DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project:
Issues for Congress
William L. Painter
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
September 11, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42753
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Summary
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in early 2003, bringing together
existing parts of 22 different federal agencies and departments in a new framework of operations.
In its first few years, the department was reorganized multiple times, and more focus was given to
ensuring its components were addressing the perceived threats facing the country rather than to
addressing the new organization’s management structure and headquarters needs. Therefore, the
consolidation of physical infrastructure that one might expect in creating an operation of such size
and breadth did not occur at that time.
As the Coast Guard began to plan consolidating its leases on headquarters facilities into secure
federally owned space, DHS was finding its original headquarters space at the Nebraska Avenue
Complex too limited to meet its evolving needs. In 2006, the George W. Bush Administration
proposed combining the two projects into one $3.45 billion headquarters consolidation project on
the West Campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital in Anacostia.
Since that year, Administrations of both parties have requested funding for this initiative. Thus
far, the project has received $460 million from DHS and $908 million from the General Services
Administration (GSA), for a total of $1,368 million through FY2013. Most of these resources
have been allocated to the construction of a new consolidated headquarters for the Coast Guard
on the campus, which opened ceremonially on June 29, 2013.
However, this project has not received sustained funding from Congress—80% of the funding it
has received so far came in FY2009 when a surge of supplemental funding combined with the
regular appropriations for GSA and DHS provided $1.1 billion for the project. With the
completion of its first key component, and the release of a new cost estimate reflecting a less
aggressive construction plan, the debate over this project enters a new phase.
The purpose of this report is to outline the policy considerations to be evaluated in deciding
whether to continue funding the consolidation of the remaining DHS headquarters functions at St.
Elizabeths, and to explore some of the benefits and consequences of several possible ways
forward.
The fate of this initiative could have significant impact on the department operationally,
budgetarily, and culturally. Operationally, the consolidated headquarters would provide a higher
level of security for many DHS headquarters functions, and would provide a more capable
departmental operations center to help coordinate the federal response to natural disasters and
terrorist attacks. Budgetarily, the department would benefit from reduced overhead costs in the
long term, but would face significant pressure on its near term budget to see the construction
through to completion. Culturally, the new headquarters could help promote the integration of the
department’s components into “One DHS,” and have some direct and indirect contributions to
improving departmental morale.
This report examines four potential ways forward for the headquarters project: Going no further
than the Coast Guard headquarters phase; reducing the future DHS presence on the campus and
sharing the site with other government agencies; proceeding with the project as outlined in the
new baseline; and aggressively funding the project to accelerate completion.
Congressional Research Service
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Whatever decision is made—even a decision to make no decision on the long-term fate of the
project—will bear significant costs, manifested as a combination of up-front construction costs,
ongoing lease expenses, and operational and management tradeoffs that are difficult to quantify.
Congressional Research Service
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Arguments for and Against Headquarters Consolidation .......................................................... 3
Justifications Made for Consolidation ................................................................................. 3
Concerns Voiced over Consolidation .................................................................................. 6
Funding History ......................................................................................................................... 7
Current Status ............................................................................................................................ 9
Project Status ....................................................................................................................... 9
FY2014 Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 11
Other Congressional Action .............................................................................................. 11
Considerations for Congress .......................................................................................................... 13
Implications of the Consolidated Headquarters Project .......................................................... 13
Operations ......................................................................................................................... 13
Budget ............................................................................................................................... 16
Culture ............................................................................................................................... 19
Options .................................................................................................................................... 21
Going No Further (Completion of Coast Guard Headquarters Only) ............................... 22
Going Further, Following the New Baseline ..................................................................... 23
Going Further, but Sharing St. Elizabeths ......................................................................... 23
Going Further, and Expediting Completion ...................................................................... 24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 24
FY2013 .............................................................................................................................. 29
Figures
Figure 1. GSA and DHS funding for DHS St. Elizabeths Headquarters, FY2006- FY2014
Request ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Tables
Table A-1. DHS and GSA Appropriations for St. Elizabeths (FY2006-FY2014).......................... 31
Appendixes
Appendix. History of Project Appropriations ................................................................................ 26
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 32
Congressional Research Service
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by the Homeland Security Act of
20021 (HSA) and became operational January 24, 2003, barely 16 months after the terrorist
attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Rather than being as a
completely new entity, the department was established by assembling existing parts of 22
different federal agencies and departments into a new framework.2 The timing and means of
establishing DHS, coupled with the perceived urgency of its mission in its early years, hastened
the growth and development of the department’s operational capabilities. At the same time, these
factors hindered potential efforts to more fully integrate the functions of the department’s
different components.
The headquarters functions of the department’s components were not physically consolidated at
the time, but instead were left scattered across the National Capital Region in accordance with
their past history, rather than their new role in the DHS. As a result, DHS today stands as the
third-largest department of the federal government,3 but runs its operations from about 50
different locations in the National Capital Region.4
In 2004, the Coast Guard (one of the larger components of the newly minted DHS) began to
explore how to meet its needs for new headquarters facilities. The General Services
Administration (GSA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and DHS determined that
a federally owned site would be more cost-effective than securing a replacement lease. In the
meantime, the current location of the DHS headquarters—a former Navy facility at the corner of
Nebraska and Massachusetts Avenues in northwest Washington, DC (known as “the NAC,” short
for “the Nebraska Avenue Complex”)—was proving to be inadequate. One of the initial
assumptions at the time of the establishment of DHS was that the department would only need a
headquarters staff of roughly 800 persons. Once the department was established and roles,
responsibilities, and management needs became clear, DHS determined that the NAC was
inadequate to meet mission execution requirements.5
GSA had determined that the St. Elizabeths Hospital6 site in southeast Washington, DC, which
had recently been declared excess by the Department of Health and Human Services, was a
potential site for federal agencies with high security requirements.
President George W. Bush’s FY2006 budget request had announced the Administration’s plan to
consolidate the Coast Guard’s headquarters on the West Campus of St. Elizabeths—an initiative
that received initial funding in GSA’s budget that year.7 The Administration’s FY2007 budget
1 P.L. 107-296.
2 A complete list can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0133.shtm.
3 This relative ranking is based on the number of employees.
4 Written testimony of U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security hearing on the Department’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request,
April 11, 2013. Available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/04/11/written-testimony-dhs-secretary-janet-napolitano-
house-committee-appropriations.
5 CRS discussions with GSA and DHS staff during site visit to St. Elizabeths, November 16, 2011.
6 The formal name of the site is “St. Elizabeths Hospital,” spelled without an apostrophe.
7 U.S. General Services Administration, FY 2006 Congressional Justifications, Washington, DC, February, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
1
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
request sought the initial tranche of funding for the new Coast Guard headquarters through the
DHS appropriations bill, but both House and Senate appropriators, when briefed on the idea of a
larger consolidation project for DHS headquarters at the site, directed DHS to not proceed on
either project until a new headquarters master plan was completed.8
In October 2006, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff put forward a master plan for “unifying …
core headquarters facilities with those of our operating components,” which essentially broadened
the Coast Guard project to include the overall DHS headquarters consolidation as well, moving
14,000 of the 22,000 people that were projected to staff headquarters functions for the department
and its components to St. Elizabeths.9 Earlier that year, the White House issued a report entitled
“The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned.” While this report did not call for a
consolidated DHS headquarters per se, it did state a need to develop a joint departmental
operations center with robust command and control functions to promote more efficient incident
response.10 This need would be used to help advocate for the consolidated headquarters project in
future years.
