tv Future of FBI Headquarters CSPAN March 1, 2018 7:02am-8:33am EST
>> good morning. i call this hearing to order. today's oversight hearing will focus on the status of the fbi headquarters consolidation project. we will hear testimony from the general services administration and the federal bureau of investigation. last august, this committee held a hearing on the search for a new fbi headquarters. the hearing was in response to gsa is abrupt cancellation of their plan years in the making to consolidate fbi headquarters and a new headquarters in maryland or virginia. the plan involved trading the crumbling hoover building to partially offset the cost of new construction. senators were not notified of the cancellation in advance and first part of the decision through the press. this isn't what accountable government looks like.
nonetheless, the hearing ended on a positive note. both the gsa and fbi committed to return to congress with a workable solution for the fbi headquarters. the plan was to do that by november 30. we go for that deadline they indicated they would need an additional 60 days to develop and submit a workable solution. response to this request ranking member carper and i sent a letter emphasizing the importance of receiving a thorough plan from gsa. we granted the extension request ensure gsa and fbi and ample time to consider different financing options for the project. the new deadline was set for january 29 of this year.and we expected it to be met. the deadline came and went and gsa did not provide us with a report. to make matters worse, gsa's ultimate recommendation contained within the report was leaked to the press, two full weeks before the report was delivered to this committee. as was the case last summer, members of congress should have been notified well in advance
of the media. on february 12, the committee finally received the overdue report. the report contains a revised plan which recommends the hoover building be demolished. to make way for the construction of a new headquarters facility in the same location. instead of consolidating all 10,600 fbi headquarters staff into one campus location, the revised plan would move 2300 headquarters staff to three new facilities around the country. the plan estimates that the total cost of the new project at $3.3 billion. and it indicates he administration will be seeking 2.175 billion in appropriations to fully fund demolishing and rebuilding the new overbuilding to others appropriations request is more than double the 800 million previously requested by the gsa, the report estimates the new plan overall cost will be that of the -- lower than that of the
previous plan. the revised plan eliminates many of the fbi security requirements. it scraps the concept of a consolidated campus. it abandons the need for a remote truck inspection facility. and it describes a requirement of a detached central utility plants. under the old plan, these features were considered critical for the fbi security. now they are gone. so the question is, what happened? it's been nearly 7 years since this committee first directed gsa to follow through on this project. yet the need for a new fbi headquarters remains as pressing as ever. the men and women of the fbi who work around the clock to keep america safe require a modern and functioning office building that meets their needs. it is past time for the gsa to implement a workable plan. one that can hold up to committee scrutiny and deliver the long-overdue replacement for the aging hoover building. the members of this committee
want what is best for the american taxpayers and what is best for the hard-working men and women of the fbi. the federal government has a ready spent over $20 million in 13 years planning for and fbi headquarters. the revised plan starts the process from scratch. i hope that today's testimony will clarify how this plan will succeed where previous efforts have failed. i would now like to recognize ranking member carper for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome our witnesses today. thank you, i want to thank our college especially for marilyn for urging us to have this hearing. and i commend you, mr. chairman, or holding it. our friends from gsa and the fbi welcome you. we thank you for you and your colleagues, for the work that you do. especially at the fbi. thank you very much. the hearing today is the chairman said, is a follow-up to our hearing in august of
last year. a hearing be held on the cancellation of the procurement for a consolidated fbi headquarters. at the conclusion of that and the witnesses from gsa committed to providing our committee with a workable solution to meet the fbi needs for a new headquarters. after an extension the committee received a report on february 12. in the report is a complete as the chairman suggested a complete reversal of a plan for the f that is more than a decade in the making curious it abandons previous efforts to consolidate the fbi operations away from the bureaus current location at j edgar hoover building. frankly, this basis concerning and it is even troubling. our members of the committee should be concerned about this new plan for the fbi. not just the members of the committee but those not on the committee. it raises a serious questions for the impact on national security, and we caution this decision what it might impose on the government at a time
when issues exceed $1 trillion in just one year. the kind of money we are talking about here is alarming. i hope that today's hearing can answer some of these questions and alleviate members concerns. including my own. what is not in question stay the fact that the fbi needs a new headquarters. the chairman has already said that ray. current facilities are dangerous which not only affects the day-to-day but national security implications. one of the main modifications to consolidate the affect of a location was to ensure the fbi headquarters maintains necessary security standards. there are also efficiencies to be gained by reducing departmental fragmentation. this new plan, however, appears to do just the opposite. and instead of moving people of common tasks closer together, this report recommends moving approximately 20 percent of the current headquarters staff to
location which around the country. they already appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for this project as you know. good is millions of dollars that have already been spent on previous procurement. as stewards of the federal first, we should be working to save taxpayer dollars. make our government more efficient. including with respect to property management. we have seen examples where consolidation is working or has the potential of working. one is the development of a consolidated department upon the security campus on the grounds of the former saint elizabeth hospital in washington dc. personally, i was initially skeptical of that project. however, after working with the previous administration and through oversight conducted as chairman and ranking member of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, i'm not convinced it is in the best interest to have consolidated campus in the capital region. at the end of the day, we need to do what is in the right for the hard-working men and women
of the fbi and do so in a manner that makes the most sense for national security while also being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. how we achieve those goals by ensuring have all the information we need to make informed decisions. as you know, mr. chairman, we've had some previous challenges in obtaining information from the gsa that is necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities. for over one year and requesting documents from gsa about from trump hotel. and i have been asking about the question of determination that the trump hotel lisa somehow does not violate the ethics requirements to prohibit an elected official from being a party to a federal lease to financially benefit from that lease. sadly, the administrations response to my question or questions they had not been satisfactory. of the almost 12,000 pages worth of documents that gsa provider last fall, 22 pages, 22 pages, 1/10 of one percent
were written within the relevant timeframe and directly pertained to the question we raised about the lease. fewer than 1/10 or one percent of that 12,000 pages actually spoke to the question. not a single one of those 22 pages contains the analysis that i was seeking. think about that. in contrast, there are hundreds of pages about the location of a clock. about the locations of starbucks in the hotel. about the maintenance of smoke detectors. really? moreover, gsa told me that it was withholding information relating to the sum of my specific requests. for example, gsa would not tell me whether the trump hotel, or trump one or other products of trump would be beneficial of
