U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

79–895 PDF 2013

THE FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION 

(113–5) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia . 4 

Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland ............................................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 4 

PANEL 2 

Dorothy Robyn, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration .............................................................................................. 12 

Kevin L. Perkins, Associate Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 12 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland ..................................................................... 36 

Hon. Robert J. Wittman, of Virginia ...................................................................... 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer ............................................................................................... 38 

Hon. Frank R. Wolf ................................................................................................. 40 

Hon. James P. Moran .............................................................................................. 42 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards .......................................................................................... 44 

Hon. Gerald E. Connolly ......................................................................................... 47 

Dorothy Robyn: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ................................................................ 53 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland ............................................................ 55 

Kevin L. Perkins: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ................................................................ 62 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, of Maryland ............................................................ 66 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, submission of the following items for the record: 

U.S. General Services Administration, ‘‘Report of Building Project Survey 

for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Headquarters Consolidation, 

Washington, DC, Metropolitan Region,’’ (2011) ......................................... 69 

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, ‘‘A Region Divided: The State of Growth in Greater Washington, DC,’’ (1999) 76 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79895.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79895.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79895.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79895.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79895.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79895.006
(1) 

THE FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The committee will come to order. Welcome to our 

first subcommittee hearing. And thankfully it was not rained out 

today. 

I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for the opportunity to 

chair this subcommittee. I also look forward to working with Ranking Member Norton and continuing this subcommittee’s bipartisan 

tradition. Let me also thank our distinguished colleagues from the 

House for testifying today. Your presence speaks volumes about 

your concern for the FBI and your communities. And finally, let me 

welcome Dr. Robyn from GSA and Mr. Perkins from the FBI. 

I chose the FBI headquarters for our first hearing, because it is 

one of the most significant projects we may consider this year. Several studies have documented the functional, operational, and security problems with the Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The FBI has a vital mission. It has made a compelling case for 

relocating its headquarters function. However, a new facility would 

cost over $1 billion, and financing it in today’s budget climate will 

be extremely challenging. Direct appropriations are doubtful, and 

OMB scoring rules typically preclude leases that result in Federal 

ownership. In fact, I have been told OMB has not approved a longterm ground lease with a Federal lease-back, as the FBI is proposing, since the scoring rules changed in the early 1990s. Yet, if 

we are successful, this has the potential for becoming a model for 

public-private partnerships in the future. 

When it comes to this proposal, the committee has two general 

goals: the project should meet the security and operational requirements of the FBI, and it needs to be a good deal for the taxpayers. 

Achieving these goals raises a host of questions that need to be addressed. 

For example, if the FBI must leave Pennsylvania Avenue, is a 

consolidated campus the best alternative? How can Congress limit 

the financial risks to the taxpayer by such a large and complex 

project? How can the committee ensure a fair and competitive site 

selection process? Can a consolidated facility be constructed or purVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Jul 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\3-13-1~1\79895.TXT JEAN
2 

chased for a reasonable cost? What is the value of the current site 

on Pennsylvania Avenue, and what should be done with it? Is GSA 

capable of managing such a complex project? 

These are some of the important questions we hope to explore 

during today’s hearing so we can ensure the FBI’s requirements 

are met and the interests of the taxpayer are protected. I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony. 

I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Norton, for a brief opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Why, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

congratulate you on your first hearing. I look forward to working 

with you. I note that both you and Chairman Shuster have started 

this committee and this subcommittee off to a very fast and a very 

good start, taking up important issues from the get-go. And I appreciate the start you have made. 

I am pleased, especially, to welcome all of today’s witnesses, and 

especially my colleagues from across the region. But I think it is 

important to clarify what is before us today. What is before us 

today is simply a hearing on the GSA’s Request for Information. 

That is all that the GSA has asked for, all it has solicited, information only. 

Now, an RFI, as we call it, can lead to an actual request for proposals. In this case, to consolidate the FBI into a new headquarters. And there is agreement by the FBI, by the GSA, and by 

the GAO, that a new headquarters is necessary. The Pennsylvania 

Avenue headquarters has been falling apart now for many years. 

And it does not allow even key personnel to be housed in its headquarters building. 

As important as the FBI is as an agency, constructing a new or 

otherwise obtaining a new FBI is really no different from any other 

Federal construction. The GSA and the GSA alone must conduct a 

competition. And the GSA must make the decision in the best interest of the taxpayer. And I can say in more than 20 years on this 

subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen any political decisions made by the GSA, and I am sure they will keep that very 

strong record up. 

Everybody here hopes that their site will be selected, including 

the site from the District of Columbia. And everyone here is, of 

course, doing the right thing to market their sites. Sites are marketed not only by developers, they are also marketed by Members 

of Congress. I regard my role, however, as ranking member, to ensure that there is fair competition, so that the taxpayer gets top 

value. 

The staff memo raises important questions. And the responses 

from the GSA today are going to be very important to the subcommittee in evaluating this process. I appreciate the clarification 

in the staff memo, working with my friends on the other side, because there is a—the Senate resolution—do we have that? Do we 

have that? The Senate resolution—and isn’t it interesting, when I 

say there should be no political interference? The Senate resolution 

has not been adopted by the GSA, and has led some members of 

the press to believe that the site could be spread throughout the 

region. 

3 

It is clear that the RFI is in the GSA—is the GSA resolution. 

And it says the location of the new FBI headquarters must be no 

more than 2 miles from a Metrorail station, not 2.5 miles from the 

Capital Beltway. And the resolution is drawn that way to maximize 

competition and because of the longstanding policy of this committee, especially in this congested region, that we must facilitate 

the use of Metrorail and mass transportation. 

We know that the 20 locations of the FBI has made it impossible 

for the agency to conduct its business as a security agency should 

be. We are looking for lower space allocations. We believe that the 

GSA could consolidate in as little as 2 million square feet. Its appropriation, if it were not leasing space as it is now across the region, would be cut by nearly $45 million. The GSA is compelled by 

the policy of the administration and of this subcommittee to use 

the new space utilization, which reduces substantially the amount 

of space for each employee. As for the space on Pennsylvania Avenue, the headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, it is the ugliest 

building in town. Good riddance. 

The focus of the first panel will be, of course, on their preferred 

sites. It is the second panel that is critical to our work, especially 

the use that the RFI proposes to make of Section 412 authority 

that allows it a range of options to engage in transactions, and does 

not require upfront spending by the Federal Government. 

I appreciate that Chairman Barletta has focused also on the 

OMB’s scoring rules, which do not align with CBO’s rules. And 

those scoring rules have cost the Federal Government billions of 

dollars over time. And I believe that Congress may have to intervene if those rules come into play again. 

The project presents many challenges, but it also presents many 

opportunities, and very specifically the opportunity on the part of 

GSA to engage in a normal real estate transaction, instead of treating real estate as a commodity, losing money for the taxpayer. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. At this 

time I would like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Barletta, and thanks for holding 

this hearing today. This is an important hearing. Obviously, we are 

joined by four distinguished colleagues of ours, and two from Virginia, two from Maryland. So it is obviously important to the region, as well as the ranking member, who, of course, represents the 

District of Columbia. But I welcome you here to the committee 

today. 

And again, I appreciate you holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

The FBI is one of the most important institutions in this Nation. 

It keeps us safe. We need to make sure that we find them a location that is best suited for them, and making sure that it is efficient, it is modern, and it is secure. 

So, as we move through this process, I look forward to getting 

input and hearing from everybody. And again, thank all of you for 

being here. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now call on the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. 

4 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening comments. I want to hear from my colleagues first. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. We will have two panels today. The 

first is a Members panel that includes the Honorable Steny Hoyer, 

the Honorable Frank Wolf, the Honorable Jim Moran, the Honorable Donna Edwards, and the Honorable Gerald E. Connolly. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Representative Hoyer, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; HON. FRANK R. 

WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF VIRGINIA; HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; HON. DONNA F. 

EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND; AND HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Barletta, and I want to 

thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Norton, and Ranking 

Member Rahall for their attendance. I thank the committee for 

holding this hearing to examine the possibility of a new consolidated FBI headquarters, and for the opportunity to testify on the 

merits of relocating to Prince George’s County, Maryland, where I 

grew up and where I now represent, and have for the last 32 years. 

The J. Edgar Hoover Building is in disrepair and does not comply with today’s high-security standards. I think everybody agrees 

on that. The agency suffers from space constraints and security 

challenges. To restore the current building is neither cost effective 

nor feasible. In addition, roughly half the headquarters staff are in 

leased space around the capital region because there is insufficient 

space within the J. Edgar Hoover Building. 

Consolidation will save money and enhance the FBI’s ability to 

do its work. The dispersion of staff negatively impacts the FBI’s 

ability to perform its mission. Consolidating and relocating the 

headquarters in a timely manner will help ensure that the FBI can 

carry out that mission and save our taxpayers at least $44 million 

annually in the process. 

Any new location for a possible new consolidated FBI headquarters must meet several requirements. First, it must have a 

minimum of 45 to 50 acres. Secondly, it must be located within the 

national capital region. Thirdly, it must have access to public 

transportation, such as Metrorail. And it must have space to house 

approximately 11,000 personnel. 

With a variety of potential sites in close proximity to Washington 

with sufficient available acreage and close to mass transit, I believe 

that Prince George’s County is an ideal location for the new headquarters. We will try to make that case over the next months, and 

5 

we will look forward to working with our colleagues towards that 

end. 

Prince George’s County, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, has 

ample undeveloped land near the Metro. In fact, more so than any 

other jurisdiction: the MARC commuter rail, the Capital Beltway, 

a variety of Metro and county transit bus lines and regional bike 

trails. The sites can provide a secure and convenient campus setting. 

Twenty-five percent of the region’s Federal workforce resides in 

Prince George’s County, and our State is already home to a plurality of the FBI’s employees. According to a Maryland State study 

released in September, 43 percent of FBI headquarters employees 

live in Maryland, 17 percent live in Washington, DC, and 33 percent we understand live in Virginia. FBI personnel and their families, I suggest, could benefit from a lower daily transportation expense, Prince George’s County’s vibrant neighborhoods, and an 

easier commute. 

In addition, Maryland has recently seen unprecedented growth in 

the field of cybersecurity, which would provide the FBI with greater access to experts in the field, as well as a highly skilled workforce. Our State is home to—and I think this is very important: the 

U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade; the National Security Agency; the Defense Information Systems Agency; the National 

Cybersecurity Center of Excellence headquarters at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology; the Department of Defense’s Cyber Crime Center, known as DC3; and the Intelligence 

Advanced Research Projects Activity, IARPA. 

