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

22–226 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–461 

AVOIDING DUPLICATION: AN EXAMINATION OF 

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S PROPOSAL TO 

CONSTRUCT A NEW DIPLOMATIC SECURITY 

TRAINING FACILITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 28, 2015 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

DAVID S. LUCKEY, Director of Homeland Security 

JOSKE J. BAUTISTA, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT H. BRADLEY II, Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 13 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 15 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 31 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 33 

WITNESS 

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015 

Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 4 

David Mader, Acting Deputy Director for Management, and Controller, Office 

of Federal Financial Management, U.S. Office of Management and Budget .. 6 

Connie L. Patrick, Director, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 7 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Mader, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Patrick, Connie L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Starr, Gregory B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX 

Statement submitted for the Record from Congressman Earl L. ‘‘Buddy’’ 

Carter .................................................................................................................... 47 

(1) 

AVOIDING DUPLICATION: AN EXAMINATION 

OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S PROPOSAL 

TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DIPLOMATIC 

SECURITY TRAINING FACILITY 

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Ernst, Carper, McCaskill, 

and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to welcome the witnesses. We appreciate you taking the 

time and your testimony. Looking forward to hearing it. 

In today’s hearing, we will examine the decision to approve the 

State Department’s plan to construct the Foreign Affairs Security 

Training Center at Fort Pickett Army National Guard Base in 

Blackstone, Virginia. We would like to learn why this half-billiondollar project was greenlighted even though a more cost-effective 

alternative was available by expanding the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), training complex in Glynco, Georgia. 

Since 1993, the State Department has been attempting to consolidate 19 diplomatic security training facilities to provide necessary soft and hard skills training to personnel assigned to highthreat, high-risk environments. In December 2012, the State Department presented the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

with a full master plan, which included construction costs for all 

services at a proposed cost to the taxpayer of $950 million. After 

consolidating several facilities in the plan, State reduced its proposal to $907 million. At OMB’s request, FLETC presented a $273 million full-service 

alternative that leveraged existing facilities used to train law enforcement personnel from over 90 Federal agencies, including 

State’s own diplomatic security agents. Despite the significant price 

difference and congressional opposition, on April 17, 2014, OMB 

approved a pared down version of State’s plan, a $461 million pro-
2 

posal that removed all classroom-based soft skills security training, 

the dormitory complex, and the cafeteria. 

The need to provide appropriate training to State personnel is of 

the utmost national importance. However, after examining OMB’s 

analysis, this Committee discovered that OMB auditors recommended the administration construct State’s training center at 

FLETC in Glynco, Georgia. According to OMB’s own cost analysis, 

the FLETC proposal represented immediate savings of $188 million 

and an estimated $812 million savings over 10 years. 

Additionally, OMB concluded there were other benefits to the 

FLETC option over the State Department proposal, including timing of construction and foreign affairs counter threat training, and 

life support services. Ultimately, however, the Director of OMB selected State’s plan, even though it is more expensive and has less 

capabilities. 

In today’s budgetary environment, OMB’s fiscal carelessness 

demonstrates the need to conduct stringent oversight over the administration’s project decisions to ensure taxpayers’ money is not 

wasted in duplication. By constructing a facility only for hands-on 

security training, State failed to achieve its main objective: consolidation. Not only will State overspend hundreds of millions of dollars building, operating, and maintaining a new facility at Fort 

Pickett, but it will also have to contract and lease other facilities 

to provide soft skills training components. 

In today’s hearing, witnesses will shed light on OMB’s approval 

process, attempt to explain why State needs its own training facility when taxpayers already pay to maintain similar facilities, and 

describe what efforts FLETC officials undertook to accommodate 

State requirements. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward to the testimony. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Everyone, welcome. Good to see you all. Thanks for joining us 

today. 

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, holding the hearing on the process 

used to select Fort Pickett in Virginia as the site for a new State 

Department training facility. 

For over 5 years, the Department of State has worked to identify 

a new consolidated location to train diplomatic security special 

agents. This Committee certainly understands the importance of 

this kind of endeavor. Consolidating agency facilities with the same 

or similar missions can bring a number of financial and other benefits. 

That is why I continue to support the consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters at St. Elizabeth’s. The St. Elizabeth’s project is good for the Department of 

Homeland Security and for its employees, and ultimately, it is good 

for taxpayers. In fact, completing St. Elizabeth’s will save, we are 

told by the General Services Administration (GSA), will save over 

a billion dollars during the course of the next 30 years. In addition, 

it has the potential to improve morale at the Department of Home-
3 

land Security, and enable the men and women who do work there 

to work more effectively. 

That brings me to two basic questions that I hope we can at least 

try to answer here today. The first, is Fort Pickett a good option 

for the State Department? And, second, is it a good option for taxpayers? 

The State Department currently manages operational training at 

11 separate facilities. I am told that most experts agree that a consolidated training site for the Department of State is warranted, 

but from what I understand, the site selection process that has 

been used has raised a number of questions. It is my hope that our 

witnesses today, the three of you, will be able to shed some muchneeded light on the selection process. We also need to better understand exactly what type of training the State Department needs 

and what the existing Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

in Glynco, Georgia, can offer. 

I am pleased that Director Connie Patrick is here today to talk 

about the training she oversees at the center. She has invited me 

to come there before, and I am going to have to take you up on that 

offer here before long. 

I also look forward to hearing from OMB—I think we look forward to hearing from OMB today about their role in the selection 

process. 

In closing, I would just like to tell you a quick story, sort of a 

personal story that I think is timely for today. I stepped down as 

Governor in 2001. I needed to buy a car, and I took my son, Christopher, who was 12 years old, and I said, let us go buy a car. And 

we went out that day, Mr. Chairman, and we drove Porsches, Corvettes, Mustangs, and I bought a Chrysler Town and Country 

minivan. He said it was bait and switch. [Laughter.] 

And yesterday, as I was driving in my 2001 Chrysler Town and 

Country minivan across the Bay Bridge, coming here from southern Delaware, the odometer went over 400,000 miles. And, I tell 

that story that I do not like to waste my money, and as Governor, 

I did not want to waste taxpayers’ money in Delaware, and I certainly do not want to waste money here today. I like to get our 

money’s worth for the dollars that I spend and for the taxpayers, 

and I hope at the end that we can do that here, as well. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper, and I will go on 

the record. I am a big fan of minivans. [Laughter.] 

At least a dozen. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will all rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. STARR. I do. 

Mr. MADER. I do. 

Ms. PATRICK. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Our first witness is Gregory Starr. Mr. Starr is the Assistant 

Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security (DS). In this capacity, 

Mr. Starr is in charge of the security and law enforcement arm of 
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Starr appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

the State Department. Previously, Mr. Starr served as the United 

Nations Under Secretary General for Safety and Security. Mr. 

Starr. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY B. STARR,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Mr. STARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, 

Senators. This is a great opportunity for us to discuss the Department’s plan for a Foreign Affairs Security Training Center 

(FASTC) at Fort Pickett. 

As you know, keeping U.S. personnel overseas safe is a dynamic 

process and we work constantly to improve our security training 

practices. Improved training was a key finding of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB), and both the Management Review Panel and the Best Practices Panel further recommended that 

the Department establish a consolidated training facility within a 

reasonable distance to Washington, D.C. 

Since then, major attacks on State Department facilities and personnel in Herat, Afghanistan, Erbil, Iraq, plus the need for evacuations from Libya and Yemen have only highlighted the danger our 

employees face while fulfilling our diplomatic responsibilities 

abroad. Officers and family members continue to work and reside 

in Cairo, Amman, Nairobi, Khartoum, and many other cities with 

significant security concerns. All deserve enhanced pre-deployment 

security training to prepare for the work they do and where they 

live in these challenging environments. 

The Department had initiated efforts to combine multiple hard 

skills security training venues into one consolidated site even prior 

to the Benghazi recommendations. In 2009 and 2010, the Department and the General Services Administration invested significant 

time and effort to review over 70 properties before selecting the site 

Fort Pickett as the preferred site for FASTC, the training center. 

While originally envisioned as a hard skills training venue only, 

the 2011 master plan looked to collocate all security training, hard 

and soft skills, at one site. 

However, when the costs for that proposal were estimated at over 

$900 million, we determined that the collocation of soft skills security training was fiscally unsupportable, and in early 2013 directed 

that the proposal be altered for hard skills security training only, 

the need versus the want. This reduced the cost to $461 million, 

which was further refined to $413 million by GSA. 

The hard skills security training we provide is for the entire U.S. 

