.008
21 


Insert offset folio 9 here 68482.009
22 


Insert offset folio 10 here 68482.010
23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 68482.011
24 


Insert offset folio 12 here 68482.012
25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 68482.013
26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 68482.014
27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 68482.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 68482.016
29 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 17 here 68482.017