Since that year, Administrations of both parties have requested funding for this initiative to
support a coordinated construction plan. However, this project has not received consistent
funding—over 80% of the funding it has received so far came in FY2009 when a surge of
supplemental funding combined with the regular appropriations for GSA and DHS provided
almost $1.1 billion for the project. Most of these funds were used to construct the new 1.2 million
square foot Coast Guard headquarters at St. Elizabeths, which the Coast Guard began occupying
in 2013.
Given this lack of consistent funding, Administration officials indicated in 2012 that the
coordinated construction schedule was no longer feasible. The latest cost estimates for the project
present a phased approach of funding individual “useable segments” of roughly 300,000 gross
square feet each year. If funding is provided for one segment each year, DHS and GSA indicate
the project will cost $4.5 billion to complete, with the final segment completing in FY2026.11
Even so, GSA estimates $532 million in savings over thirty years solely comparing construction
costs to lease costs.12
The revised baseline for the project does note that if additional funding is provided in earlier
years that “segments could be collapsed, shortening the timeline and reducing the estimated
project cost.”13 However, even with the revised schedule with potentially more annually
affordable structuring of work, each of the first four years of the new plan would require an
annual investment of over $330 million by DHS and GSA combined.
8 H.Rept. 109-699, p. 118-199.
9 Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security National Capital Region Housing Master Plan:
Building a Unified Department, Washington, DC, October 2006, p. 2.
10 The White House, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, Washington, DC, February 23,
2006, p.91.
11 “St. Elizabeths Development Revised Baseline,” document provided by DHS, June 12, 2013.
12 “Prospectus—Construction: Department of Homeland Security Consolidation at St. Elizabeths, Washington, DC,”
PDC-002-WA14, p. 14, accessed on September 3, 2013 at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/170067/fileName/
2014_Washington_DC_Department_of_Homeland_Security_Consolidation_at_St_Elizabeths.
13 “St. Elizabeths Development Revised Baseline,” document provided by DHS, June 12, 2013, Note.
Congressional Research Service
2
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
The fate of this initiative could have significant impact on the department operationally,
budgetarily, and culturally. Operationally, the consolidated headquarters would provide a higher
level of security for many DHS headquarters functions compared to their current locations, and
would provide a more capable departmental operations center to help coordinate the federal
response to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Budgetarily, the department would benefit from
reduced overhead costs in the long term, but would face significant pressure on its near term
budget to see the construction through to completion. Culturally, the new headquarters could help
promote the integration of the department’s components into “One DHS,”14 and have some direct
and indirect contributions to improving departmental morale.
Arguments for and Against Headquarters Consolidation
Justifications Made for Consolidation
The initial DHS National Capital Region Housing Master Plan15 stated that increased
consolidation and co-location of DHS headquarters functions was needed to accomplish five
objectives:
• Improve mission effectiveness;
• Create a unified DHS organization;
• Increase organizational efficiency;
• Adjust the size of the real estate portfolio to better fit the mission of DHS; and
• Reduce real estate occupancy costs.
In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee on
March 25, 2010, Elaine Duke, Under Secretary for Management for the department, simplified
this list to three reasons:
• To increase effectiveness and efficiency;
• To enhance communication; and
• To “foster a ‘one DHS’ culture that would optimize department-wide, prevention,
response and recovery capabilities.”16
Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who signed the original DHS Consolidation Master
Plan, recently described the consolidation project as being “very important both from symbolic
and operational standpoint. It would provide an enormous amount of leverage in defining the
department.”17
14 “One DHS” is a term used by past and present secretaries of the department to describe a DHS that operates as a
single unit rather than a collection of individual components.
15 Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security National Capital Region Housing Master
Plan: Building a Unified Department, Washington, DC, October 2006.
16 Duke, Elaine C., DHS Under Secretary for Management, written testimony, “Homeland Security Headquarters
Facilities,” before the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 25, 2010. Available
at http://ipv6.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1274279995276.shtm.
17 Chertoff, Michael, response to question posed to a panel on “The Department of Homeland Security: Past, Present,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Many of DHS’s components are in leased facilities, despite the fact that the government’s existing
policy is to use federally owned sites for national security functions.18 Consolidation would help
bring DHS in line with that policy, which would also reduce the department’s overhead costs.
According to GSA, over the next 30 years, the St. Elizabeths project would save the government
over $530 million when comparing the costs of its construction to the cost of continued leasing.19
This analysis of cost savings does not include administrative cost savings or efficiencies made
available by co-locating parts of DHS operations.
Why St. Elizabeths?
The DHS Housing Master Plan analyzed fifteen possible sites to see if they could meet the
department’s requirements. DHS and GSA determined in their program of requirements for DHS
in the National Capital Region that DHS needed a minimum of 4.5 million square feet of office
space specifically for headquarters functions on a secure campus, housing nearly 14,000 DHS
personnel, out of an overall need for 7.1 million square feet in the region.20 The NAC, if fully
developed, could only provide 1.2 million square feet.21
Aside from space, the other requirements noted in the study were:
• compatibility with DHS security needs;
• Closeness to the White House and Congress;
• Availability for development by DHS;
• Ability to be ready on DHS’s timetable;
• Proximity to major roadways;
• Proximity to mass transit;
• Proximity to neighborhood amenities; and
• Availability of an adjacent parcel that can accommodate additional office
development and parking.
The analysis found St. Elizabeths was the best match, meeting eight of the nine requirements
(neighborhood amenities were not deemed present at the time, but were anticipated to develop).
(...continued)
and Future,” at the Aspen Security Forum, July 28, 2012. Video available at http://aspensecurityforum.org/2012-video-
day-3.
18 General Services Administration, “DHS Headquarters Location Analysis,” September 2008, p. 6.
19 “Prospectus—Construction: Department of Homeland Security Consolidation at St. Elizabeths, Washington DC,”
PDC-0002-WA14, p. 14, accessed on September 3, 2013 at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/170067/fileName/
2014_Washington_DC_Department_of_Homeland_Security_Consolidation_at_St_Elizabeths.
20 Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security National Capital Region Housing Master
Plan: Building a Unified Department, Washington, DC, October 2006, p. 5.
21 Ibid., p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
4
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
According to GSA, St. Elizabeths was the only site available that was capable of meeting DHS’s
needs.22
In addition, under 41 CFR Section 102-73.255, “prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing
buildings (or sites for such buildings), Federal agencies must use, to the maximum extent
feasible, historic properties available to the agency.”23
Other benefits often cited for consolidation at the St. Elizabeths Campus include economic
benefits to the local community and security benefits to nearby federal facilities. St. Elizabeths,
since its establishment, has been a government-controlled closed campus. It overlooks Joint Base
Anacostia-Bolling24 and the Defense Information Systems Agency, which has expressed its desire
that the property remain a government-controlled closed campus.