Government’s civilian community serving overseas. The current 

Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) course will be required 

training for all Foreign Service personnel, with refresher training 

every 5 years. Specialized high-threat operational training for all 

of our 2,000 DS agents was a Benghazi ARB recommendation accepted and embraced by the Secretary. This involves an initial 10- 

week course and recurring skills refresher training, including 

heavy weapons instructions and interoperability training with the 

Marine Corps Embassy Security Guard Units based in Quantico. 
5 

Diplomatic security also trains foreign police and security elements for the Anti-Terrorism Assistance program as well as foreign 

security elements charged with protecting our diplomatic facilities 

abroad as part of our enhanced training program. We have extensive training programs for our locally employed staff, including 

driving courses, investigative classes, and comprehensive bodyguard modules. 

The requirements for this training center are clearly stated. 

Proximity to Washington, DC, has always been a priority for us, for 

two reasons. First, D.C. is the natural hub for Department of State 

personnel preparing to go overseas, and having a closer training facility will cut down travel costs, provide training opportunities to 

family members, and improve logistics. 

More importantly, staying in the Mid-Atlantic region allows us to 

train with our critical security partners, especially the United 

States Marine Corps (USMC). Marine security guards, Marine 

Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams, and Marine Security Augmentation Units are the primary Department of Defense (DOD) crisis response elements for diplomatic security abroad. This collaboration is essential for the security of U.S. personnel, as we have 

seen in Libya, Yemen, and the Central African Republic. 

Consolidation increases the effectiveness by training itself, by allowing students to seamlessly transfer from one real world scenario 

to another. Threats often emerge quickly and require immediate 

action to counter, and having a dedicated and consolidated Department of State training center will provide the flexibility necessary 

to immediately train for emerging threats and major events. 

Our specialized training for high-threat environments includes 

heavy weapons, explosives demonstrations, armored vehicle driving, helicopter landings, and extensive night training, over 175 

nights per year. Finding a single site that can accommodate all of 

these elements without disrupting the security of the surrounding 

area has been challenging. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has its strong 

core competencies in training Federal law enforcement agencies, 

which is why we send our own agents there for basic investigative 

training. But with FASTC, we are not solely training for law enforcement. We are preparing diplomatic security agents for service 

at critical threat posts overseas, which requires an extremely specific skill set, working much more with DOD partners than our domestic law enforcement partners. We are training U.S. Government 

personnel, their families, and foreign security elements for increasingly hazardous environments. 

To close, sir, I would say we examined over 70 sites and Fort 

Pickett is the only one that meets all of our requirements. We have 

conducted exhaustive environmental and fiscal studies on the 

project and the capabilities planned for FASTC at Fort Pickett are 

essential. 

While the Department understood OMB’s direction to conduct additional due diligence with FLETC, this extra effort has delayed establishing FASTC for a year. Working closely with GSA, this critically important project will be brought in on time and on budget. 

The Department remains committed to an open and transparent 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mader appears in the Appendix on page 40. 

process with FASTC, and I look forward to answering any questions you have on this. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Starr. 

Our next witness is David Mader. Mr. Mader currently serves as 

the Acting Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget and Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management within OMB. Prior to this position, Mr. Mader 

served as Senior Vice President for Strategy and Organization at 

Booz Allen Hamilton. Mr. Mader. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MADER,1 ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

FOR MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, and distinguished Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on a topic that is critical to the safety and 

security of our men and women who serve overseas. 

OMB shares the Committee’s interest in ensuring the best use of 

taxpayer funds to meet U.S. Government needs and ensure the 

safety and security of U.S. citizens and personnel overseas in a 

world that faces many threats. Throughout this process, particularly in the fall of 2013, OMB’s role in reviewing the State Department’s proposal for a new Diplomatic Security Training Facility 

was to perform due diligence by ensuring that the State Department thoroughly considered alternatives to Fort Pickett, Virginia, 

as the site selected for the FASTC. 

As part of OMB’s effort to encourage the State Department to 

consider alternatives to the new construction, OMB facilitated 

analysis of both Fort Pickett and DHS’s FLETC facility. OMB reviewed proposals submitted by both the State Department and 

FLETC and coordinated interagency efforts to achieve a common 

understanding of the capabilities and requirements of each of the 

proposed facilities. 

In addition, OMB facilitated further discussions between the 

State Department and FLETC concerning whether FLETC could 

provide the full suite of training courses and synergies that the 

State Department was seeking to fulfill in the diplomatic personnel 

security training area. This was coupled with an effort by OMB to 

have the State Department closely review its cost estimates for the 

construction of the facility. Even prior to this review, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security was reevaluating its 

plans in order to focus on hard skills training, descoping the original proposal from over $900 million to $413 million that would 

focus on hard skills training. 

While OMB staff closely analyzed the data received from the 

State Department and from FLETC, OMB’s role was not to secondguess diplomatic security requirements. The expertise of this function clearly resides with the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. OMB ultimately relied on the State Department’s 

unique understanding of diplomatic missions abroad to give appro-
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Patrick appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

priate weight to the consideration of several factors, including, one, 

the location of the facility and the interagency synergies; two, the 

timing of the construction and the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat 

Training; three, access to facilities and course scheduling; and four, 

overall training requirements and support services. 

Part of OMB’s role was to ensure that these factors were analyzed and appropriately considered. In the end, however, OMB relied on State Department’s expertise on security issues to determine which facility best met its diplomatic security needs and provided the proper balance between operational needs and cost. 

The administration supports locating this facility at Fort Pickett, 

as reflected in the administration’s request for $99 million for 

FASTC funding in Fiscal Year 2016. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Mader. 

Our final witness is Connie Patrick. Ms. Patrick is the Director 

of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Prior to becoming Director, Ms. Patrick completed a distinguished 20 year law enforcement career in Florida. Ms. Patrick. 

TESTIMONY OF CONNIE L. PATRICK,1 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 

LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. PATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here with 

you today. I would like to acknowledge and thank Congress for its 

longstanding support for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers’ mission to train those who protect the homeland. I have 

been privileged to serve as the Director since 2002, after having 

served in several senior leadership positions at FLETC. 

Forty-five years ago, Congress created FLETC under the premise 

that consolidated Federal law enforcement training provides consistency and efficiency in the preparation of law enforcement officers and agents, while enabling agencies to conduct specialized 

training that meet their operational needs. Today, FLETC is the 

Nation’s largest provider of law enforcement training. It delivers 

basic and advanced training to 95 Federal partners and thousands 

of State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement officers 

and agents at four domestic training sites in the United States, at 

International Law Enforcement Academies, and at export locations 

throughout the United States and internationally. 

FLETC also engages in ongoing training review, development, 

and research in coordination with stakeholders at all levels of law 

enforcement to ensure its training continues to meet its partners’ 

evolving needs. 

FLETC has a long and rich history of working with its partners 

to adapt training programs and facilities to meet emerging threats 

and associated agency training requirements. The Department of 

State was an original signatory to FLETC’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1970 and remains a valued partner. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Congressman Carter appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

The Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security Service 

Criminal Investigators attend the Basic Criminal Investigator 

Training Program at FLETC. They also attend various advanced 

training programs. 

The Department of State granted FLETC certification to conduct 

the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat Training Program at FLETC in 

March 2015 and we are piloting that program in Glynco this week. 

FLETC fully supports the Department of State’s need to consolidate its training in furtherance of best preparing its personnel to 

serve in critical overseas functions. In early 2013, the Office of 

Management and Budget requested that FLETC work with the Department of State and the General Services Administration to assess the viability of using capacity at FLETC facilities and the cost 

of any additional required construction to meet the Department of 

State’s training needs. FLETC accordingly developed a rough order 

of magnitude cost estimate of $200 million, which OMB asked 

FLETC to refine in August 2013. 

In response, in November 2013, FLETC submitted a more de- tailed cost estimate of $272 million. This estimate and associated 

business case are based on the Department of State’s original full 

scope master plan and account for training that FLETC could conduct immediately, training that would require modification to existing facilities, and training that would require new construction. 

FLETC’s proposal guaranteed Department of State primacy of use 

of facilities constructed specifically for them. 

In April 2014, FLETC received notification from OMB that the 

decision was made to allow the Department of State to establish 

the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Since that time, FLETC has taken no further action on this 

issue, except for responding to congressional inquiries on its 2013 

cost estimate. FLETC remains committed to the Department of 

State’s goal to consolidate its training and looks forward to a continued partnership with the Department of State. 

And, I am pleased to answer any questions the Committee might 

have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Patrick. 

Before I begin my questioning, I do ask consent to enter into the 

record a letter with a series of questions from Congressman Earl 

Carter from Georgia.1 I am guessing that FLETC is in his district. 

So, without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will start my questioning with his first 

question, just to get it on the record, and I guess this is probably 

for Mr. Mader. What official at OMB approved moving forward 

with the construction of the FASTC back in 2014, as Ms. Patrick 

indicated? 

