- yesterday
During a Senate Appropriations Committee business meeting, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) urged the committee to not allow the Trump Administration to move the FBI Headquarters to the Ronald Reagan building.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00There are other members who wish to speak on the bill or offer an amendment to it.
00:07Madam Chair. Senator Van Hollen. I have an amendment that's being circulated.
00:14This amendment is very clear. It says that funds made available by this bill and other bills
00:23shall not be used to construct an FBI headquarters at any site other than the one that was selected
00:31through a long competitive process because it met the security requirements and mission requirements
00:37of the FBI. I would just point out in response to Senator Britt, there's a big, big difference
00:44between this situation and the one you raised, which is in this situation, we have on a bipartisan
00:50basis put aside these monies for the purpose of making a down payment on the selected site.
00:58I am informed that that was not done with respect to Space Force and that's the entire basis of my
01:04argument. My argument is not that presidents don't have these decisions that they can make. My argument
01:10is that we on a bipartisan basis as members of Congress have for years proceeded with the
01:18understanding that we would put aside these funds, which are now a sizable down payment, not enough
01:24to cover the cost, full cost, but we would put aside these funds and await the outcome of the process
01:31that was established, which this committee was part of for a very long time. There have been GAO reports
01:37and all sorts of other input that resulted in the site that was picked. And I would just close again
01:44by making the point that if we allow the executive, whoever the president may be, to snatch monies
01:52that this committee and this Congress have set aside for purposes that we mandated, we are opening the
01:59door to taking a lot more money. In fact, there is funds. I've discussed this with the chairman. There
02:04are funds in the CGS bill for capital projects that the chairman strongly supports. I support. The
02:10administration doesn't support that project. In fact, they called for rescinding funds that this
02:15committee had previously advanced for a particular DOJ project. We rejected the Trump administration's
02:24request to rescind the funds for that particular project. And what we're asking here is that the
02:31committee, on a bipartisan basis, not allow the administration to rescind effectively funds that
02:38we have on a bipartisan basis provided. I would just again caution everybody about the precedent that
02:45will be set if we don't stand up for current congressional prerogatives in this case. FBI building today,
02:53projects in any other state tomorrow, article three gives us these, article one gives us these powers,
03:00powers, and I hate to see us surrender them. And this is an effort to protect congressional powers and
03:09allow us to make decisions important to our constituents. Thank you. Senator Moran, Senator Coons,
03:20Senator Mullen, and Senator Murray, and Senator Merkley have all indicated that they wish to speak on this
03:29amendment. Senator Murray, would you like to go first or? I will just add to my comments from my opening
03:37statement that I strongly support Senator Van Hollen's amendment. This is an issue he feels very strongly
03:43about and for good reason. His amendment would ensure the Trump administration adhere to both the exhaustive
03:49site selection process and the bipartisan funding laws that all of us agreed to in this committee.
03:55I strongly urge its adoption. Senator Moran. Thank you, Chairwoman. This is an issue that we have
04:03had on the Senate floor and perhaps in this committee previously, although the funding that is being
04:08debated was passed nearly a decade, approved an appropriation bill, and held for nearly a decade by
04:16Senator Mikulski, who was the ranking member of the full committee. And there has been debate about a new FBI
04:25headquarters. I think there's been consensus that the current headquarters is insufficient and worn.
04:33And there's been debate on by members of the Senate about whether Maryland is the right option,
04:39whether Virginia is the right option. We've never, or maybe I should say Alabama is the right option,
04:44which has significant FBI presence. This committee has never made a decision about location.
04:53And the Biden administration did. And then this administration apparently wants to keep the FBI
05:02headquarters in Washington DC at the Reagan building. But when my colleague from Maryland says we made a
05:08decision, the decision about location has never been ours. Also, it's not really the jurisdiction of the
05:14Commerce Justice Science Committee. While the money has been put in here for an FBI capital account,
05:20this is a GSA issue where other money has been set aside for the GSA to use for a new building.
05:28And that's the responsibility of FSGG, not this committee. I think there's an understanding of the
05:36issue that's before us. And Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to explain
05:43the circumstance. Thank you. Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair. I strongly support this amendment.
05:52And I just wanted to speak for a moment in support of it and urge my colleagues to consider it.
05:58I well remember when Senator Mikulski set aside this money, her urgency and attention to this detail.