Our State’s institutions of higher education, including the University of Maryland at College Park, just a few miles from the projected site, and Bowie State University, also just a few miles from 

the projected site, both located in Prince George’s County, are 

training the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity. Numerous 

companies and contractors in the field of cybersecurity are located 

in Prince George’s County as well, Mr. Chairman, not far from others operating in Montgomery and Anne Arundel County. 

I think that Prince George’s County will make its case with several potential secure and convenient locations, and a significant 

portion of the region’s Federal workforce is the right choice for the 

new FBI headquarters. I will continue to work with you, Mr. Chairman, with your ranking member, Ms. Norton, and with Mr. Shuster and Mr. Rahall as we go forward assessing the merits of each 

of these sites. Local officials in Maryland and the Governor advocate for any proposed consolidated FBI headquarters to be relocated in Prince George’s County. Our State is united in that effort, 

including, as you just recently heard, the leadership of Montgomery 

County, Mr. Leggett. 

So, I thank you for this opportunity to appear, look forward to 

working with you. We believe that the Prince George’s County proposal will prove to be, from the taxpayers’ standpoint, which is obviously our principal concern, and from the FBI’s standpoint and 

national security, to be the best site. And we look forward to working with you towards that end. 

I thank you, thank the chair and the committee for its attention. 

6 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Representative 

Hoyer. 

Representative Wolf, you may proceed. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and also 

Ms. Norton, too. I will try to summarize quickly. 

Obviously, I am here to support the Bureau moving its headquarters to the State of Virginia. The entire Virginia delegation, 

the Governor, everyone, is in complete agreement. 

It is a logical choice. A number of FBI agents live in Virginia. 

The Washington field office resident agency is in Virginia. The FBI 

Academy is in Virginia at Quantico, the back-and-forth and backand-forth between the two. The FBI new record facility is slated to 

be built in Virginia. The recordkeeping fingerprint is out in West 

Virginia, which is relatively close. The CIA is in Virginia. The CIA 

is in Langley. The CIA is in Herndon. The CIA is in Reston. The 

CIA is on Route 28. The NRO is in Virginia. And I could go on. 

But having the proximity—FBI, NRO, CIA, all these agencies together, along with the West Virginia and the new recordskeeping 

in Winchester, it makes a big difference. 

There are a number of potential sites in Virginia that meet the 

needs of the Bureau. I am not coming in for any one particular site, 

whether they are in Fairfax County, Prince William County, or in 

Loudoun County. 

As the process gets underway there, I think it is important that 

the Government get the best deal. And I would encourage or end 

by this last comment. If I say anything that sticks, hopefully this 

will be. I would encourage the subcommittee not to limit its search 

to sites no further than 2.5 miles from the Capital Beltway as the 

Senate prospectus requires. That would arbitrarily prevent sites in 

Loudoun and Prince William. We expect the procurement process 

to be open and fair. So open and fair, and remove any strictures 

that sort of, when you write them down, you in essence are not saying the name but you are forcing it to go. It ought to be open and 

fair. 

And with that, I thank you for the hearing very much. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Representative 

Wolf. 

Now, Representative Moran, you may proceed. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Shuster and 

Ranking Members Norton and Rahall. We appreciate the opportunity to get our views before this subcommittee as a region. 

Now, I, along with a united Virginia congressional delegation, do 

believe that northern Virginia would make the ideal location for 

the new FBI headquarters. And the reasons are the following, and 

they do mirror exactly what Mr. Wolf had to say, although we 

didn’t confer in advance. But I think you will find the same conclusions that we came to. 

Northern Virginia is home to a majority of FBI personnel in the 

region. FBI people live in northern Virginia, for the most part. The 

FBI Academy and the FBI Laboratory, the premier crime lab in the 

U.S., employ over 500 scientific experts and special agents. They 

are both located in Quantico, Virginia. The northern Virginia resident agency, field office for several hundred agents, is located in 

Prince William County. And Winchester, Virginia, will be the fuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Jul 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\3-13-1~1\79895.TXT JEAN
7 

ture home of the FBI’s central records complex. A headquarters location in northern Virginia would provide substantial logistical 

benefits and collaborative opportunities. 

In addition, the FBI occupies a number of discreet facilities elsewhere in northern Virginia, and the region is also home to the National Counterterrorism Center and the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. An FBI headquarters location in Virginia 

would increase opportunities for cross-agency coordination and promote increased operational efficiency, saving time and transportation costs. 

Northern Virginia offers geographically advantageous locations 

roughly equidistant from Quantico and Washington, DC, offering 

easy access to other Federal agencies, Congress, and the aforementioned major FBI facilities. Our region also has some of the best 

schools in the country and is consistently ranked one of the best 

places to live, work, and raise a family. Taken together, these attributes would help to minimize the adverse transition and transportation effects on employees assigned to the new headquarters. 

Now, my top priority, of course—our top priority—is to support 

efforts to locate the FBI headquarters in Virginia. But I would like 

to mention a couple of facilities in particular. There is a Center for 

Innovative Technology property, their substantial amount of land 

is located right at the—at Route 28 and the Dulles Toll Road, and 

it will have access to the Silver Line Metro station. 

Another property that I believe would be ideal for this facility is 

a GSA warehouse located in Springfield, Virginia. It is situated on 

approximately 60 acres. It could easily accommodate over 3.5 million square feet of highly secure office space, and would allow for 

the productive use of underused Government-owned real estate. It 

is right at a Metro station. It would provide ample space for the 

FBI to accommodate potential future growth. 

Given recent local challenges that were created by BRAC relocations, I think this subcommittee should consider sites that would 

require the least amount of off-site infrastructure. It is expensive, 

it is time-consuming, and I don’t think that it is appropriate to 

have to invest in substantial infrastructure to accommodate a new 

FBI building. 

In this regard, though, the Springfield location is unique, because we have substantial improvements to Interstate 395, on 

which it is located. We have the express lane project on the beltway, and the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway to Fort 

Belvoir, all going along this site. So more than $1 billion has been 

invested in the road network in and around this particular GSA 

warehouse site. It is also located, as I say, next to the FranconiaSpringfield Metro station, next to Amtrak, and next to VRE rail 

lines, and it is served by a very extensive bus system. So the presence of a high-quality road network and mass transit options would 

promote efficient traffic flow and minimize the impact on the local 

community. 

Now, as GSA proceeds with its selection process, I know that this 

competition will be conducted in a completely open and fair manner. Unlike the Senate-passed prospectus, I would hope that we 

would not prevent consideration of potential sites in the Dulles 

area. I urge the subcommittee to oppose unnecessary restrictions 

8 

on the location of the new FBI headquarters. The Senate was more 

restrictive; I don’t think there is a need for the House to do so. The 

decision of where to locate this facility should be based solely on 

what is best for the FBI’s ability to fulfill its vital law enforcement 

and national security missions through a transparent process, free 

of political considerations. 

I am fully confident that sites in Virginia will stand out among 

all the options, and I thank you again for inviting us to testify and 

for your continued efforts to ensure the best possible location is 

chosen as the new headquarters for the FBI. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Representative 

Moran. 

Representative Edwards, you may proceed. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Ranking 

Member Norton. I really appreciate the ability to testify today. And 

I look forward to our work together, as a subcommittee, to make 

sure that we are reporting a resolution that adequately reflects the 

needs of the FBI, but also is respective of the needs of taxpayers. 

The future location of the FBI headquarters is vital to the men 

and women of the Bureau and to their mission. But it is also vital 

to the people of my congressional district, specifically in Prince 

George’s County, where I live, which Congressman Hoyer and I 

represent here in this chamber. We are here today because it is 

critical that the FBI consolidate its operations to optimize the 

agency’s ability to meet its vital mission and make the best use of 

taxpayer resources. 

It has been my experience on this committee that when we have 

considered—and Ranking Member Norton understands this—when 

we have considered these matters in front of our committee, our 

goal is about fairness of process, to make sure that there is the 

most open competition possible that then maximizes the taxpayers’ 

dollars. 

It has been almost 40 years since the FBI actually moved to the 

Hoover Building, and we know it has outgrown it. We know that 

it can no longer provide the security, infrastructure needs, and 

space required of the world’s premier law enforcement agencies. In 

addition to its responsibilities here at home today, the FBI is a key 

leader, globally, in meeting our law enforcement needs. 

Here in the national capital region, the FBI occupies more than 

3 million square feet of space over 21 locations that results in $168 

million of leasing costs alone. It is pretty staggering. But surprisingly, the Hoover Building currently only houses 52 percent of the 

FBI’s headquarters staff. This dispersed office structure is impeding the Bureau’s ability to meet its core mission, due to challenges 

in managing its headquarters, divisions, and offices effectively, and 

while also collaborating and sharing information across functions. 

It—to comply with 9/11 security—post-9/11 security requirements, the FBI has looked to consolidate facilities into one headquarters. In response to a 2011 GAO study, the FBI conducted a 

security assessment that documented threats and analyzed building security requirements consistent with the Interagency Security 

Committee standards. And so it is a critical component of our NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Jul 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\3-13-1~1\79895.TXT JEAN
9 

tion’s security apparatus that the agency has to comply with these 

enhanced standards. 

So, I want to talk for a minute about Prince George’s County. 

Prince George’s County offers an appropriate, I think, opportunity 

for development and for the FBI to relocate its headquarters. I 

think it offers a competitive combination, as Mr. Hoyer has indicated, that meets the requirements of the FBI, also meets the requirements of the resolution that came out of the Senate, and has 

taxpayer value with the finest location and access to world-class facilities. 

Joint Base Andrews, the President’s airport, is in Camp Springs 

in Prince George’s County. That would provide the FBI with a secure facility from which to depart anywhere in the world to meet 

its global responsibilities for our domestic law enforcement needs. 

Fort Meade is home to the National Security Agency, the Nation’s 

largest leader in cybersecurity and its intelligence-gathering apparatus. It is another secure facility located in nearby Anne Arundel 

County, a part of which I also have the honor of representing. 

As Mr. Hoyer has indicated, the University of Maryland, Bowie 

State University, also provides nationally ranked disciplines in 

criminal justice, computer forensics, biological sciences, language, 

homeland, cyber, and national security. It is home to the Department of Homeland Security’s Center of Excellence and terrorism 

studies, and a national consortium of leading terrorism studies programs across the country. 