Mr. MADER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was not at OMB back 

at that timeframe. I only arrived at OMB in June of this past year. 

My understanding, and having had the opportunity now to participate in a full cycle of the budget process at OMB, that decisions 

are made at varying stages of that process, which basically starts 

in the spring and culminates with the President’s budget in February. 
9 

In this particular case, my understanding in preparing for the 

hearing was that there was a group decision on the part of senior 

OMB officials that based upon the uniqueness of the hard skills 

training that Mr. Starr testified to, that it was best to defer the 

decision to the State Department because of the uniqueness of this 

facility. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The decision should be OMB’s, but they basically punted the decision to the State Department. 

Mr. MADER. I think, Mr. Chairman, and having been in the government on the other side, on the receiving end of OMB during the 

budget process and now being part of it, it is a process that actually is a give and take process and I would characterize as negotiation over time in which the parties come to an agreement that 

meets the needs of the mission and is done in the most efficient 

and effective way. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, in terms of responsibility, the Director 

of OMB would have basically made the decision to let the State Department decide? Again, this is not an interrogation. I just want to 

get that on the record for the Congressman. 

Mr. MADER. My understanding is that the group of OMB executives that made the final determination to defer included the Director. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Starr, I just want to kind of go 

through the basics of the training, and I have to get the name of 

it. The Foreign Affairs Counter Threat Course that is, really, that 

is the heart of what we are training here, correct? 

Mr. STARR. It is one portion of the training, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now, is that the hard skills? 

Mr. STARR. It is one portion of the hard skills training. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. How many people on an annual basis 

does the State Department train? What are the numbers? 

Mr. STARR. About 9,000 to 10,000 people a year. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. And, then, is that a year-long training 

process? Is this, like, you go to college and you are there for 365 

days, weekends off, or is this in 2-week increments, or exactly how 

is that, and is there a number of man days, or I guess we should 

call them person days? 

Mr. STARR. The Foreign Affairs Counter Threat Training Course 

for all Foreign Service personnel—political officers, consular officers, and as many families as we can get through—is a 1-week 

course. We do about 140 to 150 iterations of that course every single year in order to get about one-fifth of the Foreign Service 

through it every single year. It is a recurring 5-year course that 

they will take every 5 years to give them hard skills training. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, I guess the question—I am trying to get 

to how many training days per person, if you have, let us say, just 

10,000 so we can do the calculation—how many training days, on 

average, does each one of those individuals get? 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I do not have the answer to that because every 

course is different lengths. The special agents that go through 

training, their initial training is 7 months long. The high-threat 

course is 10 weeks long. RSO hard skills training is about 5 weeks 

long. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 
10 

Mr. STARR. The FACT course is one week long. That is for the 

majority of the personnel there. We have courses, hard skills training courses, for our locally employed staff overseas that we train 

when we come back, and driver training can be 2 or 3 weeks long. 

The bodyguard training can be 5 weeks long. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So, what I am hearing is probably the 

longest one is about 7 months, which is pretty intensive. 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON The other ones are a couple weeks, I mean, 

2 weeks, 1 week, 5 weeks, 7 weeks, that type of thing. 

Mr. STARR. Seven, yes. The large majority of the courses for the 

larger Foreign Service officers is one week, and then it goes up 

from there. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Again, we all acknowledge this is incredibly important that we train our diplomatic corps and their 

families so they can keep themselves safe, but this hearing is all 

about cost efficiency. 

So, Ms. Patrick, let me ask you, what is the cost metric you use 

in FLETC in terms of what is the cost per training day, training 

week, and in your proposal, because you provided OMB a fullblown proposal on this entire training process, did you condense 

that into your own training metrics in terms of cost so we can analyze that? 

Ms. PATRICK. The proposal that we gave OMB was strictly master plan-based, and so everything that was in the original master 

plan, we assessed and conducted—actually just took their footprint 

and moved it to FLETC facilities, with the addition of a piece of 

property that is owned by the Marine Corps and operated by the 

National Guard which is about 25 miles north of us. But, in terms 

of training, in 2015 we are going to train about 86,000 student 

weeks, and the training that they requested from us was 20,000 

student weeks. 

Let me explain our measure. Our measure is student weeks, because we have so many different kinds of programs. Some are a 

week, some are 11 weeks. So, we have a standard measure of student weeks. Our student weeks for Glynco only are 86,000 student 

weeks. Their student weeks would be approximately 20,000 student 

weeks, which is about a 12 percent increase for us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What is your cost per student week? Do you 

have that breakdown? 

Ms. PATRICK. The programs differ. Special agent training has one 

cost. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you have a range? 

Ms. PATRICK For the FACT training, it will be $1,600 for us to 

do that training. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sixteen-hundred dollars per student week? 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes, per student. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. PATRICK. That is for food, lodging, and the curriculum. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Mr. Starr, can you—I will save my questions for the next round. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been to a lot of military bases. I have never been to Fort 

Pickett. And, I have driven by Glynco a number of times over the 
11 

years, never been there. Just take us down there and visually describe each site, starting with Fort Pickett and then with Glynco, 

and keeping in mind the nature of the training that is required by 

the State Department that you just outlined here. 

Tell us how the nature of that training for hard skills, soft 

skills—I guess it is just hard skills—but, how does it mesh with 

each of the sites, and particularly the folks who live around those 

sites. We have a big Air Force Base in Dover. We have a lot of big 

planes coming in and out of there. There are certain activities that 

are fine for the people who live in Dover. There are some activities 

that might not be as acceptable. So, just talk about that for us a 

little bit, please. 

Mr. STARR. Thank you for the question, Senator. Fort Pickett is 

a very large former military base. It is an active duty base now for 

the National Guard. It is tens and tens of thousands of acres. Our 

space that we have in the middle of Fort Pickett is about 1,350 

acres. 

Increasingly, our training for duty overseas, including the types 

of weapons we train on for our agents, the types of evacuations 

that we do for our Foreign Service personnel, the type of training 

that we give them, is linked to military operations. The heavy armored vehicles that we use, the MRAPs that we use, the CH–53 

helicopters that we bring in, the weapons are big, noisy operations, 

and we do a lot of night training. 

At Fort Pickett, we are in the middle of a very much larger military reservation. Things like, if you shoot a 50-caliber machine gun 

for training, you shoot it on an 800-yard range and you typically 

have 2,000 to 3,000 to 4,000 yards beyond that as a safe buffer 

zone. 

The FLETC training where we do our law enforcement training, 

as Ms. Patrick correctly noted, is a—I think it is about the same 

size, about 1,500 acres, 1,400 acres. Immediately outside of it, there 

are suburban tracts of housing. There is a golf course. There is a 

very small regional airport. But, it is a suburban atmosphere that 

is not conducive to the type of military training, that military enhanced type of training that we train with now. 

Now, as Ms. Patrick said, they looked at a bombing range, the 

Townsend Bombing Range, which is, I think, 30 miles north of 

that, as a possible area to do that type of training. But, again, 

what that immediately does is that you are no longer consolidated. 

It means that you would have one training going on in a suburban 

type of environment. You would have another training going on at 

a different place 30 miles away, all of it over 650 miles away when 

I am trying to maximize our training capacity in Northern Virginia. 

So, there is very different types of locales that we are talking 

about here. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. That was helpful. 

Ms. Patrick, please, same question. 

Ms. PATRICK. The FLETC footprint is about 1,700 acres. It was 

a former Navy base in World War II. We have owned and operated 

it since 1975 when we were in the Treasury Department before 

coming to DHS. And, right now, we have colocated with FLETC approximately 30 other partner agency academies. So, people think of 
12 

FLETC as the organization, but FLETC is a joint center where 

agencies conduct both their basic and advanced training. 

It contains firearm ranges, multiple driver tracks, and a bomb 

and explosive range on-center. Yes, we do have a neighborhood in 

proximity to the FLETC and that was former base housing that 

when we took over from the Navy was made available for people 

in the community. We do explode things there on a daily basis. The 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 

that is their national academy. 

We do not fire at night. We can. There is no noise ordinance that 

prohibits that. But, out of good neighbor policies, we do not. We are 

exempted from noise policies. 

When we made our assessment, I was not aware of the details 

of the capstone project that Mr. Starr spoke about, helicopters 

landing, et cetera, and so I do not think that the helicopter part 

of it would be conducive at night to the Glynco proper, but there 

would be no reason not to do it at the Townsend Bomb Range, 

which is about 5,000 acres, and it is in a military reservation. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Starr spoke a great deal about the desire 

to have this training reasonably close to Washington, D.C., where 

the State Department has a large presence, and reasonably close 

to the Marine training facility in Quantico. Talk more about why 

that is important. 