06:05For many years, I was ranking on FSGG, including with Senator Bozeman, several senators over three
06:10Congresses. There was a long and detailed and thorough decision making process that produced the Greenbelt
06:18campus decision. And I think if you think about the CIA and NSA and the campuses they're located on,
06:25and the very real security threats that the FBI headquarters may face, and the value of taking
06:32the FBI from from I think it's five different buildings to one campus facility. I just urge
06:39consideration for this amendment by Chris Van Hollen to make possible moving forward towards the solution
06:45that I think was on a policy basis the right solution for a Greenbelt campus. Thank you.
06:51Senator Mullen.
06:55To make the assumption that the FBI would possibly put their men and women in a less secure building is
07:02laughable. And for the fact that Congress would be able to know better to choose a site than the FBI,
07:07when that is their job, they're an intel agency. They know security, I promise you, better than all of us.
07:13Now, this is what they fight. They fight threats home, here, and abroad to some degree. For us to try
07:22to micromanage their site planning is is ridiculous. They're not going to put their men and women at
07:28harm. We need to allow them to make a decision. We haven't been able to make a decision, nor do we
07:32make a decision. We allow and support their decision that they make. And what all we're doing here is
07:37supporting that decision. But for us to debate that they would, for a security concern, is anybody in
07:43here professional in that area? Anybody on the Democrat side a professional in that area?
07:49Anybody here ever chose a site for security purposes? Ever looked at hard sites versus easy targets?
07:56I have. I know it well. And I would assume we need to lean in and trust these individuals,
08:01because we're not talking about Republicans or Democrats. We're talking about the FBI.
08:06And I strongly oppose this. We're micromanaging the FBI. And by the way, at that point, any other
08:12agency for making decisions on their own. We have to trust the experts as we put them in place in
08:18this circumstances. It's the FBI. Senator Merkley.
08:25Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And more broadly, thank you for the collaboration that you
08:32all are bringing as Chair and Vice Chair to this process. Before I speak specifically to this issue,
08:38there's a context in which this discussion is happening. And there is an ongoing kind of degradation
08:45of the importance of this committee that I think we need to wrestle with. My political mentor was
08:51Senator Hatfield, who was Chair of this committee. His last discussion with me before he passed was
08:57about what's happening to the Appropriations Committee. And over time, what we've seen is we're
09:03making a lot more spending decisions through tax credits and deductions. So that's going to the
09:07Finance Committee. We have a lot more funding that's going into mandatory programs. That's less
09:12discretionary funding. We're spending a lot more money on interest. So that is taken away from our role.
09:18And the mantra that existed back when I was first working here for Congress was,
09:25Appropriators are appropriators first and Democrats or Republicans second. That's how strong the bond
09:31was about our collective responsibility to produce budgets. We are also now threatened by the fact that
09:38we couldn't get the bills to the floor. I've shared with the Chair and the Vice Chair a strategy for
09:45expediting getting bills to the floor so we can get individual appropriation bills considered. I'll
09:50proceed to share it with with all of you. We are seeing that that slow process is really hurting
09:57our ability to do bills. The fact that we went through a year with the continuing resolution undid
10:03all the work that so on everyone here worked so hard on last year. So that's another threat. And so I'm
10:10encouraging us to have a discussion as a committee about how we take and kind of breathe new life
10:17into our our mission. Our mission of figuring out the best ways to spend the money allocated under the
10:25marks that are set by the the Chair and the Vice Chair and how we collaborate. Rescisions are another
10:32new kind of threat. Bipartisan rescissions? Not an issue. And that's why Vice Chair spoke to doing a
10:39rescission within a bill that we're doing a bipartisan discussion of and passing. That's one thing.
10:45But the rescission coming to the floor to on a partisan basis undo the bipartisan work of this committee,
10:51that's another kind of knife into the the body of this body's work. And when my colleague from Maryland
10:58is saying that taking a decision that was made over a multi-year process and to my colleague
11:07Senator Mullen, that's when the experts came together. They wrestled with this. Every aspect of
11:13the security for the FBI location. They vetted it. They brought in everyone. They wrestled with it. It was
11:20was a lengthy difficult consideration and that's two years ago. So this does feel like a very arbitrary
11:27rescission. And I must say I'm thinking about the decision that was a parallel in a way on the
11:34location of the research fleet for NOAA. And Washington State and Oregon State went through
11:39a multi-year process of competing for for the location of that research fleet. And after all the
11:46experts were brought in and all the factors were considered, the decision was made to locate it in
11:51Oregon. And had an administration come along and said we're going to ignore all of the experts that
11:58came together and wrestled with that and just make an arbitrary decision, I would have been pretty
12:03unraveled. And I would like to think that had the decision been for Washington State that I would
12:07similarly have supported Washington State winning that competition. So I encourage us to view this as
12:15another piece of the fabric of us being appropriators, working together, protecting each other, helping
12:22each other, and to support this amendment. Thank you. Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
12:32Okay, this issue's been around for a while. Yeah, it's on. It's green. It's red. I got nothing.