With the Coast Guard headquarters becoming operational in a new building at St. Elizabeths
customized to their needs, it seems that those that argue for siting DHS headquarters there can
argue their case based on the existence of a concrete investment in the property that is now
functional—literally, the presence of DHS at St. Elizabeths is now a “fact on the ground.” The
active policy question now is more of whether and how to consolidate the headquarters, rather
than where it should be done.
On September 23, 2011, the House Committee Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee
on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a hearing to review the status of the DHS
headquarters consolidation project, focusing on the move of the Coast Guard to St. Elizabeths,
and the effect it would have on the Coast Guard’s budget and operations. The subcommittee
chairman noted that in 2006, the Coast Guard authorization bill required GSA to provide in its
master plan for another agency of DHS to move to St. Elizabeths at about the same time. This
was done out of concern that the Coast Guard would be “isolated” at the Anacostia site, both in
the sense of continuing the pattern of fragmentation of DHS component headquarters, and the
lack of needed road infrastructure to access the site, which he noted was a long-standing concern
of the subcommittee.25 The subcommittee ranking member noted that “No one’s questioned the
need to complete the consolidation. For that matter, no one … has seriously proposed its
termination.” He went on to say that not funding the project would lead to “a DHS that is less
efficient, less coordinated and less effective than it could be if this project was successfully
completed.”26 Therefore the presence of the Coast Guard becomes an argument for further
consolidation efforts.
22 Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security National Capital Region Housing Master
Plan: Building a Unified Department, Washington, DC, October 2006, pp. 4-5.
23 41 CFR 102-73.255, as downloaded from GPOAccess’s “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,”
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
24 Former known as Bolling Air Force Base and the Anacostia Naval Annex.
25 Representative Frank LoBiondo, opening statement to “Review and Status of the Multibillion-Dollar Department of
Homeland Security Relocation Project in Washington, DC, and its Impacts on the U.S. Coast Guard,” House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, September 23, 2011, p.
1.
26 Ibid, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
5
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Concerns Voiced over Consolidation
Opponents of consolidation have questioned the need for a single large headquarters. Some critics
have expressed the belief that the single headquarters concept is outdated, proposing “distributed”
headquarters facilities connected via the Internet.27
As is noted in later sections of the report, concerns have been voiced by some Members of
Congress about schedule delays and cost increases. Others oppose consolidation on the grounds
that the department’s establishment was flawed and that its overall structure should be revisited.28
Why Not St. Elizabeths?
Some historic preservationists voiced concerns that the project would fail to preserve the historic
character of the site,29 while others have balked at the cost of “constructive reuse” of the site’s
historic buildings.
Some in the local community have questioned whether a secure campus like the envisioned DHS
headquarters will support significant economic activity in the surrounding area.30 According to
GSA testimony in 2010, the project would create 30,000 direct and indirect jobs during
construction.31 As of the end of 2012, according to GSA’s website for the project, 5,653 people
have been employed by the project, including 875 District residents.32
St. Elizabeths was selected in part because of its ability to provide 4.5 million square feet of
office space to house 14,000 personnel—a need that was calculated in 2006. Although the
original intent was not to bring the entire DHS headquarters workforce to St. Elizabeths, with
new constraints on the DHS budget, the department’s workforce is unlikely to meet growth
projections that formed part of the original justification for the project’s size.
Additionally, patterns in the usage of federal office space have changed, with increasing use of
telework and other space management strategies such as flexible and open office arrangements in
recent years. The significance of these arrangements can be seen in through DHS’s efforts to
reduce its overall real estate footprint. In working to meet a government-wide goal of $3 billion in
non-BRAC33 real estate savings from in FY2011 and FY2012, DHS effected $238 million in
savings—$198 million (83%) of which was attributable to space management improvements.34
27 Slabbert, Nicholas, “Telecommunities,” Urban Land Institute, May 2005. As downloaded from
http://www.virtualadjacency.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/9-uli-telecommunities-may2005.pdf.
28 O’Connell, Jonathan, “St. Elizabeths Renovation as Security Campus Faces Resistance,” The Washington Post,
March 30, 2012; and Medici, Andy, “Key Lawmaker to Focus on Waste, Misspending,” federaltimes.com, February,
22, 2013.
29 Moe, Richard, “A Disaster for St. Elizabeths,” The Washington Post, January 8, 2009.
30 Sheridan, Mary Beth, “Scouting a New Home for Homeland Security,” The Washington Post, October 14, 2007.
31 Written testimony of Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration,
“Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities,” before the House Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security
Subcommittee, March 25, 2010. Available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104271.
32 “Opportunities Center Newsletter” Volume 3, Issue 7, p. 10. Posted January 29, 2013, at the “News & Events” tab of
http://stelizabethsdevelopment.com.
33 Savings in real estate costs not associated with the Base Realignment and Closure process.
34 “Managing Property Effectively” section of the performance.gov website (http://finance.performance.gov/initiative/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
DHS has indicated that additional capacity generated by these strategies would be used to bring a
larger share of its headquarters functions onto the St. Elizabeths campus. However, these changes
could justify revisiting the calculations justifying the footprint needed for DHS’s headquarters,
and questions could be raised over whether there is a rationale for DHS personnel beyond the
14,000 originally slated for St. Elizabeths to be moved there. Do all of DHS headquarters
functions need to be consolidated on a high-security campus like St. Elizabeths, or would it be
more cost effective to maintain some of them in another location?
Funding History
Funding for civilian federal government facilities is often provided through two separate
sources—through the GSA, which is funded in the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations bill, and through the appropriations bill that funds the agency that will use the
facility. The construction of basic buildings in most cases is done through contracts let by and
funded through GSA. The department that will use the building pays for “tenant
improvements”—security, furniture, mission-specific equipment, amenities and other finishes that
make the building functional for its occupants.
(...continued)
manage-property/home), as viewed August 30, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Figure 1. GSA and DHS funding for DHS St. Elizabeths Headquarters, FY2006-
FY2014 Request
(millions of dollars of budget authority)
Source: CRS analysis of FY2006-FY2013 conference reports; the U.S. General Services Administration’s FY2012
Expenditure Plan and Reprogramming Request for the Federal Buildings Fund; FY2014 budget justifications for DHS
and GSA; and funding summary documentation provided by DHS.
Note: Some of GSA’s appropriations for St. Elizabeths pay for infrastructure and improvements that would be
needed for any redevelopment of the site—a core responsibility of the GSA. It can be argued that these costs
therefore are not directly attributable to the DHS headquarters project. However, detailed information is not
available to break out such otherwise necessary site support costs from project costs. A detailed table of
requests and appropriations is provided in the Appendix.