Prince George’s County is also home, as we have heard many 

times in this committee, to 15 Metro stops, which is the most in 

this region, offering all kinds of accessibility throughout the county, 

and provides easy access to the White House, downtown Washington, DC, the Capital Beltway, the Department of Homeland Security’s new campus at St. Elizabeths, and our region’s airports, 

while also having the lowest real estate prices in—around nearby 

Metro facilities throughout our region. 

In addition, over 67,000 Federal employees reside in Prince 

George’s County and, as you have heard, 43 percent of the workforce at the FBI. Prince George’s County is the right fit for the FBI, 

and it will do right by the FBI. 

And if a consolidated headquarters becomes a reality anywhere 

within the parameters already set by the Senate resolution, the 

District of Columbia also stands to gain. The Hoover Building on 

Pennsylvania Avenue would free up a block on the most important 

and prominent street in America, allowing the District of Columbia 

to have a tax-generating tenant and a building that adds to the 

aesthetic value of Pennsylvania Avenue. And that would complement the soon-to-be developed Old Post Office site, which Chairman Norton worked very much on in the last Congress, and was 

championed by this committee, as well. 

Again, Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Norton, thanks 

for allowing me to testify today. It is not our job here to figure out 

who gets the competition, but it is our job to make certain that it 

is a fair, it is an open and competitive process, and I have every 

confidence that Prince George’s County will meet that competition. 

Thank you. 

10 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Representative Edwards. 

And now, Representative Connolly, you may proceed. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Norton, Mr. Shuster. And I know Nick Rahall just stepped out. I 

have a prepared statement; I am not going to read it to you. It repeats an awful lot of what has already been said. So let me just 

summarize. 

I want to echo what my colleague, Donna Edwards, just said. We 

look forward to a fair, open, and transparent process, free of political influence. And we believe that if there is such a process, frankly, Virginia is the likely new site of an FBI headquarters for several reasons, one of which is the FBI is already there. The FBI is 

in Quantico with a very large footprint. The FBI new 

recordskeeping complex is going to be in Winchester, Virginia. We 

already have the northern Virginia residency, of course, in Prince 

William County in Virginia. 

Virginia offers—northern Virginia offers one of the most skilled 

workforces in the United States, one of the highest performing 

school systems in the United States. It is a place from which we 

can draw skilled labor. And we have George Mason University, now 

the largest public university in a stellar public university State, the 

State of Virginia. We have the third largest community college, 

Northern Virginia Community College, in the United States, in Virginia, all of which provide criminal justice courses and forensics 

training in large numbers for law enforcement. 

The nexus for the FBI is logically in Virginia. And I believe that 

with a fair and open and transparent process, Virginia is going to 

be more than competitive in sites that are served by transit, particularly the GSA site in Springfield, but also the CIT site proximate to Dulles Airport that will be served by the silver line that 

is under construction right now. 

So, we are very proud of the sites that have been proffered. We 

look forward to a fair, open, transparent process. We hope that this 

committee, in drawing its criteria, will, frankly, be more flexible 

and more open than maybe the Senate was in drawing its. And as 

I said, we are confident that, if that is the process, we are going 

to be more than competitive. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for giving us 

this opportunity this morning. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I would like to thank each of you for 

your testimony here this morning. I know how busy you all are. 

But we all know how important this project is. It is critical to the 

FBI that their new location will be somewhere where it will be 

functional. And obviously, security is a major role. 

But the questions we have today that we want answered is why, 

where, and how. And your testimony today informing our subcommittee is very important to all of us. So again, I want to thank 

each of you for your time. 

We will excuse the panel, and—— 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman? Since I didn’t make an opening comment, may I make a comment to the panel—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes, you may. 

11 

Mr. RAHALL [continuing]. Before they depart? Let me just cite a 

couple well-known facts, if I might, to the panel. 

First, the FBI in my home State of West Virginia, which Mr. 

Wolf has referred, already have a successful partnership. As we 

know, in fact, the largest division of the FBI, the criminal information service division, is located in Clarksburg. The heart of the 

CGIS complex is a 500,000-square-foot main office building on 980 

acres of land owned by the FBI. It features a beautiful 600-seat cafeteria, 500-seat auditorium. It has an atrium for visitors and employees, and a 100,000-square-foot computer center. 

The campus already employs some 2,500 employees. In fact, FBI 

owns nearly 1,000 acres of land in Clarksburg, plenty of room for 

expansion. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RAHALL. In addition, the Internet crime complaint center, 

collaboration between the FBI and the National White Collar 

Crime Center, has a facility in Fairmont, West Virginia. It has 

been reported, following the division’s move from downtown Washington, DC, to Clarksburg, West Virginia, that FBI executives cited 

sharper lower employee absentee rates, improved employee retention rates, higher worker productivity and morale. 

The benefits of West Virginia as a home for Federal facilities are 

abundant. And other agencies would do well to consider the community where the FBI and other Federal employees have thrived 

over the past 20 years. 

So I would say while these titans of the beltway lock horns, let 

us all remember that there is a calm, safe, and serene atmosphere 

in ‘‘Almost Heaven,’’ where our dedicated and hard-working FBI 

employees can work and live. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, I yield. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SHUSTER. I just would like to remind everybody that the 

Pennsylvania State line is less than 100 miles from here, and there 

is wide open spaces all over south central Pennsylvania. Yield 

back. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say that I have had 

a discussion with the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and she has told me how much she admired the work of 

the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, would it be inappropriate to ask the 

ranking member of the full committee for his estimated ETA for 

the Metro system to arrive in West Virginia? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MORAN. And how we are going to pay for it? 

Mr. RAHALL. With high-speed rail, anything is possible. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if it can’t 

be in the preferred location, Virginia, we would be proud to have 

it in our sister State, West Virginia. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I will call on our second panel of witnesses: Dr. 

Dorothy Robyn, commissioner, Public Buildings Service of the GenVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Jul 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\3-13-1~1\79895.TXT JEAN
12 

eral Services Administration and Dr. Kevin Perkins, associate deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses, so I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Dr. Robyn, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF DOROTHY ROBYN, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC 

BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND KEVIN L. PERKINS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member 

Norton, Congressman Rahall. I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here before you this morning. That was a hard act to follow. 

Under new leadership, GSA has refocused on its mission of delivering the best value in real estate acquisition and technology services to Government and the American people. 

With respect to the real estate mission, GSA faces three key 

challenges: an aging inventory of buildings; limited availability of 

Federal dollars with which to maintain our existing buildings and 

construct new ones; and, as a result of the first two challenges, a 

growing reliance on leased space. To address these challenges, we 

are working to improve agencies’ utilization of space, and thereby 

reduce their requirement for space, particularly costly leased space. 

We are seeking to reduce the cost of operating our buildings. Finally, we are using the authorities Congress gave us to leverage 

private capital to deliver better and more efficient space to Federal 

agencies. 

The subject of today’s hearing is an illustration of these very 

challenges and our efforts at GSA to address them. Let me briefly 

summarize the challenge and our proposed response to it. 

As you heard from the last panel, and I would concur, the J. 

Edgar Hoover Building is no longer suitable as a headquarters facility for the FBI. Opened in 1974, when the FBI was primarily a 

law enforcement agency, the building was principally designed to 

store vast amounts of paper documents. It was also intended to be 

accessible to the public, as evidenced by the large central courtyard 

and the second-floor veranda for parade-watching along Pennsylvania Avenue. These features, among others, now represent deficiencies. 

The building is highly inefficient, from the standpoint of space 

utilization. Of the 2.4 million gross square feet of area, only 1.3 

million square feet are usable to FBI personnel. This inherently 

poor use of space, together with the growth of the agency since 9/ 

11, means that the Hoover Building now accommodates only about 

half of the agency’s headquarters staff. The rest are located, as you 

have heard, in some 20 leased locations around the national capital 

region. This dispersion of staff inhibits the kind of collaboration 

and communication that the FBI has sought to encourage in the 

aftermath of 9/11. 

13 

Second, the design of the building as, in effect, a large filing cabinet discourages collaboration and communication within the building. In particular, sturdy interior walls of cement block, which line 

corridors wide enough to accommodate the movement of large 

blocks of paper files, make it hard to reconfigure the space into the 

kind of open, collaborative workspace that the FBI needs and that 

they are creating in their field offices around the country. 

And then, finally, the building, with its high-profile location and 

limited perimeter setback cannot meet and will not—cannot meet 

and does not meet the FBI’s requirements for Level V security 

under the Interagency Security Committee’s standards. 

Mindful of these deficiencies, in early December GSA issued a 

Request for Information from private developers interested in 

building a new headquarters for the FBI somewhere in the national capital region. The RFI made clear that GSA wants to consider an exchange of the Hoover Building for a new facility of up 

to 2.1 million square feet that would consolidate personnel from 

Hoover and the multiple leased locations in the national capital region. 

What exactly do I mean by ‘‘exchange’’? Real property exchange 

is a tool that Congress has given GSA with which it can dispose 

of properties that no longer meet the Federal need and/or with 

which we can leverage the equity of some of our Government’s less 

suitable or efficient buildings to get other, more suitable and efficient ones. This could—in this case, this could involve the construction of a new facility on land that a developer owns, the construction of a new facility on land that the Government owns or acquires. Alternatively, it could involve an exchange for an existing 

building somewhere in the NCR. 

Under any of these scenarios, at the end of the process the developer would own the Hoover Building and the Federal Government 

would own its replacement facility. 

Now, I want to emphasize that our current initiative and the RFI 

are not limited to the exchange approach. But use of our exchange 

authority appears to be promising. The J. Edgar Hoover Building 

is functionally obsolete, and we believe the Pennsylvania Avenue 

site has considerable potential for higher and better use than as a 

headquarters of a Federal agency. We hope to unlock that hidden 

value and apply it to the creation of a new facility in the NCR. 

The deadline for responses to our RFI was March 4th. As you can 

imagine, the response was very enthusiastic. We got 35 responses. 

We are now in the process of evaluating them. Based on the information we obtained, we may issue a Request for Proposals. That 

would be the next step. 

In sum, this is an important project, one that I believe can materially improve the FBI’s ability to perform its mission. We are seeking to meet this challenge using innovative authorities that Congress has given us. We will work closely with Congress as we go 

forward, using a transparent process that emphasize competition 

and minimization of risk to taxpayers. And every jurisdiction in the 

NCR will get fair consideration. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Robyn. 