the president financially. this is unacceptable. i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit portions of the gsa response to my letter into the record. >> without objection. >> i would also like to express my dismay at the information received with respect to the fbi project. we were discussing today the committee learned of both the cancellation of the procurement and the release of this new plan from the press. i am just very disappointed that we continue to find out about developments on this project in this manner. it is no way to do business. no way to do business. as we move forward, it is my hope that gsa and fbi will be more forthcoming with our committee. in members of our committee we can conduct our oversight in effective and productive matter. i look forward to the hearing -- let me just say -- stays to be a t.v. show, mr. chairman and you and i probably used to watch as a kid. before these ladies were born, but the fbi and a guy named jack webb was an fbi agent he would make calls on an investigation and he would say to whoever answered the door
ma'am, just the facts. we want just the facts. that's what we're interested in today. just the facts. and we want them from gsa and certainly the fbi. will close assessment in the working with our colleagues. especially the ones from marilyn. if we know the truth will not make a mistake. thank you so much. i apologize to our witness, simultaneous to this hearing is a market that is going on in one of my other committees. i'll be right back as soon as that is over. thank you. bear with me. >> thank you. since both of the states of maryland and west virginia are involved in this i would invite for senator capito to make an opening statement and then the centers for marilyn. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am going to be going to the billy graham event. so i apologize for the quickness but thank you for granting me this privilege with consideration for my colleagues for marilyn. we may have a bit of different view on how this would set sex welcome to mr. matthews who
served together when i was over in transportation and infrastructure on the house side. it is nice to see. briefly in the revised plan, there is a plan of consolidation downtown and mr. haley, you prefer this to in this in your remarks for the center in clarksville would have several hundred jobs moving into west virginia. that would be an important development for me, obviously, as the facility continues to grow and become more professional, more highly technological and we would welcome the prospect of having those employees move out into west virginia as many have moved there before and have realized the wild and wonderful life is a pretty good one out in west virginia. with that, thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to getting -- i know this is been a winding road and i joined with senator carper, white we need to hear the facts. i think those will here today. thank you much. >> thank you, senator. senator carden. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me just say i don't think
we're going to have a disagreement here. like the fbi to consolidate in the most efficient ways. i understand some of the functions may be better performed in other locations. i'm not sure we will have any disagreement on that particular point. senator barrasso, i really want to thank you. the united states senate delegates to this committee the responsibility for authorization and oversight of public buildings. and chairman barrasso has taken this responsibility at a very high level, which i think is very important for our community. so i want to thank our chairman for paying great attention to this and giving us an opportunity to better understand why the original prospectus was terminated abruptly. and now we have before us, a totally different recommendation. so i think the chairman very much for this opportunity. mr. chairman, we are just puzzled! we are puzzled. we have gone through 12 years where the fbi, gsa, intelligence community have all said that the fbi needs a facility to not only meet his
current needs but to meet its needs in the future. and that requires a facility that can handle the personnel in the security needs that is estimated to be between 45 to 55 acres. that has been consistent in the report of 2011 and kevin perkins testimony before the house of representatives on march 6, 2013. and mr. haley's testimony before us on march 1, 2016. it is hard to understand how that is going to be met on a 6.6 acre site with 2.6 million square feet. it is hard to understand how that is going to meet the security needs as determined by the department of homeland security. department of homeland security, in fact, consistently, there has been the issue raised about the security, the j edgar hoover building does not meet
interagency security many standards for an intelligence committee graded building. that is from testimony mr. haley in august 2017. the report from the fbi in august 2011 points out that the department of homeland security has determined that the fbi headquarters should be housed in isc, level v facility. it then goes on to say why. that, with -- the report from the gsa point out the reasons why this level of security is needed and i would like to put that into the record. perimeter protection and standup distances are the most effective means of preventing or limiting damage from a bomb attack. there is no practical way to adequately secure and protect the j edgar hoover building. the real risk is inadequate physical security and that the fa operations are more vulnerable and can easily be
disrupted potentially any time when these capabilities would be most needed. and we are changing the direction here. it is very difficult to understand that. the chairman and ranking member asked for detailed information about the plans. we got this glitzy 22 page, more photographs and details, about the proposal. and me take a look at the cost comparisons, many of the costs are not even included in this! for a 20 percent smaller building, we do not include the swing rental issues of building out the new rental spaces. so, mr. chairman, is difficult for us to understand this. may your browser says she believes the best use of the space where the people of the district of columbia is for this to be in private development hands. so we not even paying attention to the local community. so, there's a lot of questions
here. i appreciate our witnesses being here. it's i just would make one last comment. i know the urgency of this. the fbi definitely needs to facilities good but it has been the agencies that have delayed this for 12 years. 12 years!hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. and now, find out about this information through press accounts. we still do not have adequate information in order to move forward. we certainly cannot believe this. for the men and women that work at the fbi and the people of the nation to depart upon their work, this has been just a major mishandling by the agency is for them to have adequate facilities to carry out their responsibility. >> thank you. senator van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank you and the committee for taking this
issue with the seriousness it deserves. this is a textbook example of how the federal government should not operate. over a period of time. it is an example that people use for decades to come about how the federal government misled people from start to finish, failed to provide information to the congress when requested, and constantly changes assessment of what was required. required for the fbi. people who were bidding on this project and invested lots of money, mr. chairman, and proposals. only to see whiplash when the fbi totally changes testimony in the gsa totally changes position on this. there are gao reports from years ago, analyzing all of the options including the option you're proposing here today. to demolish the current building and rebuild.
there have been hearings in the house and senate on the issue for years. and the testimony is all there on the record. i'm looking forward to, mr. chairman, having a conversation and question for these witnesses because representatives of the gsa and fbi have made statements repeatedly on the record that are totally at odds with the position that these agencies are taking today. and that is something that does not give the public any confidence in how their federal government is operating. so i hope mr. chairman, we can get to the bottom of all this. all of us want and fbi building that allows them to complete their mission and ensures the security. and it is the best cost for the taxpayer. and i am hopeful we will arrive at a sensible solution. i appreciate your holding this hearing. >> thank you, senator van hollen. we will now hear from our witnesses.we have mr. dan
matthews, commissioner of the general services administration of public buildings service and mr. richard haley, assistant director and chief financial officer for the federal bureau of investigation finance division. i would like to remind you both your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing today. please try to keep your statements to five minutes so we may have time for questions. i look forward to your testimony and we ask you to please begin, mr. matthews. >> good morning, chairman, ranking member carper and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to be here. the purpose of my testimony today is to explain why the previous procurement failed, how the recommendation changed from a suburban campus at a new facility on the current site and why this is the preferred solution for being the fda's mission requirements. please let me be clear this proposal does consolidate the fbi headquarters. it reduces real estate equipment significantly.and his mission requirements.