Figure 1 shows the funding requests made by previous and present Administrations through GSA
and DHS for DHS headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths along with enacted funding levels,
including funding for infrastructure improvements at the site once the initial headquarters project
was announced, and the appropriations provided by Congress in response, from FY2006 through
FY2014.35
The St. Elizabeths project has to date received more than $1.3 billion in appropriations. However,
as Figure 1 shows, the project has not been consistently funded to the levels requested under
Administrations of either party.
35 GSA had a separate project to fund infrastructure upgrades at St. Elizabeths for future use, separate from the DHS
headquarters consolidation project. However, as these upgrades support the headquarters consolidation, they are
included to provide a more complete picture of the funding stream.
Congressional Research Service
8
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
As the figure illustrates, requests for funding were made but not fulfilled for the larger
consolidation project in FY2007 and FY2008, which slowed the start of the project. The original
DHS National Capital Region Master Plan envisioned the Coast Guard moving into its new
headquarters in the last quarter of FY201036—a move instead that began in the last quarter of
FY2013.
FY2009 was the only year the St. Elizabeths project as presently envisioned received funding of
more than $100 million from either the DHS or GSA budget.37 The first of two consolidated
appropriations bills38 included funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including $98
million for the Coast Guard Headquarters element of the project.39 Five months later, outside the
traditional allocation-constrained debate of regular appropriations bills, the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 200940 (ARRA) invested $650 million in this capital project.41 The
FY2009 regular appropriations process concluded about three weeks later with the second of the
two consolidated appropriations bills,42 which included $347 million for the project through GSA,
matching the level requested by the Administration through the GSA budget request.43 Requests
for funding for FY2011 through FY2013 were only partially met.
Current Status
Project Status
On July 29, 2013, a ceremonial ribbon-cutting took place for the new 1.2 million square foot
Coast Guard Headquarters at St. Elizabeths. The Coast Guard will occupy its new headquarters
over the closing months of 2013 in a phased process to ensure its regular operations are not
interrupted.
DHS had funding to complete the first phase of the project, including the Coast Guard
Headquarters, perimeter security and utilities to support the headquarters, and adaptive reuse of
six historic buildings to support the Coast Guard presence.44 However, GSA did not receive the
minimum required funding for completing its first phase requirements,45 and they have had to
36 Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security National Capital Region Housing Master
Plan: Building a Unified Department, Washington, DC, October 2006, p.16.
37 Table A-1, which outlines the history of requests and appropriations for this project in detail, is included in the
Appendix, as well as a summary of the appropriations provisions from the other years where funding was requested.
38 P.L. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574.
39 House Appropriations Committee Print, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329), Division D—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009, p. 589.
40 P.L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.
41 H.Rept. 111-16, p. 48, 432. ARRA was an economic stimulus package that provided almost $800 billion in
appropriations and revenue provisions passed in the midst of a recession.
42 P.L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524.
43 House Appropriations Committee Print, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), Division D—Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009, p. 907.
44 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, Departmental Management
and Operations, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project, Washington, DC, February 13, 2012, p. 4.
45 According to DHS, GSA needed $76 million to complete all activities associated with Phase I of the project, which
generally encompassed the Coast Guard headquarters and groundwork for the rest of the consolidated headquarters
campus.
Congressional Research Service
9
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
delay several items in Phase I that are not critical to Coast Guard occupancy. These will have to
be completed later at higher cost, but redirecting that funding allowed the Coast Guard
headquarters part of the project to go ahead.46
In the months before the release of the FY2014 budget request, DHS officials indicated in
testimony before Congress that DHS was preparing a new approach to the St. Elizabeths project
in light of the limitations on available funding. The original plan for St. Elizabeths was a
coordinated approach, intended to maximize cost savings by coordinating construction efforts
across the campus. DHS indicated that continuing with that plan given the level of appropriations
support received after FY2009 was not feasible.47 DHS Under Secretary for Management Rafael
Borras noted in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security
subcommittee that future requests would be scoped and packaged as individual segments rather
than as larger coordinated pieces.48
The original cost estimate for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths was $3.4
billion.49 The revised cost estimate is $4.5 billion. DHS has stated that increases in costs have
been the result of delays in funding that have pushed back the construction schedule—not
because of changes in the project’s design or requirements post-contract. According to DHS, all
funded components of the project have proceeded on time and within their budget projections.50
The new baseline for the project incorporates 3.5% annual inflation in construction costs.51
Therefore, DHS and GSA indicate that if the project is funded faster than the projection of one
300,000 gross square foot useable segment per year, the total cost for the completed project
would be lower.52
The inability to proceed with the coordinated construction schedule has resulted in some cost
increases due to lost efficiency. For example, the original plans called for a consolidated
departmental operations center to be excavated and built at the same time as the Coast Guard
headquarters. As the Coast Guard headquarters building was built into the side of a hill, the
original construction plan would have taken advantage of the availability of the specialized crew
and open space created by the construction to facilitate development of this new facility. Funding
was not provided for this work, however, so this piece of the project will have to be developed at
46 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Congressional Staff Tour/Update, July
27, 2012, p. 4.
47 E-mail to CRS from DHS Legislative Affairs, September 4, 2012.
48 Rafael Borras, response to questioning during “Department of Homeland Security Facilities Hearing,” before the
House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 21, 2012.
49 Duke, Elaine C., DHS Under Secretary for Management, written testimony, “Homeland Security Headquarters
Facilities,” before the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 25, 2010, p. 11.
Available at http://ipv6.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1274279995276.shtm.
50 Borras, Rafael, DHS Under Secretary for Management, written testimony, “Department of Homeland Security
Facilities Hearing,” before the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 21, 2012.
Available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2012/03/29/written-testimony-under-secretary-management-rafael-borras-
house-appropriations.
51 Telephone conversation with DHS officials, August 14, 2013. Because of the size of the project, this is lower than
the projected increases testified to by USM Borras in 2012, who noted industry projected cost increases of 5-12%
annually. [Written testimony, “Department of Homeland Security Facilities Hearing,” before the House Appropriations
Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 21, 2012. Available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2012/03/29/
written-testimony-under-secretary-management-rafael-borras-house-appropriations.]
52 “St. Elizabeths Development Revised Baseline,” document provided by DHS, June 12, 2013, Note.
Congressional Research Service
10
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
a later date and most likely at a higher cost, according to DHS and GSA. The operations center
for the Coast Guard and an interim campus security control center will occupy some of the
available space in the interim.53
FY2014 Appropriations
The Administration’s FY2014 budget included requests for funding for the St. Elizabeths project
through both GSA and DHS. The GSA request was for $262 million—$202 million for the next
phase of the St. Elizabeths project, and $60 million for infrastructure activities left undone from
the previous phase. The DHS request included $93 million for the next phase of construction, and
$13 million for support costs for campus security.
