Providing for Establishment of Headquarters for Department of Homeland Security
PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HEADQUARTERS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY -- (House of Representatives - June 14, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security has understandably operated without a consolidated headquarters since its inception. The bill before us will convey property from the Navy to the GSA to help consolidate headquarters for the Department.
Given the critical nature of the Department's mission, we must allow Secretary Ridge to operate the Department as efficiently as possible. This bill is a significant step in the growth of this new agency; and that is why the Committee on Armed Services, in a bipartisan way, supports relocating the Navy from its Nebraska Avenue Complex in northwest Washington, D.C., to accommodate the Department of Homeland Security.
We should be under no illusion, however, that the headquarters provided under this bill is a permanent or ideal solution. In fact, some have even questioned whether this is truly a headquarters at all. We are consolidating some of the leadership elements of the departments on one site, but workers will still be spread among more than a dozen buildings. It is not yet clear that the site can fully accommodate the Department's headquarters, in part because the Department is still evolving and is itself a patchwork of agencies. Several of the Department's key agencies will maintain separate headquarters elsewhere. These concerns have led some in Congress to question whether we should even designate the Nebraska Avenue Complex as the headquarters of the Department at all.
I am also aware that the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has concerns with portions of the bill, and she will seek time to speak on this, in particular, the provision that calls for the selling of property if the Navy is not fully reimbursed for the cost of its move. This provision was inserted to help ensure the Navy does not pay a financial penalty to accommodate the Department of Homeland Security, but the potential mandatory sale of 38 acres in the District raises legitimate concerns. We will continue to work with everyone, including the gentlewoman from the District, to address these concerns when we conference with the Senate on this matter.
The bill before us is imperfect. It still needs some work, but a lot of changes have been made to it. In a sense it is a reflection of the nature and the status of the Department of Homeland Security itself. Despite some of these flaws, though, the bill is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have anymore speakers. I would thank my colleague, an esteemed member of the committee, for his comments; and I believe he has one more speaker on his side. If he could go ahead and recognize that speaker, then we will close out very quickly.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 ½ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for bringing this bill to the floor. I support this bill.
I am very pleased that this question has been settled by the commitment of the Department of Homeland Security to make its home in the District of Columbia. It is unthinkable that the Department of Homeland Security of our country should be elsewhere. I commend Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. I am a member of both of the committees involved with this issue, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am not a member of the Committee on Armed Services, of course, and the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, Economic Development and Emergency Development of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Since the Department was created 2 years ago, I have worked with both the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration to identify suitable space in the District of Columbia to house the new Department. I am delighted that for now, and until the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reviews and approves housing plans, which the Department is in the process of drawing, the Department will be housed at the Naval complex on Nebraska Avenue.
The Department has spent considerable time in preparing a housing plan, but it is important to note that this is a department in formation, so the Department itself is having its difficulties thinking about how the Department will look 5 years out, 10 years out; and for that reason we have not held hearings to review the DHS's plan for what security elements will be included in headquarters operations. Members can imagine that they would have to be extraordinary.
My colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a bipartisan fashion shared that they all have concerns about the language contained in the title. The language is that this facilitates the establishment of a headquarters complex at the Nebraska Avenue complex. This may seem like a technical matter. I hope it is a technical matter.
We would hope if the director, after drawing his housing plan, were to decide that he wished to be elsewhere, the way in which the GSA operates is it goes and tries to find him space elsewhere. We do not even know how big this Department will be and if it will outgrow the Nebraska headquarters, so the notion that this is the headquarters could be read technically to mean they do not have the authority to move elsewhere.
By way of background, officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Homeland Security, the General Services Administration, and the Navy agreed to a three-step approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Avenue complex would be transferred to GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to homeland security; and (3) the Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from the site.
In fact, in February of this year, these officials met with the transportation committee staff on a bipartisan basis to review the details of this approach. That is the administration and the staff on both sides of the aisle meeting in the same room. The original bill title merely spoke about the use of the property by homeland security, not establishing permanent headquarters. Again, this is a very technical matter, but we have seen how technical matters can throw people off once they want to do something in the Congress. I am not making a major objection, but I want to go on the record to say that if Secretary Ridge says this is a whole lot smaller space than we need, I do not want us to say you are locked in by the language of the title. That is all I am bringing to Members' attention.
The Nebraska Avenue complex is 38 acres in northwest Washington. It contains 33 mostly unconnected buildings, over 1,000 parking spaces, and 556,000 square feet of office space. Many of the buildings are old, one dating back to 1916, many constructed in the 1920s. The site is not nearly as secure as it has to be for the agency with the highest security mission.
Currently, there are 1,300 personnel at the site, almost evenly split between Navy personnel and DHS personnel. Eventually DHS intends to house 1,986 personnel at the site; at least that is what they think now. Those personnel are now housed in mostly leased space in over 5 million square feet of space in the District and the region.
Given the enormous impact DHS will have on the government's administrative costs, and the impact it will have on the District and the region, more thought and attention should be given to establishing a headquarters in the District of Columbia. I have to assume that the decision of the Secretary would be controlling, it always is, when we look for space for an agency.
The bill also contains a mandatory sale provision of the property in the event the Navy is not fully reimbursed for its moving cost. A sale of such magnitude in the District of Columbia should be consistent with provisions of the Property Act, and not an act conducted solely by the Navy.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.