this since my arrive -- since my arrival -- i think is important to explain why the previous procurement was canceled in july. while the lack of appropriations was a significant factor and is where most of the discussion is taking place is not the only reason. the incorporation of exchange greatly complicated and increased the risk of that procurement. under the contract, the federal government was obligated to turn over the existing facility is partial compensation for the new campus. however, without full funding of the appropriated portion of the project, meaning the delta between the estimated value of the hoover building a national cost of the facility, the new facility could not have been completed. the fbi would have been unable to move. to relocate out of the hoover building and the current site could not have been turned over in accordance with the
contract. the legal and operational risks were simply too great with that type of a structure of the procurement to proceed without full funding in hand. although the procurement was terminated, as you all have mentioned and this need for the new headquarters does continue. each year, delay increases the cost about $84 million by combination of construction escalation and investment that we need to make comments separate investments we need to make in the facility. when gsa and the ff project regrouped in august, we removed the exchange from the project and considered all options for bridging the gap between the project cost in the available funding. the first step in that process with the fbi reassessing the scope and requirements of the headquarters in an effort to lower costs. from a real estate perspective which is what i'm really going to be talking about today, the most important change the fbi made was in reducing the personal requirement for this facility from 10,600 to 8300.
we applaud this small requirements are campus construction scenario. and the total cost savings for less than one would typically expect. this is because the larger campus infrastructure costs are essentially the same for housing 10,600 people as they are for housing 8300 people. this led to the consideration of smaller sites in an effort to reduce land acquisition, perimeter security and other campus specific costs. most significantly, the reduction in the personal requirement may the current pennsylvania avenue site a viable option for housing the consolidated headquarters function. again, from a real estate perspective, there are several distinct advantages of the current site over other potential locations. first of all the current site federally owned and under gsa is custody and control. demolition costs are considerably less than site acquisition, preparation and relocation costs. essential utility plant, new truck inspection facility
because there is an existing one, would not be needed. the classified communications cabling and made utility fees that are necessary to serve a facility like this already in existence and are in place. the site is served by several metro lines, the existing bar networks. eliminating the need for expensive parking garages and transportation infrastructure. in the current site is located in the center of the fbi he mission partners and departmental headquarters across the street. gsa and fbi considered three options for reason who presented a phase renovation. renovation of a fully vacant facility. and the demolition and rebuild at the current site. a phase renovation would take almost 15 years and cost more money and give you -- deliver a less successful product. then demolishing and rebuilding a new structure. new construction allows us to build a facility that can house 8300 people is that of a smaller number in a renovated
facility. in addition, new construction can mitigate security threats more effectively with tailored designs, new materials and current construction techniques.in short, demolishing the current building and replacing with the new building enables gsa to deliver a more secure and efficient headquarters faster, cheaper and with less risk than a renovation. as directed by the committee, gsa and the fbi considered a variety of funding options including lease construction, lease with a purchase option, ground lease leaseback arrangement, phase appropriations and full funding appropriations with ultimately recommended. while alternatives were discussed at length, and bipartisan budget act of 2018 provides a unique opportunity to secure appropriations for a new headquarters. that opportunity didn't exist one year ago and i don't know if it will exist two years from now. but it does exist today. and in conclusion, the proposal achieves a strategic consolidation of the fbi headquarters, reduces its footprint and provides good value for the taxpayer. thank you and i look forward to
answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. matthews. mr. haley? >> thank you, chairman, ranking member carper. i appreciate the kind words the men and women of the fbi and i look forward to taking that message back. members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. i'll be short in my comments for the last time i was here we discussed the decision to cancel the prior procurement and difficulties presented by the previous exchange proposed strategy and lack of available funding to move forward. the building commission has gone into that. gsa and fbi committed at the hearing to provide you with a copy has a report on the best way forward for the fbi project. as you are aware, that report has been provided to the committee and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss it today. during the past six months, since we met before, we have reviewed all the funding options that have been available when it could be available and have taken a comprehensive approach on how
best to move forward with this project. at the core of the review, and i can assure you, in terms of what the fbi is part in this review was to follow the criteria laid out by the committee. one, to ensure that way forward best meets the fbi mission requirements and is in the best interest for the men and women of the fbi. second, it is a good deal for the american taxpayers. we have not wavered from that commitment to look at those. as reflected in the report, after looking all of the options and going back for more than a decade, reviewing lessons learned and studying the court requirements for this project, we, the fbi, have in conjunction with the gsa, agreed that utilizing the existing headquarters site has been identified as the best path forward. this recommendation has not been provided lightly. and is the culmination of a number of factors.
we are aware that potential frustrations based on that decade plus of moving this forward have had with a number of individuals. including senator carden, senator van hollen. redefining, first of all in terms of us looking at it, i the most critical has been as we looking at in redefining what a mission focused fully consolidated fbi headquarters requires. we strongly believe that a multi-headquarters set of sites across the country will enhance our resiliency and operational effectiveness. this is something that we talked about to a number of other entities. not just in the government, private sector, there are a number of private sector companies that are looking for resiliency throughout the headquarters at this time. it has been part of the learning process. his other sites that we have identified have been part of our physical portfolio for many years. and rather way forward includes enhancing the use of these
sites, these sites are not new to the fbi. we have had presence in huntsville, alabama since 1971. we have had the pocatello site since 1984 no presence has been noted by a few minutes ago, we've been in clarksburg since 1995. those are all on-site by the fbi that we were talking about increasing their presence for this resiliency and moving additional headquarters pieces out to those locations. all of that said, the fbi still requires a strong national capital consolidation. while we are not talking about 10,600 positions coming into the national capital region facility, we are still talking a 300 positions. that is 3000 more seats than we currently have available active overbuilding in over a 50 percent growth. secondly, and part of that peace that we really look that hard within the fbi is the day-to-day mission temple.