The House-reported Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill for FY2014
would fund capital projects for GSA is $635 million, $1,484 million below the request.54 Neither
the bill nor the report accompanying the bill makes explicit reference to the project. The Senate-
reported version, however, would fully fund the Administration’s $262 million request for the
GSA part of the project.55
The House-passed DHS appropriations bill for FY2014 included no funding for headquarters
consolidation. The accompanying report directed the Chief Administrative Officer of DHS to
update the Committee on the expenditure plan for the funding already provided for the project,
“and an updated analysis of alternatives for the project that fully considers the costs and benefits
of its scope within a fiscal environment that is significantly constrained.”56 The Senate-reported
version of the bill included $43 million for costs associated with headquarters consolidation under
the bill’s general provisions, and $13 million in Coast Guard Operating Expenses for campus
security costs. The report also calls for an expenditure plan (from the Undersecretary for
Management) as well as quarterly briefings on headquarters and mission support consolidation.57
Other Congressional Action
In August 2013, H.R. 2611 was enacted into law, naming the new Coast Guard Headquarters at
St. Elizabeths the “Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building.” Signalman First
Class Munro was the only Coast Guardsman to receive the Medal of Honor. The bill passed
unanimously in the House, by unanimous consent in the Senate, and no commentary was made on
the consolidated headquarters project during floor debate in either body.
On May 22, 2013, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on
“Saving Taxpayer Dollars: Freezing the Federal Real Estate Footprint.” DHS Management
Directorate Chief Readiness Support Officer Jeff Orner testified before the subcommittee on
DHS’s real estate “footprint” and their efforts to improve its management, which costs them $1.6
billion in rent and $310 million in upkeep each year for all departmental real estate. In his
53 Author’s conversations with DHS and GSA officials, November 16, 2011.
54 H.Rept. 113-172, p. 54-55.
55 S.Rept. 113-80, p. 86-87; S. 1371 (pcs), p. 74.
56 H.Rept. 113-91, p. 17.
57 S.Rept. 113-77, p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
11
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
testimony, he noted that implementation of flexible workplace strategies across DHS that result in
more efficient use of space are expected to result in significant savings. As for St. Elizabeths, he
noted that:
The Administration remains committed to a consolidated Headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
and will continue to work with Congress to advance consolidation during these challenging
fiscal times. Our goal is to significantly reduce the number of locations in the [National
Capital Region] with St. Elizabeths eventually housing the core of DHS leadership and
mission functions. As the tenant of the St. Elizabeths campus, we continue to work with
GSA to re-evaluate the program’s original requirements in order to achieve the overall goals
and objectives at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.58
During its hearings on the FY2013 budget request the House Appropriations Committee’s
Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on DHS facilities, focusing on two major DHS
construction projects for which funding has been sought in recent years with limited success: the
consolidated headquarters project and the National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility. Subcommittee
Chairman Robert Aderholt pointed out that both projects “are complex and expensive
undertakings with multi-year timelines,” and “are also operating under significantly tighter
budgets than anticipated when planning began several years ago.” He went on to say that
Congress “must take a more realistic look at [the St. Elizabeths project] and balance delays
against possible cost increases,” while asking DHS for minimum funding requirements and
alternative solutions.59
In the 112th Congress, S. 1546, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2011,
which was marked up by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on
September 21, 2011, included a section on DHS headquarters consolidation, directing that DHS
consolidate its headquarters function at St. Elizabeths no later than the end of FY2018, and that
all remaining departmental components and activities that be consolidated “to as few locations
within the National Capitol [sic] Region as possible.”60
There is a comparatively high volume of commentary on the legislative record regarding the DHS
headquarters consolidation project from the appropriations committees relative to the authorizing
committees and individual members. The appropriators generally respond to the Administration’s
annual requests for funding in a specific fashion and often with an explanation of their position,
and therefore touch on most topics that have funding needs associated with them on an annual
basis. The authorizers do not necessarily present legislation and accompanying reports on a
specific topic like this each year, and floor time dedicated to this particular issue has been limited.
Members of the House and Senate have a variety of ways to express their position on a particular
issue, many of which are not readily available for analysis. Therefore, an absence of on-the-
record commentary does not necessarily reflect the degree of concern with, support for, or
opposition to the project.
58 Written testimony of Jeff Orner, DHS Management Directorate, before House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management hearing, “Saving Taxpayer
Dollars: Freezing the Federal Real Estate Footprint,” May 22, 2013. As downloaded from http://www.dhs.gov/news/
2013/05/22/written-testimony-dhs-management-directorate-house-transportation-infrastructure.
59 Representative Robert Aderholt, opening statement to “Department of Homeland Security Facilities Hearing,” before
the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 21, 2012.
60 Sec. 211, S. 1546.
Congressional Research Service
12
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Considerations for Congress
Implications of the Consolidated Headquarters Project
Consolidating DHS headquarters anywhere would change the department’s current operating
patterns in the National Capital Region. These changes would have operational, budgetary and
cultural implications for DHS, and the consolidation vision presented in the St. Elizabeths project
would provide its own particular texture to these changes.
Operations
Consolidating the headquarters components of DHS at a single site would facilitate both
“vertical” coordination between departmental and component leadership and “horizontal”
coordination among the department’s components. With headquarters functions operating in
spaces designed for a unified department, the structural hurdles to coordination are lowered.
Having a single campus makes collaboration with other components easier to accomplish and can
facilitate more effective departmental leadership.
The lack of a consolidated headquarters has hindered the development of a cohesive, maximally
effective department in the eyes of some observers close to DHS.61 Former Coast Guard
Commandant Thad Allen testified on July 12, 2012, before the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs:
In the Washington Area the Department remains a disjointed collection of facilities and the
future of the relocation to the St. Elizabeths campus remains in serious doubt. One of the
great opportunity costs that will occur if this does not happen will be the failure to create a
fully functioning National Operations Center for the Department that could serve as the
integrating node for departmental wide operations and establish the competency and
credibility of the Department to coordinate homeland security related events and responses
across government as envisioned by the Homeland Security Act. As with the mission support
functions discussed earlier, the Department has struggled to evolve an operational planning
and mission execution coordination capability. As a result, the most robust command and
control functions and capabilities in the Department reside at the component level.…
The combination of these factors, in my view, has severely constrained the ability [of] the
Department [to] mature as an enterprise. And while there is significant potential for
increased efficiencies and effectiveness, the real cause for action remains the creation of
unity of effort that enables better mission performance. In this regard, there is no higher
priority than removing barriers to information sharing within the department and improved
operational planning and execution.62
61 For example, Rep. Bennie Thompson, opening statement to “Consolidating DHS: An Update on the St. Elizabeths
Project,” hearing before the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight of the Committee on
Homeland Security, House of Representatives, March 26, 2009, available at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=25147;
and Chertoff, Michael, “The Department of Homeland Security: Past, Present, and Future,” at the Aspen Security
Forum, July 28, 2012. Video available at http://aspensecurityforum.org/2012-video-day-3.
62 Statement of Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), “The Future of Homeland Security: The Evolution
of the Homeland Security Department’s Roles and Missions,” Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs, 112th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2012. Available at http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/the-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
National Operations Center
Currently, DHS operates a National Operations Center (NOC) at the Nebraska Avenue Complex.
However, its ability to provide a robust command and control function and coordinate federal
government incident response to an incident is constrained by its limited size and infrastructure.