Now, Mr. Perkins, you may proceed. 

14 

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Barletta, 

Ranking Member Norton, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the 

subcommittee, and all the distinguished guests here today, I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FBI’s need for a 

new consolidated FBI headquarters building. I am pleased to appear before you today, and I am truly honored to be here with my 

colleague from the General Services Administration, Commissioner 

Robyn. 

As you know, the FBI has occupied the J. Edgar Hoover Building 

on Pennsylvania Avenue since its completion in 1974. Since then, 

and particularly since 9/11, the FBI has undergone significant 

changes in its structure and its management: information technology systems, interagency collaboration, and its overall mission. 

These changes have transformed the Bureau into a national security organization that fuses traditional law enforcement and intelligence missions, enabling us to successfully identify and combat 

new and emerging threats, head on. 

As its mission has grown, the FBI has also adapted the use of 

the Hoover Building to meet mission requirements, and to increase 

operational efficiencies. For example, we relocated our crime lab to 

Quantico, instituted an electronic system of record, relocated our 

paper records, and converted nonpersonnel and equipment-intensive spaces into office space to accommodate our growing number 

of employees. As a result, today’s FBI has over 10,000 headquarters staff in multiple locations throughout the national capital 

region. 

In fact, the Hoover Building houses only just over half the Bureau’s headquarters staff. The dispersal of employees has created 

significant challenges with regard to effectively managing the Bureau’s headquarters divisions and offices, facilitating organizational 

change, and sharing information across operational and administrative functions. 

Now, to address these concerns, numerous assessments of the 

current Hoover Building and other headquarters offsite locations 

have been conducted over the last few years. All have concluded 

that consolidating the FBI headquarters operations will improve 

information sharing and collaboration, eliminate redundant space, 

and enhance security, while at the same time saving significant tax 

dollars. 

Housing critical FBI headquarters elements in a single location 

will reduce space needs by over 800,000 square feet, a reduction of 

almost 30 percent, which, in turn, results in significantly lower 

rent payments, especially when you compound them over time. Our 

August 2011 headquarters consolidation project report concludes 

this will result in a savings of at least $44 million annually. 

Working with our partners at GSA, we have proposed locating a 

new headquarters within the national capital region. Generally, the 

site must be served by mass transit, have adequate surrounding 

highway infrastructure, and must be in substantial conformance 

with local land use plans. Just as importantly, the FBI headquarters building should be housed in a facility meeting the highest standards of security, a level of protection reserved for agencies 

with the highest level of risk related to their mission functions, 

15 

which are critical to national security and continuation of Government. 

We will continue to work with the GSA and with Congress in 

order to identify and implement a solution that meets the FBI’s 

needs not only now, but well into the future. 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be here before 

you today. It truly is an honor. And I now look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Perkins. I will 

now begin the first round of questions, which will be limited to 5 

minutes for each Member. If there are any additional questions following the first round, we will have additional rounds of questions, 

as needed. 

As I said in my opening statement, this is an important, yet complicated proposal. The committee wants to be helpful and find a 

new home for the FBI, but I do not envision the committee writing 

a blank check. As a result, we are looking for reasonable limitations on the size, scope, and cost of the project in order to protect 

the taxpayer from overbuilding and overspending. 

We have many questions along these lines and limited time. So 

it would be most helpful if you could attempt to keep your responses as brief and to the point as possible. 

We have some detailed questions regarding the FBI’s 2011 report. If it would be helpful, Mr. Perkins, I would invite Mr. Pat 

Findlay to join you at the table at your discretion, if you feel that 

that would be helpful. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Findlay, would you state your name and your title? 

Mr. FINDLAY. Yes. Patrick Findlay, assistant director for facilities, FBI. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Dr. Robyn, GSA recommended Federal construction in this 2011 project survey report. My question 

would be if this is GSA’s current recommendation. If not, what is 

GSA’s current recommendation? As you know, this report recommends Federal construction. In today’s budget climate and fiscal 

climate, we know that is not possible. So if this report is not the 

true recommendation, what is GSA recommending? 

Ms. ROBYN. Federal construction, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is 

always the least expensive approach, the best approach, in terms 

of cost to the taxpayer. So we always prefer that. We are pursuing 

that at St. Elizabeths, but you can see from the delays at St. Elizabeths the problems associated with consolidating an agency headquarters relying solely on Federal construction. 

So, we are looking at our exchange authority. We are not looking 

exclusively at that, but we want to explore that as an alternative, 

and a way to do this in a more accelerated way. 

Mr. BARLETTA. When will the committee receive an OMB-approved prospectus requesting the project? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I would say that OMB approved the RFI to go 

out. So I think that should give you some comfort that the approach that we are pursuing is one OMB is comfortable with. 

I think it is premature to talk about sending up a prospectus. I 

think we are—we just got the replies from the RFI in last week. 

We are evaluating them. Because there are so many, it is going to 

16 

take us a while. We will be happy to brief you along the way on 

them, but I think it is premature to talk about a prospectus. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Perkins, would you please describe the FBI’s 

recommended strategy in its 2011 report? And can you tell me, is 

the FBI formally requesting the committee to authorize that strategy? 

Mr. PERKINS. Well, not formally requesting that authorization at 

this point. The strategy that is put forth in the 2011 report is that 

of a public-private partnership that, as you correctly noted earlier, 

in this fiscal environment in which we are in, we believe that 

would serve as the method by which would require the least upfront cost for the taxpayers, have the least impact on Federal 

spending, and be able to leverage the private sector’s ability to 

come up with financing and development of a project with the least 

cost to the taxpayer. 

So, overall, we believe, in the end, we would have a facility that 

would meet our needs and our requirements, both security and 

operational, as well as having the least cost to the taxpayer on the 

front end. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And could you please present the financial case 

for the FBI’s proposal? And what does the FBI spend now to home 

the headquarters? And what would it spend under a new proposal? 

Mr. PERKINS. Certainly. Right now we spend approximately $168 

million annually in rents across 21 different facilities within the 

national capital region. Under this new process, and a single campus, I believe that number would go somewhere approximately 

$124 million to $125 million in annual rent. The annualized net 

present value over the term of any type of public-private partnership and lease agreement would save us at a minimum of $44 million a year over what we are paying in rent, currently. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And for each of you—Mr. Perkins, you first—is 

the ultimate Government ownership of a new headquarters necessary? And is that in the best interest of the taxpayers? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Ultimately, in the proposal that we looked at 

and really went forward with in our review, the public-private partnership would involve the facility being build on Federal land. 

After a term of approximately a 30-year lease, would come back in 

ownership to the Federal Government, yes. Ultimately, the facility 

would become a Federal facility. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Dr. Robyn, same question. 

Ms. ROBYN. I think everyone agrees that this should be a Federal 

facility, a federally owned facility, sooner or later. We typically resort to leased space only for very general purpose space that we 

can get on the regular commercial market. If the facility needs to 

be specialized to an agency’s needs, it is better to have it be federally owned space. The FBI’s proposal would eventually have it be 

federally owned, but not initially. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Dr. Robyn, as I see it, OMB scoring is our biggest 

obstacle to the FBI’s proposal. 

Ms. ROBYN. You said that, sir, not—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. We all know we don’t have $2 billion in appropriations, and GSA has never been able to get OMB to approve the 

type of lease arrangements proposed by the FBI. 

17 

My question is this. Please explain the scoring issues with this 

proposal. And, two, what is OMB’s position? Is OMB prepared to 

allow this project to advance as an operating lease? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I don’t want to speak for OMB, but let me tell 

you what I think the scoring issue is. And I want to say that we 

certainly have not ruled out the out-lease lease-back approach that 

the FBI report recommended. That is an innovative authority that 

this committee gave us. We still hold out hope that we can identify 

a way to do that. So we have not ruled that out. 

I think, in terms of scoring, the philosophical foundation for scoring is risk. It is the concept of risk. Does—is the Federal Government bearing the risk, or does the private sector have skin in the 

game? That is really what it comes down to. So when something 

scores—and typically OMB and CBO are—look at the world in very 

similar ways—it is typically because they feel like the private sector isn’t bearing as much risk as Government, or the scoring is— 

depends on the amount of risk. 

So, I think the issue for an out-lease lease-back approach would 

be can we do that in a way that the private sector has enough skin 

in the game, that is what it would come down to. We think we are 

on better footing with an exchange. We think that—I think it is— 

the reason I emphasize that OMB had approved the RFI is because 

the RFI that we put out, it did not limit it to exchange, but it did 

make clear that we were interested in the possibility of an exchange of the Hoover Building for a new headquarters. And that 

RFI passed muster with OMB. 

So I think we feel that we are on better footing in terms of potential scoring with an exchange. But we have certainly not ruled out 

other approaches. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I will recognize Ranking Member 

Norton for questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to thank both of you for very helpful testimony. Dr. Robyn, the RFI 

is different from the Senate resolution. And I note that the staff 

memo, which is a memo from the staff of both sides here, is not 

a Democratic or Republican staff memo, has a section or question, 

or actually is a statement. It says that the Senate EPW resolution 

requires, to the extent practicable, the new location to be 2 miles 

from a Metrorail station and 2.5 miles from the Capital Beltway. 

If GSA were to follow this instruction, it could significantly limit 

competition of sites in all three potential jurisdictions: Virginia, 

DC, and Maryland. 

Is the delineated area in your RFI necessary for competition, for 

full and fair and open competition? And is it likely to be the delineated area in any forthcoming RFP or Request for Proposals? 

Ms. ROBYN. We made clear in the RFI that the area we are interested in is the national capital region. We did not limit it any more 

than that. And we did not refer to—— 

Ms. NORTON. And you recognize that the Senate resolution does 

limit—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes, I do. We tried to make the RFI as broad 

as possible. We want to encourage as much creativity and interest 

at this stage as we can. And the RFI does not talk about being 2.5 

miles from a Metro or the beltway. That is not in the RFI. I think 

18 

we used those criteria for purposes at—one point for purposes of 

trying to estimate the value of land in various parts of the national 

capital region. But that—we didn’t—we explicitly did not put that 

into the RFI. 

Ms. NORTON. So that standard isn’t even in your—and you don’t 

anticipate it being in the RFP? 