12:40Got nothing. Is that better? Okay. So this issue has been around for for a while. And in fairness,
12:48I was one that actually thought it had been resolved that it was going out somewhere in Maryland. So I
12:54was a little bit surprised to see that this was this was now an issue in front of us.
13:02No secret, I don't like I don't like rescissions. I don't like the rescission package that we're going
13:08to be dealing with. I don't like the whole the whole exercise of of rescissions, particularly at a
13:15time when we're actually trying to advance appropriations. To me, it seems you've got a
13:21disconnect here. I'd like to think that we could take the recommendations from the administration
13:27to come forward with this rescissions package and figure out what we're going to how we're going to
13:31address them in in appropriations going forward. That's another issue not for debate right here today.
13:37But it does it does play into how how we're viewing our role as appropriators, how we view the role of
13:46of rescinding funds as we're talking about with this particular amendment.
13:52I think this is kind of a big deal for us to be making a determination on at this hearing this morning.
14:03I've heard that the Appropriations Committee has not actually weighed in on the site necessarily.
14:14The chairman has said that. I very much respect my my colleague from Oklahoma in saying the FBI
14:21that they look to the security aspects of facilities and they're not going to put themselves in a place
14:30that that would not be wise. But in fairness, I don't know what that review is. I don't think any of us know
14:40what that review is. My my understanding is that this has been a decision that was made just very recently.
14:49So I for one would like to know that this analysis has actually been going on for for more than just
14:57a couple months that there's actually been that effort to to ensure that we're going to move forward.
15:07This is the right place and it's the right place not for a Trump administration, not for a Biden
15:12administration, not for a not for a John Ossoff administration, but this is the right place for the FBI.
15:18So I'm sorry. I didn't mean to start any rumors. A Mike Rounds administration. How about that?
15:26That's better. Yeah. So I I don't know if this is maybe this is something that we should take off.
15:38You should withdraw your amendment allow for us all as members of the Senate to to get
15:48a a more thorough briefing from from the FBI from the administration as to the merits of this proposal.
15:58We're not going to be going to the floor with this
16:01Appropriations bill as soon as we would like. We're going to have a little bit of time to do that. I just throw that out there because
16:09there's a lot that goes on with this particular
16:12amendment and I I would hope that we would be making the the determination or the reason for the
16:21right reason and not and not have this be viewed as as a political exercise that this is this is a
16:32this is advantageous for the Trump administration and and then when you have
16:36uh uh an administration a few years down the road um that we not get caught in the crosshairs uh again.
16:45So I don't know whether the senator from Maryland is is interested in that proposal but it might be one
16:52way to to address it at this moment. Could I add to the interesting proposal that Senator Murkowski has just made
17:03um if uh Senator Moran thinks it's appropriate. I didn't hear what you said but you're I didn't hear what
17:14you said but you're the chairman and so I think it's appropriate. Well let me let me suggest that
17:22we could ask for a briefing from the head of the FBI which would be available to all members of this subcommittee.
17:33in exchange for uh the senator withdrawing his amendment now knowing that if he's still
17:42if this committee's still not um satisfied or become satisfied you would still have the opportunity to
17:51offer the amendment on the floor. So Madam Chair I'm going to respectfully decline um that proposal. I would
17:59suggest that in order to protect um congressional intent and I will speak to that in a minute the
18:07best way forward would be for the committee to say that we will not allow funds to be spent on an
18:13alternative site and then if we are persuade which is what we've decided in the past if we're persuaded
18:19by the FBI that we would we could revisit that decision. I would just like to speak to some of the
18:24comments that have been made um as the offer of the amendment and I agree with Senator Mullen on one
18:29thing which is we shouldn't be picking the site of an FBI headquarters. I know the senators knew that's
18:36not what we did. We set up a process a long-term process where the FBI was at the table along with
18:44GSA which of course administers federal buildings and we set up the criteria through the input of the FBI.
18:53So I would never pretend to be a person who would pick the site. We set up a process designed to make sure
19:00the FBI went to a place that met the security requirements and so that is the difference here.
19:08We're not we're not selecting something we're up we're upholding a decision that was made by the FBI
19:16and by the GSA based on all the inputs that they have to take into consideration. And now to answer
19:24your question Senator Murkowski they have not done any analysis about the security requirements at the
19:30Ronald Reagan building. We got a briefing just the other day. They say it will take seven to eight months.