Mr. STARR. Senator, we have a long history with the United 

States Marines. We have 2,000 Marines that serve in our embassies and consulates now as the Marine Security Guard Units, Diplomatic Security Agents, and most posts around the world combined with that Marine Security Guard Unit are the protection 

supplied by the United States for everybody at that facility. The 

host country does have units outside of that, obviously, and we 

have local guard forces. But, our history with the Marine Corps 

goes back many years, and they are our primary 911, shall you say. 

In addition to the Marines that serve with us at the embassies, 

the Marine Corps has created special Marine Security Augmentation Units that when we go into a crisis situation in a country, or 

an enhanced security situation, we filter in additional Marines 

under this program and they come out of Quantico, as well. They 

are the ones that we train with. They understand what an embassy 

and a consulate are. So, they are the ones that go in. 

And, then, finally, we work very closely with the Special Marine 

Air Ground Task Force (MAGTFs), the Marine Corps special 

groups, aviation and ground forces, that are based in places like 

Spain. But, we train with them in the United States. And, these 

are the people that we work with closely on the evacuation out of 

Libya. This is who work with us when we went back into the Central African Republic. 

So, we have a very close working relationship. Our communications, our training are essentially interoperable with the Marine 

Corps on these types of things and that is a critical phase of our 

training that we work with them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. My time has expired. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 
13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate all of you joining us 

today on this panel. 

And, thank you, Mr. Starr. You have provided a little bit of insight on why you believe that the facility should be consolidated in 

Northern Virginia. But, honestly, looking at the cost to our taxpayers—of course, we want high-quality training, that is the ultimate goal, but a billion dollars for the original plan versus $213 

million at Glynco, there is a huge difference, and where convenience may be nice, but we want high-quality training regardless. 

Do you feel that what you are receiving right now through DHS 

and the partnerships with Glynco is not providing that high-quality 

training? 

Mr. STARR. Thank you, Senator, for the question. It gives me an 

opportunity to talk about the money. And, DHS does not currently 

provide the types of training that we do. DHS does provide the 

training for the initial Criminal Investigator Program for my 

agents, but we are currently doing the hard skills training at an 

interim leased facility in Summit Point, West Virginia, on ranges 

as we can get them at Fort A.P. Hill, at Quantico Marine Corps 

Base, at about six other private locations that we lease. So, we do 

not have the opportunity to use FLETC. DHS does not have those 

types of facilities for us in the region. We are not currently using 

them. 

In terms of the cost, I think it is important to understand that 

there are initial costs, and in this regard, there is a General Accountability Organization (GAO) report. GAO has been looking at 

this entire process for the last 6 months. Their report has not been 

released yet. I have commented on the report, because we saw the 

initial drafts, as we normally do, and then you give comments back, 

but that report is due for release to the House Foreign Appropriations Committee, I think sometime in the next 30 days. I would encourage everyone to look at that. 

I think, in terms of costs, there are initial costs that we have to 

bear, but then there are also long-term costs, and the estimates are 

that flying people down to FLETC, the numbers that we have to 

do, which is, A, very inconvenient, and B, may interfere with the 

training, but over the first 10-year period alone will be $80 million 

to $90 million more expensive than just us busing our people to a 

facility in Northern Virginia. 

So, I think, clearly, over the life of this facility, or the life of the 

training that we need to do, and I would say that we are going to 

be going into a period of 10, 20, 30 years where we are going to 

need this type of training, the costs for doing it in Northern Virginia are going to be less than the costs of doing it in Georgia, and 

we will have a single site where we can do all the training. 

So, I think it is important to understand short-term costs versus 

long-term costs, as well, and the life-cycle costs of this. 

Senator ERNST. Well, and thank you, I appreciate it. I will be 

looking at those numbers. I do think that that is important, to take 

a good, hard look at that. 

And, just to followup on that, I really do appreciate the fact that 

the administration is taking a look at this and that they want to 
14 

improve the training capacities for the men and women that we 

have engaged in these diplomatic security forces. 

But, I do want to reiterate, too, that what is more important is 

that we have an administration that prioritizes the safety of our 

diplomats and responds to the requests for additional security in 

times of need. We can have all the wonderful enhanced training 

that we can give you. We can give that to you. We can give you 

the tips, techniques, practices. We can give you all the gizmos and 

gadgets. But, bottom line, if we do not have an administration 

which will allow you to engage or to use those techniques and tactics and whiz gadgets out there, then this does nothing for us. 

We want to make sure that these men and women are protected. 

We will look at the numbers and make sure that we are doing the 

right thing, but bottom line, when we have an administration that 

turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to the needs of our men and 

women as they are serving overseas in these agencies, it does not 

do us a darn bit of good. 

So, that is my little jab at the administration today, is that we 

have had four Americans killed. I know a lot of this came out of 

the investigations into Benghazi. We can give you all we can give 

you, but if we have an administration who refuses to engage, it 

does not do our men and women a darn bit of good. 

So, I appreciate that. We will look into this. I want to make sure 

we are doing the right thing by our taxpayers and providing highquality training for our men and women. But, I also want to ensure 

that we have an administration who understands that when there 

is a time to engage, we need to allow our men and women to make 

that decision and engage. 

I will get off my soapbox. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Starr, as the accountant in the room here, you take $80 or 

$90 million divided by 20,000 training weeks, and again, that 

would be a very inefficient process of shuttling people back and 

forth every week, but that is $4,000 to $4,500 per round-trip. I do 

not know who the State Department uses to book travel, but that 

is not a believable number. So, you are going to have to go back 

to the drawing board in terms of getting some believable numbers 

in terms of—I mean, that is way overinflated in terms of the cost 

of travel back and forth. Something is wrong here in these numbers. 

Mr. STARR. Senator, that was for over a 10-year period, and—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. You said $80 or $90 million per year. 

Mr. STARR. No, over the total 10-year—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Over 10 years? Oh, OK. 

Mr. STARR. Over 10 years, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Then never mind. 

Mr. STARR. If I left you with that impression, I apologize. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. STARR. It is the first 10-year period that those costs would 

be about $80 to $90 million more. The GAO looked at that, as well, 

and—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. But, again, that does still assume—— 

Mr. STARR. It is not a year, sir. 
15 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, then, it is $400 to $450 per round trip, 

which is more reasonable. Are you going to shuttle them back and 

forth every week? Is that the assumption? 

Mr. STARR. [Nodding head up and down.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thanks. I apologize. 

Mr. STARR. I do apologize, sir, if I left you the impression it was 

annually. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I would like to apologize, too, to get in 

this apology thing. Actually, seriously, when he first said the number, I thought $80 to $90 million sounded, frankly, for 10 years, a 

little bit low, but now I understand better what you are talking 

about. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. I have so many questions, I do not know 

where to start, as the auditor in the room. Let me start with this. 

What percentage of the guards at embassies around the world are 

foreign contractors versus Marines? 

Mr. STARR. I have Marines at over 175—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. What percentage of the guards around the 

world are foreign contractors as opposed to Marines? 

Mr. STARR. Almost all of our guard services outside the building 

itself are foreign. The Marines I have are internal, and I have them 

at about 175 consulates and embassies. But, virtually all, outside 

the buildings and outside our wall, they are all foreign, except for 

a couple places were I have a WPS contract where I have some 

American contractors. That is Iraq, Afghanistan, Jerusalem, and at 

the moment, the Central African Republic. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, I mean, part of the problem here is that 

a lot of the training you are talking about is perimeter training, 

and I find it ironic that we are—I doubt that any of these personnel are going to be training with these foreign guards, correct? 

They are not going to be training with them. They are not going 

to be embedded with them in training. In fact, we have real issues 

about how well those foreign guards are even being trained correct? 

Mr. STARR. Ma’am, we do have issues, and we have looked very 

closely at the security that our guards provide. In those countries, 

particularly the highest-threat countries, where we believe the 

guard training, the capabilities are not up to snuff, we have a program to bring them back to the United States and train them. It 

is called the Special Augmentation Program that we have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Mr. STARR. And, we have identified them, and this is part of the 

group of people that we will be training at Fort Pickett. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Let me get to those numbers. You have 

come to this hearing to justify spending a couple hundred million 

dollars more than what DHS says they can do this job with to your 

specifications, I might add. This was not their training they priced 

to you. This is your training they priced to you. I want that to be 

very clear. They said they would do everything you need to have 

happen. 

So, what does this cost you now over your 19 different contracts? 

What is the annual cost of this training now? 
16 

Mr. STARR. How much do we spend every year on training? 