Ms. ROBYN. I don’t know. I think we are very mindful of the 

proximity to transit. I think the FBI, as I think we are, I—— 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t think you have any choice about transit. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the policy of the United States, when it 

comes to construction. But this 2.5—the linking of the 2.5 miles 

from the beltway, to deliberately exclude most of the District of Columbia was an affront, frankly. And it didn’t sound like the GSA 

usually does business. We, of course, wrote to the Senate and we 

didn’t think that that could pass muster. But it is important for 

that to get on the record here. 

You talk about the national capital region. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And, of course, about distance from Metro stations. 

And that, of course, is fair, free, and open, and nobody gets excluded. 

Could I ask Mr. Perkins? Are you seeking to leave the District 

of Columbia? Do you object to being in the District of Columbia? 

Do you see any advantages to being in the District of Columbia? 

Mr. PERKINS. Ranking Member Norton, I will start by saying 

that—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. PERKINS. Oh, yes, ma’am. It is set. I am sorry. I will start 

by saying that we have absolutely no objection to being within the 

District of Columbia, whatsoever. Our central mission here is to 

come up with a property, whether it is in either Maryland, Virginia, or in the District, that meets two major criteria: one, our 

operational mission needs; and two, providing adequate security for 

the facility and the workers who are coming and going from there. 

So there is absolutely no objection to the District. There is no objection to any of the proposals that are out there at this point. 

Obviously, as we have already discussed, adjacent—near highways, transportation, public access, and the like, very, very important, as we have already mentioned in the record. But no, we have 

no objection whatsoever to that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Could I ask both of you? The RFI has 

an enormous acreage, 40 to 55 acres, for a new consolidated FBI. 

Bear in mind that you are talking to the committee that developed 

these new standards that puts everybody into smaller amounts of 

space. You have 40 to 45 acres. We understand that has a lot to 

do with security. 

Could this requirement be mitigated if other factors were taken 

into consideration so that it wouldn’t take up so much land, and 

have you consider mitigation of that large amount of land, 40 to 

55 acres? Dr. Robyn? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. We have—there is a trade-off between the 

amount of land for a setback and alternative approaches to getting 

that same level of security through the building, physical ways the 

19 

building is constructed. So there is a trade-off there. Again, we are 

trying not to prejudice the process at this point. We are saying we 

are open to a variety of approaches. But we recognize that is a serious issue. 

I have continually thrown out the idea of whether this should 

possibly go on a military base for exactly that reason, because you 

would not need to have the same setback. I don’t know that there 

are many other people who support my thoughts there. 

Ms. NORTON. Horrible idea. Is it a horrible idea. 

Ms. ROBYN. I hear that. I heard that from Congresswoman Edwards, as well, earlier. But it is another—— 

Ms. NORTON. We will strike that from the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. We have had—and I know my time is over—we 

have had some dealings, Dr. Robyn, with you and with force protection standards that harmed this entire region, which we think are 

gone forever. 

Ms. ROBYN. They are, yes. I worked to change those. 

Ms. NORTON. That required the kind of setbacks that would 

mean that you could locate almost nothing of the Federal Government in this region. 

Ms. ROBYN. No. Well, that is—I think—so let me just clarify, because—so, first of all, those, the standards, were changed. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Ms. ROBYN. And I think I had something to do with that, and 

thank you—— 

Ms. NORTON. And I thank you for that. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. For your support on that. But secondly, 

my thought of—and it is just an idea that I have thrown out, and 

it has not gotten a lot of support, but is that if one were to put 

this new headquarters at, say, Andrews Air Force Base or Anacostia-Bolling, you would not need the large setbacks, because it 

would already be within a secure perimeter. So it would be precisely to get away from the large setback that one would want to 

consider that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. We will 

have a second round, if there are more questions. But now I would 

like to recognize former full committee chair, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership in chairing this important subcommittee, 

and continuing to deal with Ms. Norton. Both of those deserve high 

praise. 

Ms. Norton, did you hear that? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Well, she will—staff will inform her later and she will 

get even with me. But pleased to participate today. 

I have been involved, of course, with GSA prior to becoming chair 

of the full committee. We produced a report entitled, ‘‘Sitting on 

Our Assets: The Federal Government’s Misuse of Taxpayer-Owned 

Assets,’’ and we tried to pick up, when we gained the Majority, 

looking at—and the beginning of that report, if you read it—I think 

it is still online—focusing on GSA and their dealing with public 

buildings. 

20 

And the largest trustee of public assets I think we have is GSA 

and, of course, the Federal Government, has some broader jurisdiction across the hall in Government reform, and we will continue 

that, which we have done most recently—we had a narrow scope 

in this committee—much broader. And I am absolutely appalled at 

what I am finding as we continue our work, looking at these. 

First of all, Ms. Robyn, how many square feet is the new building 

going to require? 

Ms. ROBYN. The RFI says up to 2.1 million. 

Mr. MICA. Square feet. All in one location. OK. Secondly, you— 

to do that you have to make a decision on how you are going to 

do it. That would cost quite a bit of money. What is the estimate 

that it would cost to build 2 million square feet? 

Ms. ROBYN. We have not made an estimate of that. 

Mr. MICA. Well, come on. You are—— 

Ms. ROBYN. I will defer to—— 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. GSA. Tell me what it would cost to build 

a Federal building. 

Ms. ROBYN. It is—— 

Mr. MICA. Were you doing $1,000, $500 a square foot? 

Ms. ROBYN. It is a substantial amount of money. But, sir, I 

don’t—— 

Mr. MICA. But I want to know the range, OK? And you are not 

going to get it from this Congress or the next Congress, I don’t believe. Is that—has that money been appropriated? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. 

Mr. MICA. OK. So you are not going to have the money. So you 

look at your alternatives. The agency has recommended that possibly a lease and then a eventual possession by the Federal Government. That is one of your options, right, since you don’t have 

the money? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Have you made a decision on how you are going to approach this to get them out of there? 

Ms. ROBYN. No, sir. We have—— 

Mr. MICA. You have an evaluation that we see in the report. 

They are right now sited downtown and you have other spaces. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. ROBYN. They—— 

Mr. MICA. Sir? Mr. Perkins? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. MICA. How many total square feet do you occupy now? 

Mr. PERKINS. Just over 3 million square feet. 

Mr. MICA. And you are going to consolidate that? You can get by 

with 2.2 million? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir, the—— 

Mr. MICA. So there would be some savings? 

Mr. PERKINS. There would be considerable savings. 

Mr. MICA. And that would have some value to the Government. 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Do you know how much that would be? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, the FBI’s number is $44 million. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Ms. ROBYN. That is an—— 

21 

Mr. MICA. And that has some value to the Federal Government. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. If you multiply it out over the number of years. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. So, when you—you are not going to get the money 

from the Federal Government. So somebody has got to make a 

damn decision of moving forward. When do you expect that will be? 

Ms. ROBYN. We—in my opening statement I made clear that we 

are looking principally at the potential to exchange the value of the 

J. Edgar Hoover for a new facility—— 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. An exchange. 

Mr. MICA. And you are negotiating that. OK. 

Ms. ROBYN. We are not negotiating yet—— 

Mr. MICA. How long will you let that go on? 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. We are—we put out an RFI. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Ms. ROBYN. The responses were due—— 

Mr. MICA. When is—— 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. March 4th. We got 35 responses. 

Mr. MICA. And how long—— 

Ms. ROBYN. We are working—— 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Will it take you to evaluate them? 

Ms. ROBYN. It will take—— 

Mr. MICA. Give me a date. Come on. This is business. 

Ms. ROBYN. It will take a couple of months to go through 35 responses—— 

Mr. MICA. OK. So 60 days you will have an answer. That is the 

problem with Government versus business in the private sector. 

Nobody can make a decision or meet a timeline. 

Now, I just got through being down at the—Miami to look at the 

Federal courthouse. Sitting empty, a Federal building, for more 

than 5 years. They knew 2 years before that that that building was 

going to be empty. And nobody has made a damn decision yet on 

what to do with it, costing $1.2 million a year. A total of just 5 

years is $6 million to keep an empty building maintained. 

Now, do you have a plan? Are you going to—are they going to 

vacate the building downtown, sir? That is the plan? 

Mr. PERKINS. That is one of the options—— 

Mr. MICA. That is your major, principal location. 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have a plan to do something with that building? 

Mr. PERKINS. With J. Edgar Hoover? We would—— 

Mr. MICA. Are you starting that process now? 

Ms. ROBYN. The—— 

Mr. MICA. I will bet there isn’t plan one. 

Ms. ROBYN. Sir—— 

Mr. MICA. I will bet there isn’t a clue as to what to do with it. 

Ms. ROBYN. Could—— 

Mr. MICA. Now, if I really want to go after you, the FTC building, again, we have down the street. The consolidation of that, we 

propose, would save a half-a-billion dollars. But God forbid we 

should do that or consolidate it all in one location. 

22 

Ms. ROBYN. The nature of an exchange is that we would, in effect, auction off the Hoover Building—— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. To a developer. And in exchange for that 

value, they would build a new facility. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

Ms. ROBYN. That would be up to the developer—— 

Mr. MICA. I don’t mean to give you a hard time. And thank you 

for also building in the power station. This week you announced 

that it went online auction. And we held a hearing in the vacant 

2.08-acre power station. Just for the record, that will bring in $19.5 

million. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. We also have the Old Post Office building, and I hope 

that deal is moving forward. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. But we have—I think we had 14,000 properties. I only 

have 13,994 more to go. 

Thank you and yield back the rest of my time. If you have a second round, I will be here and I will also submit questions for the 

record. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Now I would like to 

recognize Ms. Edwards for 5 minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you also to 

the witnesses this morning. I appreciate the insight that I have already gotten from our discussion thus far. 

I want to clarify something, because I am looking at the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee-approved resolution, 

and just want to be clear about what your understanding of that 

resolution is, and whether you believe that it excludes sites within 

the District of Columbia from also competing in this eventual competition. 

Ms. ROBYN. I would have to ask our general counsel to interpret 

it. I would just say here that we intentionally cast the RFI more 

broadly so as to encourage the maximum amount of ideas and interest at this stage. So we didn’t—we did not limit the RFI based 

on the Senate resolution. I don’t know whether, as a legal matter, 

whether the Senate resolution would—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. It would be helpful, perhaps not here, but to have 

your counsel’s interpretation of that for our consideration. 