we have a unique relationship with the department of justice, which is across the street from us. as well as the hundreds of meetings that occur each day with other partners in oversight including the congress. this was a piece to have been looked at and not necessarily addressed in the previous plan in terms of not necessarily the director executives myself but how do the men and women, the middle and lower parts of the organization, they are all across town. how do they get back and forth in an effective way and get their job done? this was a big part of what we looked at for the last six months. we also do not believe we are wavering on an aggressive security requirement improvements. we looked at with the status quo is now and it is unacceptable. and we believe we are still maintaining an appropriate security posture. what we give up in space obviously, needs to be made up for in thickness of concrete and other security ways of getting to those same type of assurances that we are meeting that requirement. and i think one of the things that is not a physical or
necessarily a quantitative part of what we looked at and this is a conversation that we had internally as well as with gsa. is the fbi public facing presence. we are indeed a part of the ic community but we also part of the law enforcement community and we had a premier national law enforcement agency. we believe a public facing fbi is critical and that has gone into this factor. our brethren, many have moved onto campus is not only for the security but also because they actually want to be on the site of the american public for much of what they do and the missions they have. where's we believe that is a strong tenant for us to have in terms of our presence on pennsylvania avenue. in closing, what remains clear in this revised strategy is a need for a new facility that makes admission requirements for the fbi, the current j edgar hoover building is an impediment to achieving effectiveness and continues to decay.
as noted, by the building commissioner, these delays are costing over $80 million a year. status quo is not acceptable. the building continues to deteriorate and we estimate is going to cost about $300 million just to maintain the building at this point for basic operations. chairman, ranking member carver, senator carden, senator van hollen, i thank you for the opportunity to come back and test brand-new fbi headquarters project. we appreciate your interest and support. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you both very much for your testimony. there are a couple of questions we will have. certainly, with you mr. matthews, the reports of his his committee indicate the revised plan is less than the previous plan here between the methods and all seem to end up. when you consider the revised plan it consolidates fewer employees into the -- it doesn't account for temporary employee cost and it asks for
significantly more appropriations. kind of explain this a little bit as to why this is actually a better deal for taxpayers? >> i will be happy to answer about the cost of the first thing i would say you're comparing is because the previous project. i would say the committee didn't have the full cost. in this report, it's really the first time you've seen the full cost of the previous project. the 10,600 campus consolidation. we did not see those fbi numbers and those are normally kept separate from the project. usually just sitting gsa portion. you are actually seeing all of it. what we think this product will actually cost to deliver at the best of our ability to estimate the cost at this point in time. so i was started by saying that the comparison, that is why we have that report, the left-hand side column. those with previous cost of the canceled procurement and he did not see those before. that is new. we think it is important that you have a full appreciation
for what that project was costing. it's you mentioned a number of things. swing space, for example. this report here shows, i believe it is $127 million for the swing space cost. but we are showing they are, the additional cost to fit out space for the temporary location. whether whispering them out or if they were sitting in place in the overbuilding, there is considerable expenses to operate and maintain the overbuilding it is a roughly equivalent to the rental space cost for swing space. we have left those out because they're basically in both sides no matter what we are doing. and they cancel themselves out. the extra cost that we included were for building out the swing space so they can occupy us. they'll be above and beyond the normal operating costs. again, on the reusing the current site, like i said in testimony, there are very specific advantages to reusing the current site.
we are not building a 2.6 million square foot parking garage. we are not building a separate central utility plants. a separate visitor center. in fact, when you look at the structure, under the current proposal, we would be building almost 5 million gross square feet of facility. this one, we are building about 2.65 gross square feet. million gross square feet of facility for the acquisition cost actually, constructing it, that is about one third of the lifecycle cost of a facility. so actually having significant smaller facility costs rise over time, the lifecycle cost of that facility is very much tied to how large the facility is. >> thank you. it's disturbing i think, all of the members of the committee here, they're not cost the committee has ever seen before. and it is concerning all of us here on both sides of the aisle when we had that sort of thing that we have not been getting all of the information that we
as a committee and this congress have been requesting. mr. haley, over the course of this project, which has expanded no more than a decade, the fbi has consistently indicated the need for a fully consolidated campus. fbi further requested such a facility be equipped with certain specifications, a remote truck inspection facility, detached visitor center, detached central utility plants, revised and contains none of these requirements. has the fbi, in a sense, lessened its security requirements for this project? and if so, when and why did the requirements change? >> thank you, sir. we do not believe we lessened our requirements. i think the learning process that we have gone through and again, i will reemphasize as we have been pursuing the process forward, we have spent a considerable amount of time talking to myself, probably 35, 40 fortune 500 companies barely spoke to intel community. not only here in the expo
partners overseas in terms of how best to get to all of the pieces that you are talking about. a campus provides many opportunities. and we know that from our brethren agencies. but we also think that we can get the same capabilities. we have a truck inspection facility a remote inspection facility in maryland today. in this plan we will continue to use. we believe that we can meet the requirements of the site as though the commissioners mentioned we believe that a more efficient, we cannot take the current overbuilding and renovate and do would be needed we had not honestly looked at a new building before i look at these other locations which is really driven by the resiliency. the opportunities in the other locations to get a expanded talented workforce and diversified workforce by getting the number down into
the 8000 person range, we believe the site can still be made requirements that we have been identifying throughout the project. and again, the public key is in the operational tempo which of the critical pieces that went into that. >> one last question. the revised plan the affair before some of the entire hoover headquarters operations a temporary swing space locations. it seemed like it is about five years if i read this if everything goes on schedule time. if the applicant so that this can hinder or compromise the ability to carry on his mission as an agency with all this activity? >> yes, sir. i'll be honest does the hardest piece of this whole thing. how do you maintain that mission tempo in that period of time? i will not tell you it is not going to be hard. we are looking at this as a fifty-year project.so what happens in five years, that is one of the conversations that we have had with gsa in terms of we cannot take that lightly.