Senator MCCASKILL. How much do you spend total, including 

lodging, travel—you have 19 different leased facilities in which you 

are now doing this training—— 

Mr. STARR. Eleven hard skills—— 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. And I guarantee you, they are 

not all in the Washington area. 

Mr. STARR. Eleven hard skills training locations. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And eight soft skills. 

Mr. STARR. Which are in—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. You have 19 total. 

Mr. STARR [continuing]. The Northern Virginia area, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are they not going to be able to do the soft 

skills, also, at the DHS facility? 

Mr. STARR. No. We are doing the soft skills here up at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and in the Northern Virginia area, 

right around here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But, they could do it there. 

Mr. STARR. No—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did their price not include soft? 

Mr. STARR. Whose price? 

Senator MCCASKILL. DHS. 

Mr. STARR. If we moved everybody down, but we never looked at 

those numbers of moving—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is part of my problem. 

Mr. STARR [continuing]. Even more people down. The cost basis 

that we have is just for the hard skills. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What is the cost—— 

Mr. STARR. It would engender even longer and higher costs—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you want to split it out, split it out. What 

is your total cost for hard skills versus soft skills right now? You 

have 11 contracts in 11 facilities for hard. You have eight for soft. 

What is your total cost right now? 

Mr. STARR. I do not have that figure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You came to this hearing and you do not 

know that number? 

Mr. STARR. I do not have that figure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Seriously? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, Senator. I do not have that complete number. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We are talking about whether or not this is 

a cost-efficient facility and you cannot even tell me what it costs 

you now? 

Mr. STARR. Senator, we are talking about the construction costs 

of a facility—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. No. We are talking—— 

Mr. STARR [continuing]. And the training costs—— 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. About what this facility is 

going to cost the taxpayers, period. 

Mr. STARR. That is correct, the facility. The training costs are 

going to be relatively the same, whether we do it here—actually, 

we will lower the per student cost by consolidating. I just do not 

happen to have those figures at the top of my fingertips. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK, so let me try another one. You do not 

know how much the soft training is costing. You do not know how 
17 

much the hard training is costing. When asked about how many 

weeks you had, you said you did not—some were 7 months and 

some were a week. She knew how many weeks you needed. How 

many weeks of soft training do you need and how many weeks of 

hard training do you need? 

Mr. STARR. Senator, I will take that back for the record and give 

you—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Oh, my gosh. 

Mr. STARR. Senator—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. You do not even know how many weeks of 

training you need? 

Mr. STARR. Senator—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. At this hearing? 

Mr. STARR. I know every course that we run. I know that our 

FACT training is one week long and we do 150 iterations per year. 

I know that our basic special agent training is 7 months long and 

I generally get two to three to four classes a year, depending on 

funding. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand you know all that, and I really—— 

Mr. STARR. I just do not happen to have the total at my fingertips. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This is a business decision, and it is called 

a cost-benefit analysis. And it is very clear to me the State Department said at the beginning, we want to be here and we do not really need to do the kind of cost-benefit analysis that anybody should 

do if they are going to spend this kind of money. 

Let me ask this question. She said you needed 20,000 student 

weeks. Is she right or is she wrong? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, they did an analysis based on what we gave 

them. That may well be the correct figure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, she knows how many weeks of training 

you need, but you do not know how many weeks of training you 

need, is that fair? 

Mr. STARR. Senator, that is fair. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, I have a lot of questions about 

the confidence we should have in this whole process. You talked 

about needing to consolidate all of this. You do not have lodging 

at this facility in Virginia, correct? 

Mr. STARR. No. Correct, Senator. We believe that private industry is a very good way to meet those lodging needs. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What happened to the consolidation you 

needed? What happened to that consolidation factor? How long are 

you going to have to bus everybody back and forth to hotel rooms? 

Mr. STARR. Oh, a couple of minutes. We currently use this type 

of lodging in West Virginia at the moment at our training range 

and it works very well. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I thought that you had to bus them to Richmond to do lodging. 

Mr. STARR. No. Nottoway County and the others, there are hotels 

within 20 to 30 minutes at the moment, and there is a great movement in Nottoway County to put hotels directly outside of the base 

in Blackstone. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 
18 

Mr. STARR. We figured that private industry is a very good way 

to meet those lodging requirements. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, right now, you would have to go to 

Richmond, but you are hoping—— 

Mr. STARR. Not Richmond—— 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. If you build it, they will come. 

Mr. STARR. Not anywhere near Richmond. About 20 minutes 

away. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, you are going to bus people 20 to 

30 minutes to get to their lodging every night under the current 

scenario. 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What is that going to cost? You said it 

was going to be $80 to $90 million for flights. 

Mr. STARR. It is included—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. What is it going to cost to lodge them? 

Mr. STARR. It is included in the transportation costs that we 

have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What about the lodging? What is the 

lodging going to cost, because the lodging is included in the figure 

that is $200 million cheaper. 

Mr. STARR. Correct. FLETC does have a lodging figure. We think 

that the per diem rate will be slightly higher than the FLETC figure, but there are also long-term costs that FLETC engenders for 

the repair and maintenance of those facilities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What is the lodging going to cost? 

Mr. STARR. We believe that private industry is a very good way 

to meet the lodging requirements. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What is the lodging going to cost? What is 

the number, because if you are doing this analysis in a business 

analysis—I am channeling the Chairman here—what you want to 

do is you want to look at, I have lodging included in this proposal. 

I do not have lodging in this proposal. You cannot do a cost-benefit 

analysis without figuring out what the lodging costs are. 

Mr. STARR. Senator, we pay the lodging costs no matter which 

place that we are at. They are going to charge us for lodging. We 

do not get it free. You pay those same lodging costs. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What is the differential? 

Mr. STARR. It is slightly lower than the per diem cost that we 

pay at a hotel. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What is your plan for the lodging costs if 

you go forward with this facility in Virginia? 

Mr. STARR. We typically pay about $15 million in lodging. It 

would be the same as we are currently paying. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I am over time. I will wait for my next 

round. But, I want to ask about the contracts, all of the contracts, 

where they are, so you can—if anybody behind you has information 

to give you about contracts, that is what I will ask next round. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You can ask another question while I do my 

calculation here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What I want to know is how many of 

these contracts are going to continue to be in existence. How long 

are the contracts? You have 11 separate contracts for hard. You 
19 

have eight separate contracts for soft. Are you envisioning continuing the eight contracts for soft training? 

Mr. STARR. The eight contracts for the facilities that we use for 

soft training that we do lease in the Northern Virginia area, the 

classroom space, we look at that every single year. We look at what 

FSI schedules are. Sometimes, we do training at FSI. Sometimes, 

we have leased space. But, generally, those soft skill classroom 

training facilities will continue in Northern Virginia. None of the 

hard skills training, with the exception of our use of the pistol 

range at FLETC Cheltenham, will be used. All of them will be 

taken off. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, all of those contracts will end immediately. 

Mr. STARR. By 2019, as we phase into full operation at Fort Pickett. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And, I just want to be clear. Ms. Patrick, from your perspective, was the soft training capability included in the price that would have occurred if we had gone forward with the cheaper alternative in Georgia? 

Ms. PATRICK. Our figures were based on their total master plan, 

which included the original scope of what they wanted to build at 

Fort Pickett. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, this is really important. They included soft and hard. You are going to continue with soft. I need 

to know the cost, because that is in addition to the $200 million. 

And, it may be that that is the $80 or $90 million that you are 

claiming you are going to spend on travel going to Georgia. 

I do not think anybody who really did a business analysis of this 

would be better prepared than you are, honestly, sir, and I do not 

think this was a business analysis at all. I think this is what we 

want and we are going to figure out a way to get it, and that is 

not the way we go about spending taxpayer money. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STARR. Senator, may I respond? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. 

Mr. STARR. We have looked at this extensively. We have looked 

at construction costs versus long-term costs that we already bear 

and will continue to bear. All of this information was given to GAO, 

as well, who has looked at this extensively. This has all been calculated. Whether I happen to have it at my fingertips or not, we 

believe that this is a wise investment, that over the course of the 

lifespan of this project, it will save money to our taxpayers and 

give us better training capabilities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I look forward to the GAO report, but 

you did not even look at FLETC until late in the process. It was 

not even flagged so it was considered, and they have sites all over 

the country. FLETC was not even considered until you were twothirds of the way down the road. There was no effort to start at 

the beginning and go, do we have duplication in government? Is 

there a place that we could make this work and still get the kind 

of training that all of us want for our personnel? No. It was not 

until way down in the process that you even began to look at this, 

frankly, because OMB made you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK—— 
20 

Mr. STARR. Senator, it goes to the heart of the issue, that FLETC 

is a Law Enforcement Training Center and we are increasingly involved in operations that are much more closely aligned with the 

military than law enforcement. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Patrick, let me start—again, I want to 

drill down on costs, and I am sorry, Mr. Starr, you are making all 

these pronouncements, this is the best, most cost-beneficial alternative, and you do not know the cost, so, I mean, I am scratching 

my head. Ms. Patrick, when you were saying $1,600 per training week, 

that is all inclusive? That includes lodging—and, by the way, do 

you use hotels? Do you have dormitories? How do you do that at 

FLETC? 