Ms. ROBYN. OK. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to ask you about the—in the GSA study 

report, on page 4 specifically, I just want to read to you what your 

report says, that ‘‘the location of the facility is assumed to be within 2.0 miles of the Metro station and 2.5 miles of’’—and I emphasize ‘‘of’’ because it is a different preposition—‘‘the Capital Beltway 

with site costs similar to those found in the more developed, closein suburban areas as a means to estimate the maximum cost the 

Government would incur.’’ 

And so, I want to make sure that we are also following—as we 

move forward, Mr. Chairman or Ranking Member—that we are 

also following the recommendations that were laid out in the GSA 

report, and that we come as close to that as possible in our own 

work. 

23 

Ms. ROBYN. Could I just clarify? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Ms. ROBYN. The—those figures were used for purposes of doing 

a valuation, valuation of property at various locations in the national capital region. They were not inserted as a siting criterion. 

So that is an important distinction. They were for purposes of valuing land. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks for the—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Land and property, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you for the clarification. Excuse me. 

I also want to know how the Hoover Building fits into a potential 

financial structure for the new headquarters building. Mr. Perkins, 

if you could, clarify that for us. 

Mr. PERKINS. Certainly. I may draw upon my GSA colleague in 

assistance with that, but the Hoover Building, the way it is being 

proposed in the FBI’s report, would serve as part of the public-private partnership to where we would exchange that facility and that 

property with a developer who has a plan to be able to build a facility for us in an acceptable area. At that time, then, at the end of 

the construction, if I am correct, the Hoover Building—that property would become the property of the developer, to develop as he 

or she sees fit, going forward. And then we would then eventually 

acquire possession of the new facility, as it is completed, and over 

the lease term. 

And correct any of the technical aspects of that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. That was a yes, Ms. Robyn, right? Let me ask you 

as well, Dr. Robyn, if the GSA has gotten any independent expert 

advice regarding the actual valuation of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. And, if so, from whom? And what did you learn? 

Ms. ROBYN. It has been appraised at several points along the 

way. I don’t feel comfortable throwing those numbers out. They are 

not—I don’t think they have ever been widely circulated. There was 

a Jones Lang LaSalle report in 2005, 2006, that included an appraisal done by a subcontractor to them. I believe we did another 

one later, within the last year or two. And typically, they appraise 

the value as-is, and then the value of the unimproved land, as well 

as a number of other variations on those. 

I just don’t—those numbers are out there. I would be happy to 

brief you on them privately. I don’t feel comfortable sharing them 

more broadly. 

Ms. EDWARDS. At what point will, as part of this process, will we 

have some sense of the real valuation of the property for the purposes of figuring out whether the savings to the taxpayer is $44 

million in, you know, in opportunities around, or perhaps the savings might even be more, depending on the valuation of that property in exchange. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I think that we—I mean, ultimately, one 

doesn’t know the value of a piece of property until you sell it. The 

market tells you what the property is worth. We think we can— 

we would certainly do everything we could to raise that value before we sold it, by working with the District of Columbia on the 

historic status of the building, on, you know, possible other changes 

that would allow for maximum use of that very desirable property. 

24 

I think we can get a sense of what it is worth from an appraisal. 

But ultimately, one doesn’t know until you actually sell the property. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Perkins, the FBI report and the Urban Land 

Institute report each have detailed cost figures for the proposed 

FBI headquarters. Can you briefly summarize what it will cost to 

build a new headquarters? And can this committee rely on those 

numbers for the purpose of authorizing a new headquarters? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. I can give some approximate numbers on 

that. The Urban Land Institute was actually brought in following 

our conducting our own internal study to really check our math 

and put a second set of eyes on the document. The findings they 

came up with were fairly on par with what ours did. 

As far as the actual cost of what we would take, in looking at that type of a facility, looking at approximately $1.2 billion coming 

up with the square footage we needed to put that together. And 

that is over the term. That is the construction plus—well, that 

gives us the 2.2 million square feet, including the land costs involved in that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Can the FBI’s proposal be financed through a 

lease utilizing—without utilizing the value of the Pennsylvania Avenue property? 

Mr. PERKINS. I will take a stab at that, and will also defer to my 

colleague from GSA. I would say that is going to be a very difficult 

road to go down, if not—especially in the current fiscal climate in 

which we are operating. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Dr. Robyn, how does GSA and FBI propose to pay 

a developer for any difference between the value of the Hoover 

Building and the cost to build a new FBI headquarters complex? 

It is questionable whether the Hoover property will provide sufficient funds to—as an option for a 2-million-square-foot new facility. 

And how do you propose that they will pay for that? 

Ms. ROBYN. That is a fair question. I am not ready to concede 

that the value of Hoover won’t cover the value of a headquarters. 

I think we don’t know what the value of Hoover is. But I think it— 

a lot of it comes down to land, whether the land—whether the Federal Government would be purchasing the land, or whether we 

would be getting the land for nothing. So, it is not obvious to me 

that one would cost more than the other. 

A major question that we put out in the RFI was—to developers 

was if there is a—if you think there is a disparity, how would you 

propose to cover it? There are a variety of ways. There may be 

other property, other GSA property that we would be willing to 

also exchange, or that we would propose to exchange to add to the 

value. One could do continued leasing some space for the FBI. One 

could do something in phases, like we are doing at St. Elizabeths, 

although we would like to avoid that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Is there a list of properties that you may look at 

as an option? 

Ms. ROBYN. In the national capital—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. To add to the exchange. 

Ms. ROBYN. No, no. I am putting that out as a conceptual alternative, but I don’t have other—a short list of other properties. 

25 

Mr. BARLETTA. Assuming GSA proceeds with the project and gets 

to the point of issuing a request for proposals, is GSA taking any 

steps to seek and use outside expertise to advise GSA in the process? And if you could, please explain. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, we have. The FBI and GSA began talking about 

this 9 years ago. Director Mueller and the then-head of the GSA, 

Perry, met in 2004. We have both done a series of studies that 

have drawn on outside experts to do housing studies to look at the 

condition of the Hoover Building, to appraise the value, a variety 

of things. 

So, we have done two things: one, reach out to outside experts, 

and then draw on the best and brightest we have inside GSA to 

work on this project. And we will continue to do that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. OK, thank you. I will turn to Ranking Member 

Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Just a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to get back to this 2.1 million square feet. That was in the initial 

report. One thing I believe this subcommittee will hold GSA to is 

its requirements for smaller amounts of space and square footage. 

Do you believe that perhaps, given the new requirements, that 

2.1—that less than 2.5 million square feet may do for a new headquarters? 

Ms. ROBYN. We were clear to say in the RFI ‘‘up to,’’ up to 2.1 

million. So we haven’t locked in on that number. I think it—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, how did you get to that number? Did that 

number include the space allocations that the administration now 

has mandated, as well as this committee? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. That represents taking those people that the 

FBI believes need to be in the consolidated headquarters and allocating a—it is a pretty conservative space number for them. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I mean, is it—does it keep—first of all, I am 

not sure that that—that may have been issued before the mandate 

for—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Well, we—yes. We—I mean we have been working—— 

Ms. NORTON. So all I am asking is have you—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Can it go further? I—— 

Ms. NORTON. The mandate was—came down from the administration, it came down from this committee. For example, the Coast 

Guard headquarters—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Was done before that mandate. And 

what I am asking you is—was the 2.1 million square feet, up to 2.1 

square feet, did it take into account the mandate that says you 

must reduce the per-employee space in Federal buildings? 

Ms. ROBYN. It represents a 30-percent reduction in space. So, 

yes, it did. 

Ms. NORTON. That is my only question. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. An apples-to-apples comparison, would—the 

FBI would be going from, I think, 3.1 to 2.1—3 to 2.1. So it is a 

30-percent reduction. Even before the OMB mandate, we have been 

very aggressively pushing agencies to downsize their footprint. And 

that—and the FBI is very much on board, because it supports their 

effort to go to more collaborative, open workspace. 

26 

Ms. NORTON. Well, does the building take into account—well, 

first of all, let me ask Mr. Perkins. Do you see further growth in 

the FBI? And does the—will the new site take into account for the 

growth, if you do see further growth in the FBI? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, ma’am, it does. It accounts for the growth over 

the coming years. And the key point to remember here is in shrinking down from 21 facilities to a single facility, you are eliminating 

a significant number of overlapping space, great inefficiencies. 

When you are dropping 800,000 square feet, it is easy to be able 

to put all of us into 1 facility at 2.1, versus the 21 that are out 

there, or the 20-plus headquarters. 

So—but to answer your question, yes indeed, it does look at the 

future growth of the FBI and the potential for that, going forward. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Perkins, did you have any role in the RFI delineation? 

Mr. PERKINS. I had no direct role in the development of the RFI. 

Ms. NORTON. Were you consulted? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, ma’am. Well, our assistant director for facilities, who is in my chain of command. Yes, ma’am. The FBI was 

consulted in that. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask about the role—I can understand it 

was, of course—it is always advisable to consult the agency. But 

Dr. Robyn, you may know that this subcommittee has repeatedly 

criticized GSA for allowing agencies disproportionate authority over 

what happens in the agency, including where things could go. I 

mean we have agencies on K Street who could have gone to other 

parts of the region and the city. 

In order for me to get people to go to NOMA, which is a stone’s 

throw from the Senate, I had to beat—if you will forgive me—GSA 

about the head and shoulders. There have been some, I am going 

to say, disparaging remarks made about going to one part of the 

region. So I have got to ask. What role will the FBI have when the 

ultimate authority under the statute is with the GSA? 

Ms. ROBYN. On this issue, as on others, we have—we wear two 

hats. On the one, we try to be customer-friendly to our Federal 

agency customers. At the same time, we do—we play a sheriff role. 

And downsizing square footage and getting agencies out of leased 

space and into less expensive space is also part of our role. So we 

play that dual role here, as we do in other places. 

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Robyn, all I am saying is—and you have to play 

a dual role. The role of sheriff has been much overcome in the past, 

so that agencies have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, just by 

essentially having the final say on matters that were within the 

authority of this agency. And that is something we will be watching. 

If I could ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, and that is 

about the Old Post Office. What is the status of the Old Post Office, 

which has been a virtual project of this subcommittee? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, and thank you very much for your support. You 

know, we announced a year ago that the Trump organization is the 

preferred developer. We said that we are going to need a year to 

negotiate it. These things take time when you are talking about— 

and we are at that point. We are still negotiating, but we are hopeful that we will—you know, we are not going to take a bad deal, 

27 

but we are hopeful that we will have—that we will complete our 

negotiations relatively soon. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. That is astounding, that it has taken you a year to negotiate. What the hell would you doing, when you should have been 

having a deal that was close to just sewing up? It is unbelievable. 