19:39So they've already said they're going to start transferring money and people and they haven't
19:43even done the security requirement for the Ronald Reagan building. This Congress many years ago to
19:51Senator Moran's point put in one of our appropriations bills that the monies in the bill would be reserved
19:58for one of the three sites that were the finalists that would meet the requirements. There were again
20:06two in Maryland one in Virginia. What we said as a Congress on a bipartisan basis is that those funds would
20:12go to whoever won the competitive selection process of those three sites. We didn't decide that process
20:19decided and we did say that these funds will go for that purpose. As you said Senator Mikulski began to
20:25put funds in this account but the other account is the GSA account which has more money that was set aside
20:34as we said on a bipartisan basis in that on the spill to support the new headquarters at the site selected
20:42from that competition. We didn't pick. The experts picked and now we have this proposal at the last
20:49minute coming in to say let's go to the Ronald Reagan building when no security assessment has been done.
20:57So that is why I'm going to continue to ask members on a bipartisan basis to support this amendment.
21:02Madam Chair, can I respond to that real quick? That's actually not completely accurate. This is not an unknown
21:08building. This is a known building. It's an underutilized building. We have all been there.
21:14There has been distinguished leaders around the world that have spoke at this building.
21:18Presidents have spoke at this building. This is a federal building that's been underutilized and to
21:22say there hasn't been a risk assessment to this is absolutely not true. It is utilized all the time for
21:30as I said presidents and world leaders to speak at. It is a hundred percent known building and they
21:36understand the security and security risk around this building and what it is capable of doing and
21:41what it is not capable of doing. So that's disingenuine for you to say that. Senator Mullen, will you?
21:45Madam Chair? No, no, no. I'm going to respond to that. Senator Hovind.
21:49Could I be recognized? Yes. I'd call a question. Madam Chair, I want to respond to that
21:54because it's absolutely not true that the anybody is determined that that building can meet this level
22:02five security requirement of the FBI, which was what this was decided. So, Senator Mullen,
22:09there are lots of buildings in Washington that foreign leaders visit. We don't decide to make them
22:13the headquarters for the FBI just because some foreign leader has been in there. I think we all
22:19understand that. So I would, again, this was this we already know from their own testimony that they
22:25haven't made a determination on whether or not the Ronald Reagan building meets the security requirements,
22:30the level five security requirements for a new FBI campus. We're now going to move to a vote.
22:35Senator Kennedy. Yeah, I wanted to ask Chris, how much money is set aside for the FBI? The total is
22:45about $1.4 billion, $555 million in this account, the remainder in the GSA account under the FISG bill. And
22:54what happens to the money? Well, the administration is saying that that money had been set aside for the
23:00selected site will now be used to move the headquarters to the Ronald Reagan building.
23:04And what happens if there's money off Dover? Well, there won't be, which is another story. This
23:09will require a lot of money. And so this issue, we, the whole purpose of setting up this process,
23:15the nonpartisan process, the experts to have a selection. This just opens the whole process up again.
23:22All right. Thank you.
23:23We're now going to move to a vote on Senator Van Hollen's amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
23:32Senator McConnell. No. Senator Murkowski. Pass for right now. Senator Graham.
23:41No. No by proxy.
23:45Senator Moran. No. Senator Hoban. No. Senator Bozeman. No. Senator Capito. Senator Kennedy. No. Senator
24:01Height Smith. No. Senator Hegarty. No by proxy. Senator Britt. No. Senator Mullin. No. Senator Fisher. No. Senator Rounds.
24:15Senator Murray. Aye. Senator Durbin. Aye. Senator Reed. Aye. Senator Shaheen. Aye. Senator Merkley.
24:26Aye. Senator Coons. Aye. Senator Schatz. Senator Baldwin. Aye. Senator Murphy. Aye. By proxy.
24:36Senator Van Hollen. Aye. Senator Heinrich. Aye. Senator Peters. Aye.
24:43Senator Gillibrand. Aye. By proxy. Senator Ossoff. Aye.
24:50Senator Collins. No. Senator Murkowski. Aye.
25:05Senator Warren. Aye.
25:18Senator Warren. Take out.
25:18Senator Warren. Aye.
25:19Mayor Spred. Aye.
25:20Senator. Aye.
25:23Senator Gu оруж. melted off.
25:25Senator. I mean.
25:27So it.
25:28Senator Warren.
25:29Aye.
25:30Senator Hoffman. No.
25:31They eventually gots together.
25:32Senator Miller.
25:33In Italian.
25:33On this vote, there are 15 ayes and 14 nays, and the amendment is agreed to.