Ms. PATRICK. We have 2,000 beds, dormitory space, at Glynco. 

We also rely on existing contracts in the community should our students exceed that number. That is single-occupancy. That can be 

doubled, as well. 

The $1,200 that I mentioned was for the FACT training, which 

is that 1-week training program, and that includes the cost of the 

equipment, the fuel for the vehicles, the firearms, and also includes 

lodging and meals and miscellaneous. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Earlier, I had written down $1,600. 

Ms. PATRICK. I am sorry, $1,600. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sixteen-hundred, OK. 

Ms. PATRICK. I am sorry. Sixteen-hundred. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, so that is an all-inclusive cost? 

Ms. PATRICK. All inclusive. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That is what you would charge, basically, 

the State Department for complete training, and all they would 

really have to do is get their personnel down there at maybe $400, 

$450 per round trip. 

Ms. PATRICK. That is what we are charging this week to train 

predominately the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other agencies that are 

going through that program. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I mean, Mr. Starr, just doing, again, a 

back-of-the-envelope calculation, which is dangerous—I have run 

into trouble a number of times on this—but Fort Pickett is 140 

miles away, so at 55 cents a mile round-trip, that is going to cost 

about $140, $150. 

Mr. STARR. For a bus. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Pardon? 

Mr. STARR. For a bus. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So, you are going to be transporting 

these guys down on buses. 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Hotel rooms, I mean, again, just taking $15 

million divided by 20,000 training weeks times 5 days, that is 

about $150 a night for hotels, which you could maybe get a deal 

and get it for less than that. I mean, you can start racking up a 

whole lot more—$150 per five nights would be $750, plus busing 

fee. I mean, you can very quickly exceed the $400 airfare. 

Right now, you are using how many facilities to do all the training you are doing? 
21 

Mr. STARR. Eleven different hard skills training facilities. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And how many soft skills? 

Mr. STARR. Eight. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, you have 19 total facilities. You want to 

consolidate all of this, so you are going to consolidate the 11 and 

you will still have the eight. 

Mr. STARR. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. If you use FLETC, you would fully consolidate all of it. 

Mr. STARR. We have not looked at that, sir. I do not believe that 

that is true, because we still will be doing training at the Foreign 

Service Institute up here. We will still be doing training with some 

of our other partners up here in terms of law enforcement training. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And that would have been true even with 

the Fort Pickett facility? 

Mr. STARR. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So, again, your original game plan was 

to consolidate as much as possible, and that was going to cost 900- 

and-some million dollars, almost a billion. And then that was too 

expensive, so you split out the hard versus the soft. Yet, FLETC 

basically gave you a total consolidation, which was the original concept behind the Fort Pickett facility, correct? 

Mr. STARR. That is what FLETC is saying. But, the numbers of 

personnel that we would transport that we have figured out in the 

cost basis is solely on the hard skills only. 

I think what we are doing is getting into measuring apples and 

oranges here, sir. When we talk about the original costs of this, we 

are talking about the construction costs of facilities, and that is one 

side of it, only one side of it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, no, we are also trying to drill 

down into the per training week cost, which you do not have any 

idea of, and yet Ms. Patrick does, she is an expert, and that facility 

is an expert at training people, a whole range of different training 

facilities. You end up developing the curriculum for a host of different training regimens, correct? 

Ms. PATRICK. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I mean, talk a little bit about that. 

Ms. PATRICK. Our process in serving our clients or our customers, 

law enforcement agencies, is to determine by their job task and the 

analysis of that job task. We do curriculum development conferences around that. We validate those tasks. We prioritize those 

tasks. We create curriculum around those tasks. And, if it is specialty training or advanced training needs, then we research and 

identify what is the best methodology in approaching that. It is not 

always bricks and mortar. My experience has been that is very 

costly. So, I look for alternative ways to achieve the same end without building, because that is the more expensive option. We use a 

lot of modeling and simulation and other means of training to meet 

our objectives. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, again, you are on, I think you said, 

1,700 acres, a former military base? 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, you can fully do all of the hard skill 

training there, again, with some construction, you would actually 
22 

be able to get those military-type trainers into your facility and design a curriculum to handle their needs? 

Ms. PATRICK. As I said, my cost estimates were based on the information I had in 2013, and if it has changed since then, I would 

have to again look at that. The helicopter was not something I 

factored in. Again, it could be done at the Townsend Bomb Range, 

but that would be my recommendation, just because of noise and 

night training. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, as an expert in training from a broad 

range of different curriculum, you could easily cite your cost per 

training week. 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I mean, that is just something ingrained. 

You know what that is because you are always looking at that, you 

are calculating it because you have to cost it out to people. 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, I would have much greater faith that 

your facility is going to maintain cost efficiency versus the State 

Department that does not have a clue what it is costing. 

Ms. PATRICK. Well, right now our cost for lodging, meals, and 

miscellaneous would be sharing the cost of mowing the grass and 

utilities, et cetera, is $103 a day. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, Mr. Starr, do you understand our 

concern when, on one hand, we have within a government system, 

we have a training facility that does a broad range of training, provided a very reasonable proposal, originally about a quarter of 

what the State Department was going to do, which, I think, put 

pressure on the State Department to scale back, not even do the 

full plan that FLETC will actually provide. So, you cut it in half. 

You are still double the cost. And you are coming before the Committee and you do not have a clue what your per week training cost 

is going to be, what your lodging costs are going to be. 

Can you understand why the Members of the Committee are concerned about this? 

Mr. STARR. Senator, yes, I can, but we are talking about apples 

and oranges—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. In what way? 

Mr. STARR. We are still going to pay per diem. The cost of 

the—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, she has—— 

Mr. STARR. No, I am sorry, sir—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. That is factored into the cost. 

Mr. STARR [continuing]. That is not true. The course, the FACT 

course that Ms. Patrick quoted is the cost of the course. Lodging 

and per diem are on top of that. You are going to pay—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. She is shaking her head, no, it is not. 

It is included in the $1,600 per week. 

Mr. STARR. No. We train there, sir. We know what the costs of 

the courses are—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, how come you know her cost but you 

do not know your? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let her answer. 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I know—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Oh, I am sorry. 
23 

Mr. STARR [continuing]. That we pay per diem. We pay MI&E 

when we go for training at FLETC. This is part of what you do. We are currently paying $21 million a year for hard skills leases. 

That is our cost for that. We can cut that well in half. We can cut 

that tremendously and cut our student costs by consolidating in 

one area. 

But, the bigger issue, still, sir, is that spending money on a facility that will not meet our needs, that does not allow us to train 

with the military on a military-type training base, is not what we 

need for the future. FLETC is a Law Enforcement Training Center, 

and an excellent one. We train our agents there. I am not in the 

slightest bit impugning FLETC. But, their facility that they have 

there is about the same size as the one that we are going to build, 

and then outside of the one we are going to build, we have thousands of acres that allow weapons, heavy weapons, to be fired safely and effectively, allow us to set off explosions, allow us to ready 

ourselves for the types of atmosphere that we are going in overseas. 

I would argue, sir, that the construction costs are one thing. The 

ongoing training costs are going to be very close in either location. 

But, the transportation costs and the inefficiencies of moving all of 

our people over even a 10-year period—and GAO says this—will be 

about $90 million in savings a year, $80 to $90 million in savings 

a year. 

So, I think there are different ways to look at this. I think that 

it is very important that you look at the upcoming GAO report that 

is on this, as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. No, we will, and we will certainly be 

asking the Department of State to give us more information. 

Ms. Patrick, real quick, did you want to respond. 

Ms. PATRICK. My CFO said that the curriculum cost about $600. 

The rest is per diem, lodging, and that is at the high end on the 

economy. So, we have a broad range. If you stay on-center, it is 

much lower cost, and if you stay off-center, it is a little higher cost. 

So, he did the estimate based on the most expensive option. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, $1,600 per week—— 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Including the lodging and including per diem? 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned upcoming GAO report. Could somebody give us a 

preview of that, just 30 seconds? What question is GAO answering 

in this report? 

Mr. STARR. GAO looked closely at the decision to locate at Fort 

Pickett. They looked at the costs. They looked at transportation. 

They looked at the construction. They looked at quite a few things. 