how we are going to do that. the pieces that need to be close together, the mission, the operational pieces that have to go into that. that is some of the cost you are seeing in that swing space. what we believe, though, in the longer picture, we will get a longer-term better option for the fbi at this point. >> senator carper. >> thank you mr. chairman. and again, our witnesses, we are grateful to you for your testimony and responses to our questions. let me start, if i could, mr. matthews with a question for you. so far, the gsa and fbi provide many details on the new proposal. when chemist may expect in-depth details on the proposal? not solely a 22 page powerpoint presentation.when does the gsa anticipate transmitting a new prospectus? >> i do not have a firm date on
when the new prospectus could come. but i believe the earliest we could probably send when i would be later this spring or in the summer. >> so, later this spring could be, may, june or summer lasts until september. >> will be closer to the august recess. june, early june, spring, july. >> okay. question if i could, mr. haley. for you. this plan proposes to staff into the temporary swing space. by the current hoover building is demolished and rebuilt. there are -- i understand about 5600 staff personnel who are located in the current facility. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> as i understand the proposal does not include payments for rental space for temporary swing space. is that correct? >> it does not include the rent. it includes what would be required to fit out the swing
space. so is the cost of what that swing space would require in terms of us making that secret or top secret required space. it just doesn't include the rent payments. of the bill the commission mentioned we would pay what we are paying for their hoover building through the gsa and some would be offset by will be going to the temporary swing space. >> would it be a wash? are you suggesting it would be a wash? because it seems the rental payments could be extraordinary. >> we have some estimates on it. when we look at the two projects in total. and we can go through with yourself and your staff, the numbers. we believe in terms of what the project to maintain the downtown location with all of the swing spaces and all of those other requirements when you compare the total cost and things he offset, where you will not have a parking garage, you will not have to bring utilities and transportation requirements. we believe the costs are
comparable. again, one of our tenants, it would be a good deal for the american taxpayer. we believe that the two costs, the previous planned in this plan are similar in cost. there are ups and downs in both of them but we would not be coming here honestly, if we thought this was significantly more expensive. even with the swing space and that requirement. >> we want to -- we look forward to drilling down on that with you and your folks. >> follow-up question, if i could. does temporary swing space exists that would meet the security requirements of the fbi and weighed any temporary swing space cost include necessary security upgrades? i think you mentioned that but security upgrades that might be made to it? >> we have been having discussions already with gsa. in terms of requirements there are spaces that we are aware of that are either vacant or becoming vacant. there into community spaces that are in the region. we are looking at all of that.
i cannot say to exactly where that would be. all of them would probably require upgrades to security and backwards into the cost that we have estimated. our hope would be those costs that you're seeing in the report would come down. but those are kind of the high level watermarks on what we would expect. our space generally, for the fbi, is a secret level. and then we have a portion of our operations that are obviously top-secret. so any space that we will go into that would meet the mission requirement would have to be brought up to those superior apartments as well as the barricade that period of time. also, in the investment conversation he had with gsa, we would make a goes back into permanent buildings. those potential sites to be able to be used for other tenants, other government tenants. we would not just be building out for ourselves. we will be able to use that in the future. >> one last question for mr. matthews. in 2016 and in 2017 i sent four letters to gsa regarding the
determination that the trump old post office. it is in compliance with conflict of interest lease provisions for a trump international hotel. when gsa testified in front of this committee in august i asked gsa to commit to respond to questions for information from any member of this committee. i was told that gsa would only respond to questions for information from our chairman. i know that my colleagues on both sides, they all found that to be entirely unacceptable position. and as i noted in my opening statement a few minutes earlier today, gsa did eventually send me roughly 11,860 pages of documents. but as i noted in my opening statement, not a single one actually answer the question i asked. and gsa appears to be using legally questionable reasons for withholding and rejecting material. i'm going to ask the question i asked in august again. will you provide any member of this committee the documents
that answers we ask for weather relates to the fbi headquarters, trump hotel or any other legitimate area of interest? yes or no mr. matthews? will you do that? >> as i said when i first arrived here, we -- one of the first things i did was meet with your chief of staff to answer that question. would we respond to the ranking members? absolutely, we will. we believe we did. i also set the time that consistent with past practice and then all administrations, it doesn't mean we can turn everything over all the time. and my commitment was to turn over all of the information that we believed we could. and if there were certain things we believed we could not provide because of privilege or other reasons, we would clearly identify what those were and why we believed were not able to turn them over. that is what we did. i know that the crux of this matter for you is, one of the key questions was legal
interpretation and legal advice between the office of general counsel and contracting officer. that information is internally privileged. and we explained that in the letter. that is why we were not able to turn that over. >> i am not sure i understand that. extremely privileged, and not sure i understand at all. but i will follow-up with one last question. gsa said to determine the president would not benefit from the trump hotel lease while he is in office. if the trump hotel buys it, then the president would be benefiting from the hotel lease even if lease proceeds will be held in a trust. so, i believe you're telling at the question of whether or not the trump hotel buys trump liner is protected by attorney-client privilege, is that what you are saying here? i just find that hard to believe. >> with respect to a specific question, what we said was the contracting officer from the hotel in compliance with the
terms of the lease. and that the specific question about beneficial interests, that is the subject of i think two pending lawsuits at the moment. and we had to defer to the department of justice on that. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to both of our witnesses to mr. matthews, i'm having a hard time accepting what you're saying here. i'll be perfectly blunt about that. you now say a major reason for terminating the original prospectus was that the transfer of the hoover building. something that you all wanted and we didn't want. congress didn't like that idea. but you said it was something he needed to do to get it done. so now we are supposed to believe that the reason we terminated was something that you wanted. secondly, the consolidation. one of the major reasons for
the consolidation on cost is to save rental costs. that is what he told us all along. that it is more expensive to have places outside of the central location. and now you're saying it is a wash! can you understand what i am having a hard time accepting the information you're presenting? >> yes, senator. respect to your first question. the issue -- >> quickly because we have a written statement on the transfer of the building. i agree with you on the transfer of the building. it didn't make sense. but you insisted on it. >> personally, i came here in august. >> your agency insisted on it. the prospectus that they committed they insisted this be part of the deal. >> yes, they did and i suggest that was a mistake. >> i suggest information give us now may be likewise a mistake. mr. haley, you honestly told us that the disruption to the mission of the fbi will be a factor. during this transition.