Establishment of the type of NOC described in Admiral Allen’s testimony—often referred to as a
Departmental Operations Center, or DOC—would have direct impact on both day-to-day and
crisis operations of the department. Establishment of a new more capable operations center was
recommended in The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, the White House’s
extensive after-action report from the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. The report’s
specific recommendation is as follows:
In order to strengthen DHS’s operational management capabilities, we must structure the
Department’s headquarters elements to support the Secretary’s incident management
responsibilities. First and most important, Federal government response organizations must
be co-located and strengthened to manage catastrophes in a new National Operations Center
(NOC). The mission of the NOC must be to coordinate and integrate the national response
and provide a common operating picture for the entire Federal government.63
In addition, under the plan for the consolidated headquarters, the DOC would be co-located with
the operations centers of the individual DHS components. In Homeland Security: Opportunities
Exist to Enhance Collaboration at 24/7 Operations Centers Staffed by Multiple DHS Agencies,
GAO agreed that DHS’s plans to co-locate its headquarters, its component headquarters and their
respective staffs and operations centers at one location “could further enhance collaboration
among DHS’s component agencies,” along with adoption of other key practices.64 DHS has
further indicated that increased operational effectiveness would result from the co-location of
operations centers, and real estate efficiencies could be found from shared common functions,
support rooms, and incident management spaces.65
The establishment of the DOC without the presence of a consolidated headquarters would be
difficult. The consolidated headquarters project brings, for the first time, the executive leadership
of the department and a leadership presence from all its components together. Without
consolidation, the DOC would necessarily be separated from either the executive levels of DHS
or the leadership of components implementing the response.
The slower pace of consolidation under the new project baseline could also prove problematic.
The establishment and activation of operations centers in Anacostia before their headquarters
presence is established there could reduce efficiencies in some cases. For example, in the past,
FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) has benefitted from co-location with
senior management offices to support their response efforts. Under the new baseline, the NRCC
appears to be slated to move to St. Elizabeths four years before the FEMA headquarters
component is completed. According to DHS, should the project proceed along the timeline
(...continued)
future-of-homeland-security-the-evolution-of-the-homeland-security-departments-roles-and-missions.
63 The White House, The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, Washington, DC, 2006, pp. 69-70.
64 GAO-07-89, Homeland Security: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Collaboration at 24/7 Operations Centers Staffed
by Multiple DHS Agencies, October 2006, p. 8.
65 E-mail from DHS Legislative Affairs, September 4, 2012. Available from author on request.
Congressional Research Service
14
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
included in the new baseline, senior leadership of the components and component operations
centers would move to St. Elizabeths simultaneously, in advance of the other headquarters
functions of their components.66
Physical Facility Security
One operational question that arises in relation to this project is the advisability of a consolidated
headquarters capacity from a security standpoint. Does consolidating the leadership of DHS at a
single facility make it easier to secure, a more appealing target for efforts to disrupt it, or both?
In 1995, the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) was established by Executive Order 12977,
and tasked with establishing policies for security of federal facilities, including developing and
evaluating security standards. In 2003, it became part of DHS.
There are five levels of security standards for federal office buildings. Under the standards
developed by the ISC, the proposed consolidated DHS headquarters would be classified as a
Level V facility, the highest level on the scale. Buildings at this level are similar to those at the
next level below in that they occupy more than 150,000 square feet and host more than 450
employees. The distinguishing characteristics of Level V facilities are that their missions “are
considered critical to national security,” and the buildings themselves are “high threat/high profile
facilities.”67
While the operators of Level V facilities customize their facility security to meet their mission
needs, minimum standards for this type of facility include 100-foot perimeter setbacks, 100-foot
separation between parking facilities and buildings, and protected ventilation equipment (located
away from high-risk areas) for the buildings.68 It is impossible for DHS to ensure this level of
security for all its headquarters components in its current state of dispersal across the National
Capital Region. The status quo would leave parts of the headquarters function in facilities that do
not meet Level V security standards. The Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC), where the
Secretary’s Office is currently located, provides Level V security,69 but it is too small to
accommodate the needs of a consolidated headquarters outlined in the master plan.
Planning documents indicate that part of the reasoning behind the selection of the St. Elizabeths
site was the ability to implement Level V security standards at this particular location.70 The St.
Elizabeths site was the only site in the District able to accommodate the office space requirement
and the security standards.71 The new Coast Guard headquarters and the temporary perimeter
meet the standards for a Level V facility.
The security question extends beyond DHS headquarters’ offices. These offices, for the most part,
do not have the same level of security as the NAC, and often occupy leased office space in
66 Phone conversation with DHS officials, August 14, 2013.
67 GSA, “DHS Headquarters Consolidation Location Analysis,” September 2008, pp. 9-10.
68 Ibid, pp. 11-12.
69 E-mail from DHS Legislative Affairs, August 8, 2012.
70 In a side note, according to briefings by DHS officials, use of the site by DHS also will also contribute to the security
of government communications and military facilities that the site overlooks.
71 Ibid, p. 15-63.
Congressional Research Service
15
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
commercial buildings. If they are targeted by terrorist violence, it is likely neighboring offices,
buildings, and their personnel could be affected.
CIA headquarters and the Pentagon are high profile, consolidated headquarters that are
considered Level V facilities. Both have been the targets of terrorist attacks. In the cases of
attacks on both facilities, collateral damage was limited. If attacks using similar methodologies
were carried out against DHS headquarters functions in their current locations, collateral damage
would likely be greater due to the lack of separation of the DHS elements from the general
population. For example, in February 2010 a man flew a private plane into a commercial office
building housing IRS offices in leased space. While the IRS was his intended target, the crash and
fire affected other tenants in the building, including multiple non-federal businesses.72
It is also worth noting that both Level V facilities continued to operate in the face of the attacks. It
is unlikely that targeted DHS offices with lower levels of security would be able to do the same.
One question would then seem to be, as there is already a Level V facility for part of DHS
headquarters, does consolidating the headquarters function at St. Elizabeths further raise the
profile of DHS, and make it a more likely target? This seems unlikely—DHS is already the third
largest component of the federal government and is a well-known entity domestically and
overseas. While the new headquarters would be larger, and parts are visible from a distance, it can
be argued that the facility is no more intrusive than other defense-related facilities along the
Potomac and Anacostia, the campus benefits from a significant setback, and the campus may be
deemed a harder target than DHS’s existing facilities as it was planned and built with DHS’s
needs in mind.
Regardless of whether the department’s profile would be higher at St. Elizabeths, the essential
question is whether whatever additional security risk that is entailed by consolidation is
counterbalanced by whatever other operational, budgetary, and cultural benefits may accrue,
including the additional protection afforded headquarters elements currently outside the NAC that
move to the new facility.
Budget
Priorities
In previous years, the St. Elizabeths project was treated as a high priority for the Administration.