Mr. Chairman, maybe you need to go do another hearing in that 

vacant building down there. This is appalling, the way we manage 

our Federal properties. It is just beyond the pale. 

OK. You said you got $44 million in savings, right? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Perkins? OK. You multiply that about 27 years, that 

is worth about $1 billion—10 times 44 is 440, 27, 28 years, that 

has got $1 billion value. 

Did you tell, or somebody testify that you had—it would cost you 

about 300—you need 60 to 70 acres. Is that right, 50 to 70? 

Mr. PERKINS. Between 45 and 50—— 

Mr. MICA. Forty-five? OK. But your estimate in cost is about 

$300 million, right? Just a guess. In the capital region, you are 

going to—it is going to cost you that much? Give me a ballpark. 

Quarter of a million? 

Mr. PERKINS. The value of the land. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Yes, OK. Sorry, Ms. Norton, you got screwed in this 

whole process, I saw, with the Senate resolution. Figured this one 

out. They kind of excluded you from—this is neat, the way they 

craft it. They just don’t happen to have a Senator, so they screwed 

her. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. But thank you, GSA, for helping her, because your 

RFI, whatever, your Request for Information, actually allowed the 

District to be considered, property in the District. Is that right? 

Ms. ROBYN. All parts, yes. 

Mr. MICA. So we—this isn’t a request even for proposal, folks. 

This is a request for information. But that is the game that is 

being played there, interestingly enough. 

Now, if someone was doing their job in GSA, you would look at 

the Federal properties that we have, so we could save $300 million 

to start. We have $1 billion we could save there. If this thing is 

going to cost you $2 billion, that is a $700 million deficit that we 

would have to make up for, get the private sector to—there may 

be more than that, but the Federal Government, in the meantime, 

would be paying an average of $44 million. 

Just thinking this thing out, there are plenty of properties. I was 

stunned to find out that there is 7,000 acres in Beltsville at the Agricultural Research Service station at Beltsville, Maryland, 7,000 

acres. This is one of the principal buildings out there. Can you see 

it from here? From there? I know I had a big blowup. I don’t have 

it. This is the Food and Drug Administration building, windows 

knocked out. There are rows of office building. Seven thousand 

acres. You need 45 to 70? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. 

28 

Mr. MICA. Then I went across the other way to—and I am not 

picking sides in this fight. That is Maryland. Here is a site we 

could save $300 million, $250 million, or whatever. 

I went out to Springfield. At the Metro stop—I took the Metro 

back, folks, to save money on gas. Didn’t charge the taxpayers for 

it. The Metro stop, how many acres, 70 acres out there? They use 

it for storage, storing files and storing doors and stuff. I went out 

and looked at it myself. A million square feet on about 70 prime 

acres we could use. 

So, I would think someone would put a deal together, or at least 

your RFI would say we have the opportunity to use some Federal 

buildings. Those are only two sites, one in Maryland, one Virginia—not picking sides. Ms. Norton has one in—what is it the 

staff told me? Yes, OK. Not that I am a fan of the District, and 

I have my little war going with her on things, but we have sites. 

Nine years? Did you say 9 years that they have been going back 

and forth, talking about this? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And then you gave me 60 days for the Request for Information? You think you would have a Request for Proposals after 

that? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, I don’t think it will be 60 days, no. I think it 

is going to take—— 

Mr. MICA. Do you need more direction from Congress? You want 

something from this side of the aisle? Is this enough to work with? 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. Take longer. We always welcome—— 

Mr. MICA. OK. But again, it is so frustrating. We could save 

money, we could house our chief law enforcement agency, the FBI, 

and provide some of this space, if somebody would start thinking, 

if we had people with a little bit of common sense. 

Again, I have to go back to you all looking at—the thing that 

stuns me, like when I went out to Beltsville, I know it is the Department of Agriculture. Nobody has a plan of what to do with this. 

There are 500 buildings on that property, 200 of them are vacant, 

vacant or smashed in, like this. And no one has a plan. 

Do you—and I saw the information you provide on real estate assessments from the agency that almost all the information is incorrect. In fact, some of them have vacant buildings and smashed out 

buildings like this that they report as in good shape. This is a broken system, when we are closing down and sequestering vital services of Government, and we have billions of dollars of waste, and 

nobody is doing anything about it. 

Ms. ROBYN. And, sir, I have told you in an—first of all, as you 

know, that is not GSA property. And I have stressed to you, coming 

from 3 years in the Defense Department, that we need a civilian 

BRAC. 

Mr. MICA. Ah, Defense. 

Ms. ROBYN. We need a civilian BRAC. 

Mr. MICA. Post Office, Defense. It is more than a BRAC, and I 

yield back—— 

Ms. ROBYN. We need a—— 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. The balance of my time. 

Ms. ROBYN. Can I—I want to just point out something, that the 

conversation about building the J. Edgar Hoover Building began in 

29 

the early 1960s. The building was finished in 1974. The reason was 

lack of funding. Lack—so this is an old—you know, these things— 

this is the dilemma that we—— 

Mr. MICA. So we are following that pattern again. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, it is an age-old problem. The Old Executive Office Building, the same thing. It took two decades—— 

Mr. MICA. God forbid we should drag ourselves into the—— 

Ms. ROBYN. It is not—— 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. 21st century of fiscal responsibility. 

Amen. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Mica. And Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to say 

to Mr. Mica that I would be happy to work with him on making 

sure that the Beltsville agricultural property becomes the new campus of the FBI. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well—and I am sure that as the GSA and FBI 

move forward on going from where we are right now to a Request 

for Proposals, that you will make certain that this process is open 

and fair, and that sites like the Beltsville agricultural property can 

be part of this consideration. 

I want to ask you, actually, Mr. Perkins, if you have any concern—and this is actually somewhat related to Beltsville—if you 

have any concerns in a new FBI headquarters would be adjacent 

to support of mixed use development to enhance the overall work 

environment for the workforce. Do you have any concerns about 

that, or—any security concerns or otherwise? 

Mr. PERKINS. No, ma’am. I believe, as I have noted, I want to 

make sure that whatever facility we wind up in allows us to carry 

out our mission and keeps our workforce secure. Those are the two 

main issues. And if—depending on what the adjacent properties 

were, their types of usage would all be considered in any kind of 

a request. We would hope to be a part of that discussion. 

Obviously, to meet those security requirements it would require 

certain offsets and all, as you know. But no, in answer to your 

question, it would not be a major concern if the adequate offset in 

space was available. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I wonder also if you could—when we 

go to those security concerns—if the FBI headquarters has to be 

built to satisfy Interagency Security Committee Level V security 

specifications, that with that in mind, what would be your view, in 

terms of the area that would ideally be encompassed for a new and 

consolidated headquarters? Do you have any thoughts about that? 

Mr. PERKINS. Well, I think I have really—with the requirements 

we have put out, we are going to lean heavily on the GSA to come 

up with that location. I think there are locations in each of the 

areas that we have discussed today that would be adequate to meet 

our needs, just based on what we know at this point. 

There are pluses and minuses. There are—there has been reference to where FBI employees live and commute from. I don’t 

have the exact numbers of where all of our people reside, but I do 

know we have an adequate and representative number in each of 

both Maryland, Virginia, and the District. 

30 

I will note that the three top officials within the FBI, one lives 

in each of those areas. We have one of us in the District, one in 

Maryland, and one in Virginia. So there is, ironically, an equal representation there. 

But the security concerns are significant for us, especially as we 

are—where we are located at the current time, which is probably 

the worst of all of the agencies in the intelligence community. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And Dr. Robyn, I want to go to something that our Ranking Member Norton suggested as she was asking questions, and that goes to the concern that, whether it is true 

or not—and we can go around and around about that—that there, 

at least in my jurisdiction, has been some perception that the GSA 

has not always acted as a fair arbiter and that, in fact, building 

on what Ranking Member Norton discussed, that, in fact, that 

GSA, in some instances, has been perceived to actually favor agency requests that can sometimes take a back seat to what is the best 

benefit of the bargain for the taxpayer. 

And I would only say this, that this is a new day. This is a new 

Congress. And this is a new process for the FBI and for the GSA. 

And I would just strongly, strongly urge you to take those criticisms into consideration, and to move forward in a very different 

kind of way. Because there are a lot of eyes watching the GSA. And 

when you look at the amount of money that is currently spent by 

the FBI on its operations, on its leasing operations, $168 million, 

if there is any potential, given the choices, to make sure that the 

taxpayer saves a boatload of money, all of us have an interest in 

doing that in this very constrained fiscal environment. 

And, at the same time, we want to make sure that the agency 

and its workforce are able to meet the mission of the Bureau in a 

location that is acceptable and is secure, and that the process itself 

is open, and that GSA is the one who is leading the process, and 

not following, because of one agency head or other. And that is not 

to disparage at all the FBI, but to say that we just want a fair and 

open process, and all of our jurisdictions want to have the capacity 

to compete. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. And, Mr. Perkins, what 

would be an appropriate limit for the cost of a new facility on a 

per-square-foot basis? 

Mr. PERKINS. I would have to get back to you with an exact answer on that, sir, as far as the per-square-foot basis goes. I think 

in an earlier—I wanted to clarify something as well on one of the 

questions on the facility itself involving the J. Edgar Hoover Building. If we were to trade the Hoover Building, it would be for the 

land cost involved. And thus, we would then utilize, in the publicprivate partnership, the funding and financing of a private entity 

to build and construct that building over time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The reports have some cost. Would they be accurate? Can we rely on the report? 

Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead, Pat. 

Mr. FINDLAY. Yes. We have checked any changes in construction 

design cost, and they are very, very close. And there was some contingencies and allowances built in, so those still appear to be very 

valid. 

31 

Mr. BARLETTA. And what is the proposed rental rate or cap you 

would propose for a consolidated headquarters without the Hoover 

Building exchange? 

Mr. FINDLAY. Both our report and, really, the private sector 

through Urban Land Institute confirmed that that could definitely 

be done at around $54 per square foot. If I could point out, though, 

the estimate is the Government would be receiving something in 

excess of $5 per square foot for the ground lease per the approach 

that we are using. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And what would the estimated rental rate be 

with an exchange? 

Mr. FINDLAY. A whole lot better. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Dr. Robyn, how can Congress ensure adequate 

cost controls? And is setting a maximum rental rate one way to 

control those costs? 