seven years ago, we started down this path and we haven't gotten to that conclusion. do you honestly believe you will be in this new facility by 2025? when we will not get the prospectus until at the earliest, the spring? do you recognize that the fbi's mission in which we start down this path, it will be another 12 years. in your mission is going to become arise during that period of time? >> i appreciate, sir. we definitely do not want another 12 years for the status quo is not acceptable. we are, on those other sites, they will be owned. they are not least sites. with chuck about consolidation we still believe we are getting a consolidation is a national capital region into this facility. the other facility, the idaho facility being constructed as we talk as part of a larger department of justice consolidation data centers. the facility which we have been
in for over 25 years, we're going to major renovations out there. >> i understand. my point is that you said very honestly, they have concerns about being able to carry out the mission as you relocate and are in various locations for the next umpteen years. >> yes, sir. >> and, what i'm suggesting to you, get two times the umpteen years because that is how this process has unfolded. >> mr. matthews, you acknowledge your consent of the new prospectus. yet, i understand have been a request made that we include money and fiscal year 18 for this progress. you recognize you cannot proceed without the congress authorization, correct? >> yes, that is correct.>> if you take the same position he took before unless you have every dollar appropriated you will not proceed, is that correct? >> yes. >> that was your position before for terminating the prospectus. >> in order to where the contract yes, we need to have
the money. >> all of the money in hand. that is a pretty big sum of money. >> yes, it is. >> did you figure that your projections, reality and politics? >> yes, we did. quickly understand mr. haley. we'll get to the fully -- this building is renovated. 8300 employees will go into it? >> yes, sir. >> of 8300 people not to go into those positions? >> yes, sir. in the washington d.c. area and have over 10,000 vehicles it will actually going to the building? suppose you need the mission that you have for those 8300. by the time you get to this building requiring 500, 600, 700. can you put them in the building? >> we believe this -- first of all, i appreciate the question. we have looked at this. one of the reasons we feel comfortable about this is that we already looking at huntsville. especially. >> my question is, will you continue the mission coming up
8300. give a limited sized facility. you have to harden it the best that you can. it is going to take some space. he of height limits on how you can build. you have the ability -- every letter that has been sent and you said you wanted a facility for today and tomorrow. do you have a facility for tomorrow? we be able to put another 500 or 1000 north 12 people -- 1200 people in this? >> yes, sir. we've been looking at huntsville, west virginia and idaho for a number of years. for that specific purpose. we do not want every building that is at capacity the day we moved in. so these other facilities are not facilities at -- >> but this building will not be at capacity. the hoover rebuilt building will be at capacity. >> even with the previous plan on the campus. >> how many more people can you put in after the destruction over the 8300? >> when the building gets done, we set the builds up additional
position and.>> how many? >> 500 to 1000. >> to the square footage that you are giving per employee is not accurate? >> no, sir. >> wouldn't be less of people more people into it? >> the current building today which only has 5500 is very inefficient. >> the information presented to us, square footage per employee. i think at -- that is based on 8300. what is the answer here? what is the capacity of this building? >> if we added people, the square footage per person would decrease, that is right.right now -- >> i submit to you not have the capacity to expand on site. that was one of the reasons you wanted 45 to 55 acres. wasn't it? we have a facility that can meet the needs today and tomorrow. >> we are comfortable this plan will meet the fbi requirements for the next 50 years. >> one more point. i appreciate the chairman, he
told me originally to be little bit more lenient on the clock. do you disagree with gsa mr. haley, that the gsa said that the perimeter protection and stand of setback and distance are the most effective means of preventing or limiting damage from -- do you disagree with that? >> setback is the most effective and most easily way -- >> how much of a setback we have on this building? >> it won't be the same. it will not be the 300 or whatever. >> of that concern you? the safety of the people? or the attractiveness are trying to do damage because you don't have a setback? >> right now with status quo, this will be a significant improvement.>> i understand that but not like a perimeter security that you have on a campus facility. >> absolutely. but we believe there are three ways you can get to security. >> i understand that. but the bad guys, they want to do something spectacular. and when you are on the road,
it gives temptation. does it not? >> we have looked at this. we believe that we are going to get ample security and at the same time, get a day-to-day operational tempo. we're going to have the public facing facility. >> but not as good as if you have perimeter security.>> i will not argue with you. a 300+ setback is ample. >> of course we're going to now with our embassies and paying a heavy price around the world because we listen to some people that wanted to be in a particular location. and now we have serious security problems that we are trying to correct at a high cost to the taxpayers of this country. >> this facility, much it was going to security posture is based off of the standards. you're not going to have a setback. but again as i mentioned earlier, we have had conversations with a number of ic community partners here in the country as well as some of the foreign ic partners i have similar situations. >> but they had that situation. we are building that situation
today. >> we are building a. >> your choice not to do and we are doing it. if we follow this recommendation. >> yes, sir. from a risk approach where looking at and all of the other trade-offs i mentioned in my opening statement.i repeated with the chairman. >> the last question i have, mr. chairman. is that who was in the room when this decision was made? i assume gsa was in the room. i assume the fbi was in the room. who else was in the room that decided we were going to rebuild the hoover building and not go to a campus facility? >> this was an fbi decision. we had done in partnership. >> this was your recommendation, your agencies recommendation?this is what you want, no outside influence at all? is that what you're telling me? >> based on the status quo.>> i asked a simple question. press yes, it is an fbi decision. >> i asked who is involved in making that decision? solely fbi? >> fbi, gsa. this is always been about --
>> no input from any other agencies? no input from the white house? strictly to agencies? is that what you're telling us? a simple answer. >> yes. this is an fbi decision. >> i know it is an fbi decision. i'm asking who else was involved in making the decision. >> in the decision i've been part of in our newest building commissioner, who have worked with very well following the last. i would say the relationship we haven't gsa since mr. matthews has gotten a is better than it has ever been in my 25 years. >> i asked a simple question. >> i believe i gave you an answer sir. >> no input at all from the white house? no input from the white house. no input from the white house. yes, or no? >> not on this decision, no. >> thank you. ...
it is not a preferred option because the fbi security concerns about its headquarter would remain. your testimony today is that read building at the current location would be less secure for the fbi then moving to one of the other campus sites, isn't that correct? >> i think my testimony and what i've said is we've looked at a number of factors. >> sir i'm just trying to get confirmation of what you said
within the past five minutes. you just told the senator the other campus sites would provide more security. isn't that true. >> with the 300-foot setback. >> isn't it true the other site would provide more security than relocating at the current site, yes or no. >> i wouldn't say more security. from a setback standpoint, yes it would provide security. there are multiple processes of the security protocol. there's other ways of getting to those security outputs, but yes, 300-foot setback is better than a 75-foot setback. are you familiar with mr. kevin perkins? >> yes, i know him very well. >> he was associate director of the fbi. >> he testified back in march 2013 at a hearing in the house and transportation infrastructure committee, and here's what he said, but the security concern is
significant for us especially as we are, where we are located at the current time which is probably the worst of all the agencies in the intelligence community. you agree with that from your fellow fbi representative? >> i believe he was talking about the current building and yes, the current status quo is not effective. >> do you agree that the current location of the fbi building is probably the worst of all the agencies in the intelligence community from a security standpoint? >> you are quoting what he said? >> yes i am. has the fbi changed their position on that fact.