The report has not been released yet. It was a request of the House 

Foreign Affairs Committee. I have seen the draft report, but until 

such time as GAO actually releases it to the Committee, it is unavailable. 

Senator CARPER. Can we expect to see that this year? 
24 

Mr. STARR. I believe that it is scheduled to be ready in the next 

30 days. 

Senator CARPER. Well, good. That is pretty timely. 

Do you know anything about it, Mr. Mader? 

Mr. MADER. Senator, I know there is a draft, but I have not seen 

it personally. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I mentioned Dover Air Force Base earlier. 

We think it is the best airlift base in the world. They have won or 

been finalists for any number of years for winning the CommanderIn-Chief’s Award for best Air Force Base in the world. I am very 

proud of the work that they do with their C–5s, C–17s, and so 

forth. 

We have worried about, ever since when I was Governor and before that, we have worried about encroachment at the base and the 

community is closing in on the base. And one of the reasons why 

it is very attractive, very good for airlift is it happens to be location, location, location. It is a great place to locate an airlift base 

to go, whether you are going north, south, east, or west. So, we 

have worked with the local county officials, local town officials to 

try to make sure that we do not face that kind of encroachment, 

encroachment, encroachment that might eventually lead to the 

base’s closure. 

I want to talk about encroachment at Fort Pickett and down at 

Glynco, as well. How far is Glynco from the ocean, any idea? 

Ms. PATRICK. Approximately 14 miles. 

Senator CARPER. Fourteen miles. We have in Delaware, especially in Southern Delaware, from Rehoboth and Dewey Beach, 

Bethany Beach, we have all kinds of people who want to live there, 

and they want to be fairly close—we have people now that are saying places like Millsboro, Delaware, is beachfront community. It is, 

like, 14 miles from the ocean. But, we have a place called Ocean 

View that does not really have an ocean view, but people want to 

live there because they think some day with the sea level rise it 

will have an ocean view. I say that with tongue-in-cheek. 

But, talk to us about encroachment. What are the concerns about 

encroachment at Fort Pickett, and what concerns do we have with 

respect to encroachment at Glynco, given the nature of the training 

operations? It sounds like real live training. 

Mr. STARR. Sir, it is. I am afraid that what we have seen over 

the last 15 years from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and many other places in the world today, the types of training 

that we are fulfilling is very different than what we saw not very 

long ago. Even the FACT training, which used to be just for personnel going to our highest threat level posts, the Department has 

made a decision that this is a requirement for every single person 

going out. 

On the encroachment issue, it is one of my main concerns. If we 

are going to invest this type of money, we want to make sure that 

we have a facility that is good for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years. 

The military base at Fort Pickett is, in part, driven by the fact that 

we had an earlier proposal from GSA to locate in Queen Anne’s 

County in Maryland, and when we did the Environmental Impact 

Statement, when that was done, the people around us who learned 

what type of training we are doing, how many explosives we set off 
25 

per day, the types of weapons that we use, objected to the presence 

of this, which is why we then started thinking very closely about 

locating into the middle of an active duty training base. 

This base has tanks roaming around on it for training. They 

bring in National Guard Reserve units. They are firing off artillery. 

It is just southwest of Richmond, Virginia, in an area that is not 

likely to have development. So, this went into our thinking. And, 

we are looking at the issue of encroachment in the future and trying to make sure that it does not impede our training. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Thanks. 

Ms. Patrick, please. 

Ms. PATRICK. FLETC does have a fence line, so it is a fixed site. 

However, there is additional acreage adjacent to it which part of 

our estimate included a $7 to $8 million figure to procure property, 

if we needed to. However, I think that was a condition that OMB 

put on us, not to buy new land. And, so, but there was a contingency in our estimate. 

The site at the Townsend Bomb Range, which is 25 miles north 

of FLETC, there is no encroachment. It is 5,000 acres of open military land. The Marine Corps has bought, subsequent to this, 

bought thirty-some-thousand acres to do additional training. So, 

that 5,000 is really used for National Guard training. We use the 

range for long-range guns for some of our partners. And, that 

would be where I would relocate some of those things. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Mader, what were the major factors that were taken into 

consideration by OMB in its determination of where the State Department’s training facility would be located? 

How did the Office of Management and Budget weigh the longterm costs and benefits of each proposal, including support services 

such as lodging? 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Senator. On the first question, and I 

think I talked about this a little bit in my opening statement, I 

think in these kinds of situations where there are very unique and 

very different training requirements—and I say that from my prior 

life in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), having been an active 

participant and supporter of Glynco, where the IRS trains all their 

special agents, so I am very familiar, having visited there multiple 

times in my career. So, I understand the mission and what the 

Law Enforcement Training Center does for its partners. 

I think in this case, what was compelling to OMB was, and I 

think Mr. Starr has done a good job of laying out the uniqueness 

of this training, because I would characterize this as purely military training, very different than the kind of training that IRS special agents go through. IRS special agents do not fire 50-caliber 

machine guns and fly in helicopters. 

And, I think, in looking at the value of this facility, we were compelled to say, look, the uniqueness of this training and the growing 

threat around the world really caused us to say we need to defer 

that judgment on what they need both today and going forward to 

the State Department. And, I can tell you personally, having looked 

at this now, having not been here at the time of the determination, 

I am convinced that this is the right decision in that it provides 
26 

the proper balance between cost and the taxpayers’ dollars and a 

mission that is critical to our country. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Just real quick, while we are on that point, 

Mr. Starr, how many training weeks of that military style training 

are we talking about out of that 20,000? Do you have any clue? Is 

it 5 percent? Is it 50 percent? 

Mr. STARR. I would estimate 30 to 40 percent, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thanks. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Just to be clear, OMB, when you got the 

sticker shock, that is when you began the FLETC comparison, and 

you asked the State Department and FLETC to do a cost and feasibility comparison. 

Mr. MADER. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, have you seen that cost and feasibility 

comparison? 

Mr. MADER. I have seen, in preparing for the hearing. I was not 

here during that time period—those costs and comparisons changed 

over time, as conversations went back and forth between OMB and 

FLETC and the State Department. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I do not know how we can do a cost 

and—it does not appear to me that today, anyway, that anybody 

is able to do a very good job articulating a cost and feasibility comparison, because let us just look at the travel. It is 3 hours to drive 

to the Virginia facility. It is 3 hours to fly to the Georgia facility. 

Mr. Starr, I am looking at the master plan here, your master 

plan, and the master plan shows—and, by the way, it even on the 

back shows how many charter buses you are going to have to have 

on a daily basis to travel either 52 minutes or 55 minutes twice a 

day for lodging. This is your master plan. So, I do not know—you 

said it would take a couple of minutes. I am assuming that part 

of the cost comparison was that you are going to have not only 3 

hours getting there, but you are going to have 2 hours of transit 

time, approximately, every single day on charter buses, correct? 

Mr. STARR. No, I do not believe that is true. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, why is this your master plan? 

Mr. STARR. I do not have that document in front of me. I have 

been to Fort Pickett many times. I know that the hotels that are 

available are about 20 to 30 minutes away at the moment. We also 

know that the town of Blackstone, which is 3 to 4 minutes away 

from Fort Pickett, is looking at building hotels and meeting our 

needs there, as well. So, I think we are already—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Starr, I have to interrupt you here. This 

is the master plan from your agency, and not only does it show the 

exact routes to the hotels, on the back, it shows two different scenarios of bus transportation. They have even gone to the extent of 

deciding whether or not you would take large charters in or whether you would try to group by specialty the people being trained and 

putting them on smaller coming in, whether you would have a hub 

going out within the facility. I mean, there was a great deal of detail done here. 

Mr. STARR. Yes, obviously. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, somebody has done—— 

Mr. STARR. That is what the master plan is about, yes. 
27 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I do not—you just said you do 

not—you disagreed with your own master plan. 

Mr. STARR. I am saying that it is not 2 hours of transportation 

each day. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, if it is 55 minutes one way if you go 

to these hotels and 52 minutes the other way, I guess maybe I 

should say, more accurately, it is 107 minutes. 

Mr. STARR. Senator, that is the current facilities that are there. 

We also know that in a very short time, they are looking at building hotels in Blackstone, which is literally 3 minutes from the base. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, did I hear you, Ms. Patrick, say 

that 25 miles away there was a facility for artillery that could be 

fired, explosions that could be fired, and that the Marine Corps 

currently is using that facility, the same Marine Corps that Mr. 

Starr says they need to work with? 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes. They blow up ordinance with their aircraft in 

that facility. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I just think we need a lot more information. 