While a shift to a lower public profile for the project might be considered simply a change in
legislative tactics, in September 2011, as Congress was working on the FY2012 appropriations
bills, Secretary Napolitano said:
With respect to DHS, yes, I expect we will flatten out and that’s—that’s not surprising. I
mean, at the beginning of a department, of course you’re going to be putting in more and
more money until you get things kind of established and set up. There are things we’d like to
do that are going to have to be postponed. St. Elizabeths is a good example, that’s supposed
to be our headquarters. We will have to postpone that.... I’d rather have the money to
complete building a National Security Cutter for the Coast Guard and support the Secret
72 Furness, Ashley and Jacob Dirr, “City and County Dedicate Web Site to Austin Plane Crash,” February 18, 2010,
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/02/15/daily41.html?page=all.
Congressional Research Service
16
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Service in its activities, and sustain our efforts at the border than [have] a new building, and
so that is why St. Es is on the chopping block for now. I think ultimately it will happen, but
not now.73
The DHS Chief Financial Officer released the following statement shortly thereafter:
The Secretary’s comments that the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project [is] on the
“budget chopping block” was in context of a conversation on how congressional budget cuts
are impacting the Department. The Administration is committed to building a new
headquarters for the Department in DC and will continue to work with Congress to move this
project forward while maintaining frontline operations. However, we are revisiting the
original assumptions on the use of the space as St. Elizabeth’s [sic] based on projected
budgets and growth of the Department.74
As the then-Secretary alluded to in the former statement, the headquarters consolidation project
was conceived in a different budget environment than exists today. At the time, projections for
future budgets could have more easily accommodated such a significant capital investment. The
DHS budget grew every year from the establishment of the department until it peaked in FY2010.
In the future fiscal environment influenced by the Budget Control Act75 (BCA), it is reasonable to
expect that the DHS budget will either remain relatively flat in nominal terms, or decline over the
near future. The Administration’s budget projections for the Department of Homeland Security
through FY2019 show a nominal increase of $4.8 billion—10%—over six years. However, the
request assumes that the impacts of sequestration will be negated—an action that has not
occurred, and therefore further constrains future resources. While the projections in the
Administration’s budget request are not binding, the minimal increases projected for FY2014-
FY2018 indicate that a significant expansion in available budgetary resources is not anticipated.76
This project is more significantly affected by the GSA’s budget. Over $2 billion of the initially
projected $3.4 billion in project costs was to be borne by the GSA through their budget—59% of
the cost.77 Under the revised baseline, GSA’s share rises to $2.8 billion of the $4.5 billion total—
roughly 63% of the total cost. This due in large part to cost escalations from delaying construction
and loss of efficiencies from no longer following the coordinated construction plan. As shown in
Figure 1, as with DHS appropriations, GSA appropriations have not kept pace with the
construction plan for the project, either. GSA’s budget faces arguably more severe constraints
than that of DHS. The amount appropriated for construction and acquisition of facilities declined
73 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, press briefing, September 8, 2011, as recorded by Jason Miller of
Federal News Radio and provided to CRS. Partial quote available in Jason Miller and Julia Ziegler’s article, “DHS St.
E’s to be Victim of Budget Axe,” FederalNewsRadio.com, September 9, 2011, http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?
nid=741&sid=2534819.
74 Staff memorandum to Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, in re: Hearing on “Review and Status of the Multibillion-Dollar Department
of Homeland Security Relocation Project in Washington, DC, and its Impacts on the U.S. Coast Guard,” dated
September 16, 2011.
75 P.L. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240.
76 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 222.
77 Oral testimony of Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration,
“Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities,” before the House Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security
Subcommittee, March 25, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
from nearly $894 million in FY2010 to $50 million in FY2012.78 The resultant backlog of
construction and renovation needs could create more competition for GSA’s limited budget—
GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini indicated to reporters that that backlog had grown to $4
billion as of April 2013.79
The new baseline for the project does call for more than $200 million in new funding for the
project for each year from FY2014 to FY2017, including more than $200 million from GSA alone
each year. Meeting these projections could be seen as a significant statement on the part of
Congress, given the fact that FY2009 represents the only year in which the project received more
than $100 million from either GSA or DHS appropriations.
Even in this environment of fiscal constraint, however, Congress and the Administration continue
to make affirmative choices to invest in a range of projects and services. The projected costs for
DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths could be met within the bounds of a BCA-influenced budget,
or even a more limited one—the operative question is what level of priority is placed on this
project in the overall budget by the Administration and, ultimately, by Congress. This
prioritization could change significantly should the country be faced with a national-level incident
where the lack of a more capable department-level operations center appears to constrain an
effective federal response.
Overhead Savings
With the new timetable and cost increases outlined in the new baseline for the St. Elizabeths
project, it may be useful to reexamine the cost savings that the St. Elizabeths project presents.
GSA and DHS have in previous years cited an estimated cost savings of $600 million over 30
years for the St. Elizabeths project. As noted earlier, GSA’s most recent estimate of cost savings
from new construction versus leasing, before taking into account operational cost savings, is $532
million, even with the higher project cost estimate.
Generally speaking, government agencies pay lease costs to the GSA or private real estate owners
for the facilities they operate from. Reducing these costs by moving from leased properties to
government-owned facilities can free up additional resources, alleviating pressure from declining
agency budgets over the long term. The up-front costs of these projects in times of tightening
budgets can be difficult for agencies to absorb in formulating their budget requests or for
Congress to approve in the context of balancing other priorities, as the appropriations process
makes no accounting for longer-term savings.
As DHS has been attempting to consolidate its headquarters functions and other offices, its
components that occupy leased space have faced another complicating factor. In testimony before
the House Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security subcommittee in the FY2013
appropriations cycle, DHS noted that they currently have 181 leases in 53 locations for
headquarters components, 87% of which were to expire by 2016.80 As their leases have matured,
78 CRS Report R40801, Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by
Garrett Hatch, and CRS Report R42008, Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations,
coordinated by Garrett Hatch, p. 63.
79 Medici, Andy, “White House Seeks Billions for New Construction,” Federal Times, April 15, 2013, p. 9.
80 DHS handout, “Schedule Impacts to Migration Plan,” distributed at “Department of Homeland Security Facilities
Hearing,” House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security Subcommittee, March 21, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
18
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
they have added short term extensions so they can move to the envisioned new facilities or to
space freed up by the movement of other offices. Delays in the completion of new space requires
these offices to use more short term leases, which are more expensive, and thus raise the
department’s overhead costs.81 With budgeting tending toward an environment where absorbing
rising costs requires matching reductions in spending elsewhere, this could in turn reduce the
funding available for front line operations.