>> we believe the site at pennsylvania avenue, with the right construction protocol and the other mission requirements can be secured in an appropriate way. >> but clearly not as secure as the others, which is so obvious and you've set it already but it's important for the record. we have also had testimony over the years from gsa. great the rope on, did she have the position you currently have. >> yes, that's correct. >> she also testified at that hearing and she indicated the building with its high-profile location and limited perimeter setback cannot meet and will not meet and does not meet the level five security under the inner security community standards.
she said with a high profile location and limited perimeter setback. >> but it's connected to that building and it cannot withstand, the current building has very significant limitation limitations. >> as i mentioned, mr. chairman, we looked at the demolished option in the past. mr. haley, when the gsa decided that it would not go forward with the original options, that's when the fbi decided to take another look at its mission requirements. >> absolutely. >> prior to that you were fully prepared to go forward with the other options, isn't that right.
>> yes, sir. if the funding would have been provided in the previous procurement, we would have had a construction site going on right now. did they request funding for this project as part of the previous ministration budget request? >> yes it did. >> how much did it request. >> i believe the combination wa was, the last request was 700 some million. >> it didn't request full funding. >> it wasn't enough, no. >> so the position at the time was we want to move forward with these other options but were not going to provide full funding but now it's because supposedly congress didn't provide full funding. they actually provided more funding than congress requested. >> wellin the previous request , with the exchange included, the funding being asked for,
if it would've been appropriated would have allowed the project to move forward. let me just say at the time of the decision last july were the gsa decided to pull the plug on the other options, the statement from gsa, from mr. michael stated that the cancellation of the procurement was not the desired outcome. does that remain the position of the fbi but that was not the desired outcome. >> to the current point, the longer that this project doesn't move forward the longer we are in this disruptive state. the funding that was being asked for in the budget request along with the exchange was the amount needed, 1.4 million with the exchange to move forward. it was because of that and the
fact that that procurement was going beyond the original expected time. , there were considerations in their that if they want out of the building we were going to be paying penalties. the. all of it, as it was aging, was making that procurement ineffective. >> you're absolutely right, if that project would've moved forward, we would be building at one of the three sites today, most likely. the committee, and in good faith when we came up before and what we've done in the interim is to look at everything in the project, we've looked at all the operational pieces coming forward. >> because time is limited, you mentioned security, it's
very clear this is a less secure facility. i have to say, i was a little amused by referencing the bipartisan agreement as the path forward for additional funding. that budget agreement was reached here on the hill after you had already major decisions to move forward. that was just a couple weeks ago, isn't that the case. >> actually, the final recommendation came forward at that same time. if at the funding issue, which is what the testimony is with respect to the decision, given the bipartisan budget agreement. the fbi has told us for years we meet their mission requirements.
the last question has to do with the swing space, rental payments, i'm really confused about this. you are in a current building, you are paying some rental payments now, i don't know how much, and now you're going to move for a period of five or six years to other locations, we don't know where right now and you've not included the cost of those rental payments. can you get back to that engine this committee and give us the cost of those payments? a lot of people who look at this believe things have dramatically changed. >> we would be happy to get back with you with those initial figures. what i was trying to say earlier, there's a cost of occupying the hoover building.
those costs would and if we demolish the building. we wouldn't be paying to operate and maintain the hoover building. that is offsetting the base rental payments for the swing space but we would have to bring it up to the standards and not the $479 million. >> if i could, just one last question. senator asked about this, but mr. matthews have you had conversations with the director of omb about this project. >> i have not. this is part of the budget submission of the administration so this is absolutely supported by omb. the funding request was part of the fy 18 additional request that was put forward. it has the approval of the omb. >> are either of you gentlemen
familiar with any conversations with any members of your agency with the president of the united states about this decision with respect to the fbi building. i mean the decision to not move forward with other locations and remain at the current location. are you aware of any conversation that anyone in the administration has had with the president of the united states about this decision. >> this was a joint decision. >> just yes or no. are you aware of any conversations held by any member of administration with the president of the united states about this conversation. >> what i would say. >> it's a yes or no. >> i don't think it is. >> it is a yes or no question.
are people aware of any conversations the ministration has had with the president. >> with respect to the decision of staying in the downtown location, this decision in any conversation that have happened and we have had, the commissioner and i have had conversations with omb on what the decision is. we are usually didn't come out here without coordination with omb oversight. but regarding staying in the current building, that is a current fbi decision. i'm not aware of that decision, whether it's come up in any other venue, the decision to stay at pennsylvania avenue is an fbi decision and we've had the conversation with gsa. any entities outside, whether
they been informed or had conversation, it hasn't been a factor in the decision. >> that was not my question but my question was not whether any conversation with people outside the fbi was a factor. my question is are you aware of conversations or communication with any member of the administration with the president of the united states regarding the project. >> i have not been part of any of those conversations. >> i didn't ask that. i understand you are not talking to the president of the united states about this. i'm asking whether you are aware of any conversations that anyone had with the president of the united states regarding the decision not to go forward with the current plan or the alternative. >> i'm not in a position to answer that because i have not been privy to those conversation. >> that is not my question.
my question is not if you know the content of those conversation. my question is if you're aware of any conversation with the president. >> i don't believe i'm in a position to answer that question. >> this is a legitimate questio question. the question has been asked and answered to the best of their ability. >> for the record neither witness answer the question. we will head to a second round of people have additional questions. let me ask one before, missed you mr. matthews is the total cost $3.3 billion? it assumes the entire project will take five years and employees will be about to return to the new headquarters within that timeframe.