I know the Committee staff has done a comparison of transportation and lodging over a period of time and it shows they are almost identical, the two facilities. So, Mr. Mader, if you can give us 

more information it just seems like they want this, and because 

they were willing to cut the price in half, you gave it to them. And, 

by the way, I have not heard the number of what the soft training 

is going to continue to be. That is in addition to what we have 

talked about today. 

So, we have to get a lot more information. I hope, Mr. Chairman, 

we have another hearing. I think we need to try to stop this dead 

in its tracks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We will have a followup hearing. 

I have one quick question for Mr. Mader. Senator Carper has a 

question, as well. I do have an OMB cost analysis here. I believe 

this was done in 2013. Are you familiar with this? 

Mr. MADER. As part of my preparation, I did see that document, 

yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. So, just so I understand, it has option 

one, which is the FASTC, and it has option two, which is the 

FLETC. Now, was this back in 2013 when the FASTC was the complete, combined, consolidated plan, or has this already been 

skinnied down to only the hard skills in the FASTC? 

Mr. MADER. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I would have to take 

it back and ask those questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Just so you know, the total cost over 

10 years of the Virginia facility, the Fort Pickett facility, would be 

about $1.3 billion. The total cost over 10 years of the FLETC down 

in Georgia would be about $825 million. 

So, the bottom line is, I agree with Senator McCaskill. We will 

do a followup hearing, and I guess, Mr. Starr, Mr. Mader, Ms. Patrick, I think you are understanding kind of the type of questions 

we are going to be asking and the kind of detail you want. We will 

definitely look forward to the GAO report. But, we are going to get 

down, kind of like in the private sector. This is going to be, from 

my standpoint, like a Department budget hearing and I am going 

to want the detail. I am going to want to see this laid out, number 
28 

of training weeks, number of people, really laid out so we understand this, OK? 

We will give you an opportunity for a final comment here after 

Senator Carper asks his question. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This has been a good 

hearing, and maybe a not entirely comfortable hearing, but, ultimately, a good one. Our job is to do oversight and to try to make 

sure that we are looking out for taxpayers, and, frankly, to enable 

the State Department employees to get the training that they need 

to protect our folks overseas. 

Ms. Patrick, do you agree that Fort Pickett is the best and maybe 

even the only option for the State Department to conduct the training that it needs? 

Ms. PATRICK. I think, certainly, the cost differences are a factor, 

but in terms of the qualitative issues that Director Starr spoke to, 

I think they need to be explored further, too, and understood in 

terms of their training partners being colocated. I do not know 

what it costs them, if they were to come and train at FLETC, as 

well. 

So, I think his goals are very important and I think that we certainly have a lot of experience in the business of building facilities 

for training. And, if the decision were made—well, the administration has recommended it be at Fort Pickett, and I would certainly 

be willing to share some best practices that we have learned over 

time to help reduce cost if you agreed to support the Fort Pickett 

option. 

So, again, the cost is very important, but I think there are a lot 

of other factors to consider, as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Can any of you give us maybe an example or two, either here at 

the hearing or in writing, about situations in the last, I do not 

know, decade or so where maybe a base was built or a facility was 

built, a Federal facility was built, where there was a need for offbase housing. Like Dover Air Force Base, we have housing on-base, 

but we also have the private sector has actually stepped forward 

in the last dozen or so years and built housing, housing built by 

the private sector off-base, contiguous to the Dover Air Force Base. 

Plus, we have a bunch of hotels that have been built. We have 

planes coming in and out all the time and air crews, maintainers 

need a place to stay maybe for a night or two, and so the private 

sector has kind of risen up and met those needs. 

And, where I am going is, Mr. Starr, you seemed to believe that 

the community there, the little town of Blackstone, and I guess 

they have a Chamber of Commerce there in the county, that they 

are actively involved, maybe, in saying if Fort Pickett actually is 

the ultimate site, we want to help build, work with the private sector to meet the housing needs off-base and to not have to go 50 or 

52 minutes, to not have to go 20 or 30 minutes, but to go outside 

their gate and meet their housing needs. 

Can you give us some examples where that has actually happened in recent years in another State so we can actually believe, 

yes, that will happen? I think it will, but that is just my intuition. 

Can anybody help with that on the record for now, or later? 
29 

Mr. MADER. Senator, I do not have any off the top of my head, 

but we will get back to you. 

Senator CARPER. OK. All right. 

The last question I have, on these soft training needs, hard training needs, and I understand Fort Pickett, we are able to meet—if 

you consolidate everything there, we go from 11—did you say 11 

sites we are doing hard training, and soft skills, hard skills—is it 

11 being consolidated into one? Are they all the hard skills? And, 

how many are soft skills and that cannot be consolidated, and why 

can they not be consolidated in Fort Pickett? 

Mr. STARR. We could consolidate at Fort Pickett, but it would 

mean building a lot of classroom type of buildings down there that 

we currently have space, and we use the Foreign Service Institute 

in Arlington. We have our headquarters space that we use. We 

have an annex that we use for training. We have an engineering 

annex that we use for training. So, those are the soft skills. It is 

classroom type of training that we are doing up here. 

The 11 hard skills sites that we use, as I say, that includes getting space at military bases, but also private contractors, the only 

one that would continue to be used is a pistol range, a DHS– 

FLETC pistol range in Cheltenham, Maryland, which we continue 

to use for handgun qualifications. That is a FLETC facility that we 

use. But, all of the other 10 facilities, hard skills training facilities, 

would be combined onto Fort Pickett. 

Senator CARPER. OK. In conclusion, I would just say, colleagues, 

GAO looks like they may have something for us in a month or so. 

Mr. Chairman, you and Senator McCaskill both indicated a willingness then to have another hearing. I would suggest that maybe 

that would be a good hearing to invite GAO to come to and maybe 

some of these folks. I think you have all done a very nice job here 

today. 

And, Ms. Patrick, I accept your invitation. I look forward to come 

down, unarmed, to Glynco, Georgia, and see what great job that 

you are doing. Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

So, let us just finish off, give everybody a chance to make a closing comment before we close out the hearing. Mr. Starr. 

Mr. STARR. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity here. 

And, I can see that there are questions that many people want. 

This is a large project. It is no doubt about it. And, in a fiscal environment that is very tight, we all need to be stewards of the taxpayers’ money. 

I am trying to get a facility that will meet our needs in a very 

different and changing world. It is not law enforcement any more 

for us. It is much more oriented with our partners in the U.S. military. I think that what we are facing in the future in terms of 

radicalization and the types of threats that we face overseas are 

going to continue to grow. Since Benghazi, we have had major attacks on our embassies and consulates in Herat, we have had them 

in Erbil. We have evacuated Libya. We have evacuated Tripoli. We 

have gone back into the Central African Republic. We have tight 

situations in Burundi and South Sudan. We are looking closely at 

the effects in Amman, Jordan, and in Turkey at this point. We are 
30 

going to be facing a very different type of environment, and what 

we are trying to do is prepare our people. 

And, I appreciate the fact that your Committee looks closely at 

these things. Our decision is based not solely on cost, but on cost 

and synergies and building those capabilities for the future. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Starr. And, listen, everybody here completely understands and agrees with that high 

priority part of the mission. So, again, we want to, obviously, make 

sure that that occurs. Mr. Mader. 

Mr. MADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I just want to 

echo what Mr. Starr said. I think our interests are all aligned. We 

have the same interests in that we want to provide for the safety 

and security of all our employees who are posted overseas and we 

want to do it in a way that is most cost effective and yet delivers 

the quality and the type of training that we are going to need, not 

only today, but going forward. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Ms. Patrick. 

Ms. PATRICK. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to 

share about FLETC, and with us, it is always about the student. 

We focus on the student, what is in their best interest, and that 

usually helps us get to whatever that compromise is. And, so, in 

this case, we have the benefit of having a lot of existing capabilities 

and capacity that Congress has funded over time, and that is a disadvantage to them, in this case, but it is also something that, obviously, we need to consider. 

But, again, I have the most respect for the State Department and 

what their needs are and I want to be helpful in any way that I 

can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you. 

Well, we will have a followup hearing. We will wait to read the 

GAO report. And, I guess my request of all of you, including GAO, 

is work together so we are dealing with basically common formats, 

so we are dealing with the number of training weeks, whatever the 

metrics are, so that we are not comparing apples to oranges here. 

Let us be comparing oranges to oranges. That is my request. 

Again, we share the same goal. We truly do. It is our responsibility to provide this oversight so that we understand it. Help us 

understand the decision that was made. So, again, work with GAO. 

After that report comes out, I would really like all of you, all three 

of you with GAO, let us come together, again, with a common template and format for the information we are going to be reviewing 

in our next hearing, OK? 

So, with that, this hearing record will remain open for 15 days, 

until August 12, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Æ