Ms. ROBYN. I don’t—I am not sure what the answer—I mean I 

think working—we will work closely with you. I don’t know whether that is the best way. I mean I think the—we will rely fundamentally on competition to get the best rate. I am not sure how else 

to answer that. 

I mean we do set—we set caps within the national capital region 

on leased rental rates. And you know, frankly, as an economist, I 

have mixed feelings about that. It kind of amounts to rent control, 

but we do that. We limit the amount that agencies can pay for 

leases. So it is a—but at the end of the day we are relying on competition to get us the best deal for the taxpayer. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Perkins, one of the areas that can cost to increase are obviously change orders and changing requirements. 

How will the FBI ensure that its requirements are all thoroughly 

identified upfront, so there are no costly change orders or increases, once the project begins? 

Mr. PERKINS. One of the most important ways is we will have a 

complete development team formed within the FBI that will work 

closely with the GSA to go forward. We are quickly—well, we have 

already realized the mammoth scope of what this undertaking 

would be that would require significant oversight internally within 

the FBI, as well as with our partners at GSA, going forward. So 

we would have a dedicated team of individuals who would solely 

be working on this project to ensure those issues and to ensure 

both requirements were met and cost controls were in place. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. So far as you know, Dr. Robyn, has the GSA ever 

engaged in developing a facility using the flexibility that we have 

now given you? 

Ms. ROBYN. You mean the exchange—— 

Ms. NORTON. Have you ever had any experience? 

Ms. ROBYN. Using the exchange authority? Is that—— 

Ms. NORTON. Or 412 authority, 585 authority, the different authorities, some of which you already had—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. But the subcommittee made it even 

more explicit a number of years ago. Have you any experience 

using flexible authority? 

Ms. ROBYN. We have—— 

32 

Ms. NORTON. To develop a construction. 

Ms. ROBYN. We have used the exchange authority in limited 

ways, nothing this large. 

Ms. NORTON. Because there will be some who wonder whether 

you can manage this authority. It took you so long to use it, took 

GSA so long to use it. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, it—— 

Ms. NORTON. It is not exactly unknown to people engaged in real 

estate, but—and many of your staff have come out of, of course, 

professional real estate. 

But how do you plan to organize internally to do what you have 

never done before, and what you seemed unwilling to do before? 

And I must say, as I ask this question, that I am cheered that your 

administrator is Mr. Tangherlini. This is an administrator who 

comes from OMB, and that may have something to do with the fact 

that OMB now understands more about the costs it puts on the 

agency by not allowing that flexibility. 

But now that you have it for the FBI, and you have never really 

used it, how will you organize the GSA to use it? Or will you bring 

in consultants to help you manage this authority? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think both. Let me just speak to why we haven’t 

used it. And I am new here, I have only been here 6 months. But 

I think our preference, as I have said, is always to do Federal construction. That is always the—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, I understand that. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. The least cost approach. So in—— 

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. But, for example, you are not 

going to be able to do that—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. With the remainder of the Department 

of Homeland Security, and we have heard nothing from the GSA 

about how it purports to continue building that facility, also a secure facility. And, of course, this is going to end up being a pilot, 

because if you can do it here—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Perhaps you can do it—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. There. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, yes. I—— 

Ms. NORTON. But we know what—everybody knows that if the 

chairman and I wanted to buy a house, and we had the cash to put 

down, it would cost us less than taking a mortgage. So we understand that. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. And nobody does that, even those who can afford 

it don’t do that. So you can’t afford it this time. You have not done 

it before. How will—how are we to have confidence that you can 

do it? Are you relying only on staff that you have who have been 

building, for example, the Department of Homeland Security so 

well? Or will you be relying as well on others who have—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Well—— 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Who have had this experience? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think our—I mean we have asked for—I don’t 

think that there has been a problem with the way we have manVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Jul 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\3-13-1~1\79895.TXT JEAN
33 

aged the Department of Homeland Security. We have not gotten 

the funding—— 

Ms. NORTON. You managed it very well, but you weren’t using 

this authority. 

Ms. ROBYN [continuing]. That we requested—well, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. We got you more than $2 billion. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. And I am asking you—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. When you now have new flexibility 

that you haven’t used before, can you tell this subcommittee that 

you can manage that? And if so, is it going to take reorganization 

of some kind within the GSA? Are you relying on consultants? That 

is my direct question. 

Ms. ROBYN. It is both. It is both. It is not going to require a reorganization of the agency. We have done headquarters projects before. The Department of Transportation headquarters project you 

are very familiar with. That is one where it is a capital lease. We 

will be paying rent on the Department of Transportation headquarters for 30 years, and then we will have to sign another lease 

and pay rent for another 30 years. We don’t want to do that. So 

we are trying another approach. 

But it is not fundamentally different than what we were—what 

we have been doing. And I think it does reflect the acting administrator’s knowledge of OMB and scoring challenges. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I agree with you, Dr. Robyn. I think you have 

all along had the capacity and the skill to do it. You haven’t had 

the will to do it. And now that Mr. Tangherlini has stepped up and 

you have that kind of leadership, that increases my confidence that 

the agency can pull it off. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I just have one last question. And 

it relates to the question that you were asking of Dr. Robyn, and 

it has to do with the idea of—that you either encourage competition, as you have done—as you suggested, through the RFI process, 

or setting maximum lease rates. 

And I want to ask you about that, because there has been some 

concerns expressed over a period of time by me and others on this 

committee that when you set—when GSA sets maximum lease 

rates, that that actually has not been done fairly through the region, which has greatly disadvantaged some jurisdictions over 

other jurisdictions. 

And so, if the GSA chooses to go that route, do we have assurances that the—a maximum lease rate that you would set would 

be equally set in the region, so that everybody in the region would 

be competing fairly? Or would you continue the process which is 

only true here in the Metropolitan Washington area, where one 

county or one jurisdiction has a different rate than another jurisdiction, which really discourages competition? 

Ms. ROBYN. Those rates apply to a scenario where we would be 

leasing space. And I would hope we would not be leasing space. So 

I will leave it at that. 

34 

I think you are raising a broader issue, and I am torn on that 

broader issue. I can see arguments on both sides. But for purposes 

of this, I would hope that won’t be an issue, because I would hope 

that we won’t be in leased space. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I am just suggesting to you right now that, 

going forward, even if that were ever a consideration, I just think 

it would be a nonstarter for GSA again to pursue a route of valuing 

leased space differently in the same metropolitan region where all 

of us have to operate under the same constraints. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And—but I do share the view that the preference 

is the kind of competition that you envision that allows all of us 

in the region to compete fairly. 

Ms. ROBYN. Let me just add that when we set rents, even in our 

own space, it does—we do it using commercial methodology, and it 

reflects the commercial rents in the area. 

So, it is—we don’t set it for the entire NCR, we do—but it does— 

it reflects what commercial rents are in the area. But—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. As I finish, just to reiterate—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS [continuing]. The Metropolitan Washington area is 

the only—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS [continuing]. Region in the country where you do 

that. Every other region, those kind of rates are set regionally, except here, with zero justification, zero explanation. And I—we digress from the FBI, but I want to make this very clear for our 

record, because time and again GSA has appeared before this committee and can’t even offer a history, a record, an explanation 

about why those differences exist, except that they do. And they 

greatly disadvantage my county in Prince George’s County. And we 

are not going to go forward like that. Let’s just do a competition. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Dr. Robyn, earlier you said that it 

was premature to talk about a prospectus for the project. Yet the 

committee needs a prospectus, or least a cost information that is 

included in the prospectus, in order to authorize the project. So 

when will the GSA provide the committee with the information and 

the request for the committee to move forward? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think we need to digest the 35 responses that we 

got to the—one of them was larger than a bread box, so there is 

a lot of material for us to digest. But as soon as we have something 

meaningful, I would be happy to have—to brief you on that. I don’t 

want to commit to—I am not—you know, hopefully the next step 

will be an RFP, but I don’t want to make any commitments until 

we see what we got. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I will take you up on that offer. 

Ms. ROBYN. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. If there are no further questions, I would ask 

unanimous consent for the record that the record of today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, 

and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for 

35 

any additional comments and information submitted by Members 

or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearings. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to 

thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79895.007
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79895.008
38 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79895.009
39 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79895.010
40 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79895.011
41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79895.012
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79895.013
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79895.014
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79895.015
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79895.016
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79895.017
47 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79895.018
48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79895.019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79895.020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79895.021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79895.022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79895.023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79895.024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79895.025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79895.026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79895.027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79895.028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79895.029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79895.030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79895.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79895.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79895.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79895.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79895.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79895.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79895.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79895.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79895.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79895.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79895.041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 79895.042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 79895.043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 79895.044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 79895.045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 79895.046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 79895.047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 79895.048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 79895.049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 79895.050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 79895.051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 79895.052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 79895.053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 79895.054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 79895.055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 79895.056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 79895.057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 79895.058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 79895.059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 79895.060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 79895.061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 79895.062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 79895.063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 79895.064
94 


Insert offset folio 65 here 79895.065
95 


Insert offset folio 66 here 79895.066
96 


Insert offset folio 67 here 79895.067
97 


Insert offset folio 68 here 79895.068
98 


Insert offset folio 69 here 79895.069
99 


Insert offset folio 70 here 79895.070
100 


Insert offset folio 71 here 79895.071
101 


Insert offset folio 72 here 79895.072
102 


Insert offset folio 73 here 79895.073
103 


Insert offset folio 74 here 79895.074
104 


Insert offset folio 75 here 79895.075
105 


Insert offset folio 76 here 79895.076
106 


Insert offset folio 77 here 79895.077
107 


Insert offset folio 78 here 79895.078
108 


Insert offset folio 79 here 79895.079
109 


Insert offset folio 80 here 79895.080
110 


Insert offset folio 81 here 79895.081
111 


Insert offset folio 82 here 79895.082
112 


Insert offset folio 83 here 79895.083
113 


Insert offset folio 84 here 79895.084
114 


Insert offset folio 85 here 79895.085
115 


Insert offset folio 86 here 79895.086
116 


Insert offset folio 87 here 79895.087
117 


Insert offset folio 88 here 79895.088
118 


Insert offset folio 89 here 79895.089
119 


Insert offset folio 90 here 79895.090
120 


Insert offset folio 91 here 79895.091
121 


Insert offset folio 92 here 79895.092
122 


Insert offset folio 93 here 79895.093
123 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 94 here 79895.094