my experience has been projects take longer and cost more than predictions are. you believe we can complete this project in five years. a lot of the unknowns are typical with construction projects. even though this is an existing site, we know the site we know the demolition costs. we feel good and confident about those estimates. a lot of those things that come into play really are present here. again it comes down to the funding. if we have the funding, we need it in hand for the design portion of the contract to award a contract. this would not lend itself to
a phased approach. we can build the foundation wait for money to wait for the next piece. if we have it in hand we should be able to meet the project. as with any large product we need to make a plan and not change it midway once we start. >> avoid changeovers. for any of us who have had a remodeling project, whether it's just a homebuilding project, change requests are the bane of cost control. >> i'm interested in the truth. and that's what's expected of you and off. if people know the truth they
will make a mistake. i think the question that they post is not an easy question to answer. chris, would you state once again the question you asked both witnesses. >> yes, the question was straightforward, whether either of these german are aware of any conversations that took place between any member of the administration and the president of the united states regarding this fbi project. meaning the decision to move forward or rebuild on the current site. are you aware of any product not asking if you are in the room. i'm not asking for the content, i'm asking if you were aware of any such conversations. >> i'm not a big fan of yes/no questions and answers but this really is one. we would like you to tell us the truth. >> i am the chief financial officer and head of facilities for the fbi.
i have meetings with all types of people in the department of justice, omb and other places. my question is presented if anyone is aware of conversations. >> that was not the question. it's a straightforward question and it deserves a straightforward answer. i've answered it as best i can. >> mr. matthews, have you answered it as best as you can. >> i am not in a position to answer that question. >> the ways you have responded certainly raise for me a question of whether the president did somehow intervene. the way you're answering it encourages suspicion. >> i'm not trying to bring suspicion on whether there was
, i've tried to be very explicit on whether there was any intervening from the administration of the white house when i tell you the fbi has come to this decision and we would not put forward the decision, nor would be be agreeing to an approach that did not meet the mission requirements. >> let me say this. if the president did not intervene in some way and you are aware that he does not intervene in any way, just say that. the suspicion goes left. your inability to say that or refusal to say that simply heightens that suspicion and that's not a good thing for anybody. my time has expired. i have some questions for the record.
think you for being here thank you. want to underscore the point made in response to the appropriations on the original project. mr. matthews you indicated there were two reasons for the termination of the original contract. you didn't like the hoover building exchange which was the administration proposal, not ours. second you didn't have all the money in hand and yet you never asked for a period i want the public to understand and the fbi to understand we should be breaking ground today but for the administration in virginia or maryland and you would get the facility you need faster and
carry out the mission and will be less costly. a valuable piece of property will find its way into helping the people of the district of columbia. the second point, i don't understand the math here, you been telling us consistently that it's better to use government facilities for cost than outside facilities for costs. now are being told it's a wash. i'm looking at the bookkeeping where you are being charged for the cost of the hoover building and you're telling us that will be a wash but it doesn't seemed like it will be a wash for the taxpayers of this country. that's who we represent. it does seemed like there will be additional cost. we did some of our own analysis with our economic develop people and admittedly we don't have the information
you have. the number we came up with is about one point to billion dollars additional cost because of the swing space. if that is accurate or even half accurate then we are spending a lot more to rebuild the hoover building with less results for the fbi, today and very concerned about the future expansion and needs of the fbi because you will be really restricted to the building of the hoover building. so if i could just make that one request that the german-made and the ranking member earlier, i hope before you send us the prospectus for our consideration that we have all of the detailed information available to us and you said, the one thing you said that really concerned me is that we didn't know all
the cost. was it our responsibility to find out all the cost? at all that was your responsibly. why did congress have that information originally. >> i can't speak for the previous administration, why they didn't provide it but i can say we are providing it. >> you're not providing it right now because you're not giving us a swing space comparison we need a lot more information than you've given us spread don't you agree? >> we will give you more information on the swing space but at this time we've given you what we have. in respect to your question about long-term leasing and short-term leasing makes a lot of sense for the government. long-term, for 30 years for requirement to house that in a single location, that's where we start getting into cost issues. for temporary requirements, a rental space is a great solutio solution. >> so we should take our government buildings and short-term leases rather than having people in our buildings. >> of course it will be replaced with a government owned building practices just
temporary. >> but it defies logic. you're saying the fbi can save money if they start taking their employees out and into short-term leases. that doesn't make sense. >> we looked at renovating the facility and that makes far less sense. >> right. >> to clarify what was in the report, we will definitely get back to print the swing space amount you're seeing are those above standards, we believe that the rent cost, and we still are going to pursue whether it's in the government inventory, whether there's space that were aware of that would offset some of the rent but the only piece that we don't believe is in the report right now is that final payment and what the building commissioner articulated earlie earlier, we think that will be an offset what were currently paying. there's no question, to your
point, that there may be, in the interim. , those years where we might be paying some marginal amount more for that space but in the longer picture, when we get back in to the facility, we think that's a better place to be. you're correct it could be a marginal amount but we think that peace will be offset with what were already paying. >> i would hope you would give us the analysis on the hoover building getting less cost reimbursement from gsa and that has to be made up someplace else by taxpayers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for mr. matthews, have you ever had any conversation or communication with the president of the united states or senior white house staff about this fbi project? >> i have not. mr. chairman, i would just ask if i could put into the record some of the documents i cited during my questioning as well as a washington post column
discussing the president's interest in keeping the fbi building in its current financial state. >> without objection. it's an fbi decision. it is in the president's budget so one would expect the administration have interest in the final decision on how that process was made. is there anything any of you would like to offer in clarifying things. >> just a quick point, i'm not trying to not answer the question with respect to the senators. on your last point, not saying something in terms of whatever those conversations, if they did occur, was said, this was to reiterate this was an fbi decision in coronation. [inaudible] the one thing i would say in terms of that five-year, one
of the challenges in comparison to the other sites previously, the amount of roadwork and infrastructure that had to be done to get to the construction the site when we set the two time periods, that's where we believe we can tear down and build it back even though that five years will be an inconvenience, i'll be honest with you that would be a hard period for us to figure out what we do believe that's workable and that is some of the computers and we get to. i just want to clarify that. mr. matthews, anything else you'd like to offer for clarification. >> i would just say that i understand it's a significant change from the previous request, but with respect to the site, what really makes it possible to consider the site is a smaller requirement for the personnel. as a mentioned there are some distinct advantages if you can
actually fit the housing requirement. i want to thank both of you for your time. the record will remain (there may be some additional questions from other members. thank you for your testimony. >> i just want to say thank you for holding this hearing. thank you for being here with our colleagues. it's an important issue for the them. you have been extra a gracious and i just want to note that and say thank you. >> it's good to work with you. thank you very much for this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]