Aside from savings from lower leasing costs, some savings are to be expected with a consolidated
headquarters from increased centralization of some support services. This should not be confused
with the benefits of a “shared services” model for supporting the department or federal
government. The use of shared services can generate efficiencies as well, but generally involves
developing a different internal managerial relationship between enterprise operations and support
functions, rather than simply consolidating them.82
Culture
“One DHS”
One common line of thought among secretaries of the department from the very beginning has
been the need to fuse the diverse components of the department into a single unit—development
of “one DHS.”83 However, the department has yet to accomplish this goal. As retired Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen testified before the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, “There has been hesitancy by components to relinquish control
and resources to a Department that appears to be still a work in progress.”84
The question of whether the Department of Homeland Security should exist is not currently the
focus of congressional debate. Although no authorization bill for the entire department has passed
either chamber since the department was established, it is also true that no legislation to
fundamentally alter the structure of DHS has been marked up since December 2010.85 Current
issues include defining and refining the department’s mission, and ensuring that the department
can perform these missions effectively and efficiently. However, the persistence of some
components’ organizational structures from the pre-DHS era, the lack of integration between
components with similar missions, and statements by prominent political figures inside and
outside Congress86 suggest that the issue is not completely settled.
81 Oral testimony of Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration,
“Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities,” before the House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security
Subcommittee, March 25, 2010.
82 Accenture, “Beyond Centralization: Deriving High Performance Through Fully Realized Shared Services,” 2007, p.
5.
83 Booz Allen Hamilton and Partnership for Public Service, “Securing the Future: Management Lessons of 9/11,”
August, 2011, p. 7.
84 ADM Thad W. Allen, USCG (ret.), written testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, “The Future of Homeland Security: The Evolution of the Homeland Security Department’s
Roles and Missions,” July 12, 2012, p. 7.
85 CRS analysis of Legislative Information System data as of August 6, 2013.
86 Lee, Tony, “Gingrich Hopes New Contract Will Re-Energize Campaign,” Human Events, October 3, 2011, p. 10;
Laing, Keith, “George McGovern Calls for Eliminating TSA, Homeland Security,” The Hill, November 17, 2011; and
Medici, Andy, “Key Lawmaker to Focus on Waste, Misspending,” federaltimes.com, February, 22, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
19
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Completion of a consolidated headquarters and co-location of headquarters functions is not
sufficient to create the unified department with strong integrated management capacity across its
components that is sought by Congress and the Administration. A repeated theme found in GAO
analyses and in observations of witnesses testifying before the department’s oversight committees
is that successful integration of the department will take a long time to accomplish and require
ongoing effort to maintain once it is achieved. Cathleen Berrick, in her capacity as Managing
Director for Homeland Security and Justice Issues for the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) had this to say in testimony before Congress on this particular challenge:
In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk because
it represented an enormous and complex undertaking that would require time to achieve in an
effective and efficient manner, and it has remained on our high-risk list since. We reported
that the components that became part of DHS already faced a wide array of existing
challenges, and any failure to effectively carry out the department’s mission would expose
the nation to potentially serious consequences. In designating the implementation and
transformation of DHS as high risk, we noted that building an effective department would
require consistent and sustained leadership from top management to ensure the
transformation of disparate agencies, program, and mission into an integrated organization,
among other needs. Our prior work on mergers and acquisitions, undertaken before the
creation of DHS, found that successful transformations of large organizations, even those
faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take years to achieve.87
The departmental leadership is aware of this challenge. Speaking at a hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Secretary Napolitano noted:
We continue to excavate differences in systems and cultures and protocols and procedures.
There has been a lot accomplished over the past nine years by my two predecessors, and over
the past three-plus years now that I’ve been Secretary.
But given the size and scope of the merger that is underway, it does take time. The
Department of Defense took, by most accounts, 40 years to really become unified as a
department. My goal is to substantially beat that record.88
Consolidation of headquarters functions can contribute to this effort, and some observers believe
it is a necessary step, but it is no “magic bullet” for the issues facing the department. The
Department as recently as 2011 viewed consolidation of DHS headquarters operations as only one
of seven key initiatives to integrate its management functions.89
Morale
Morale issues at DHS have been a matter of concern for both congressional authorizers and
appropriators. Some observers have commented that DHS’s low employee morale could be
exacerbated by the lack of a unified organizational culture—one of the problems a consolidated
headquarters was intended to address.
87 Statement of Cathleen Berrick before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
September, 30, 2010 (GAO-10-911T), pp. 1-2.
88 Napolitano, Janet, response to question, “Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security” Senate Judiciary
Committee, April 25, 2012.
89 GAO Report GAO-11-278, pp. 93-94.
Congressional Research Service
20
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
The most recent documentation of the comparatively low morale at the department can be found
in the Partnership for Public Service’s “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government”90
analysis based on questions from the Office of Personnel Management’s FedView survey of
federal employees. There was no data reported from the OPM survey91 to either directly confirm
or refute the idea that headquarters consolidation would have an impact on morale. In fact, the
issue of the adequacy of departmental facilities was not directly raised in the survey questions.
However, attitudes of DHS component staff reflected in several questions from the FedView
survey could be reasonably expected to be impacted by the projected benefits of a consolidated
headquarters. For example, for the roughly 7% of DHS employees who would relocate to St.
Elizabeths, the new headquarters is designed to include daycare facilities. This could be expected
to improve the department’s bottom-ranking scores linked to family-friendly culture and benefits
among that group of employees. It is also possible that existence of a consolidated headquarters
could change perceptions or performance of leadership more broadly across the department.
However, issues of pay, advancement, diversity and matching employee skills to their missions
would likely remain unaffected.92
Congressional decisions on capital investments in the department such as headquarters
consolidation could be perceived by the employee base as an indirect validation or criticism of
the department’s work by Congress, or as a measure of the effectiveness of the departmental
leadership in representing DHS interests before Congress.
Options
When Congress considers appropriations or authorization for the department, it could take a
number of different approaches to the DHS headquarters consolidation process. With the Coast
Guard moving into its new headquarters, some previously possible options become significantly
less realistic, such as termination of the proposal and disposal of the site. With over a billion
dollars invested and the Coast Guard occupying their new consolidated headquarters, one could
argue the question is no longer whether to consolidate at St. Elizabeths, but instead how far that
consolidation should go, and how quickly.
The following four examples of possible ways forward are discussed below:
• Going No Further—consolidating the Coast Guard headquarters on the St.
Elizabeths campus, but not proceeding with the rest of the project;
• Going Further, Following the New Baseline—consolidating the Coast Guard
headquarters on the St. Elizabeths campus, and proceeding with the next phase
on DHS’s revised construction schedule;
90 http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/
91 United States Office of Personnel Management, 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Empowering Employees,
Inspiring Change, Washington, DC, September 21, 2012, pp. 35-38, http://www.fedview.opm.gov.
92 The Partnership for Public Service, “The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government,” 2011. Rankings for the
Department of Homeland Security as downloaded from http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/HS00 on
May 15, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
21
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
• Going Further, but Sharing St. Elizabeths—downscoping the projected DHS
presence at St. Elizabeths, but developing the rest of the secure campus for use
by other federal partners;
• Going Further, and Expediting Completion—going beyond the existing
funding baseline and taking steps to accelerate full consolidation.
Going No Further (Completion of Coast Guard Headquarters Only)
With the Coast Guard moving into its new headquarters, Congress may not choose to invest
further in the consolidated headquarters for DHS due to budget constraints or a desire for DHS to
rethink the consolidated headquarters model.
The Coast Guard’s immediate needs for headquarters space have been satisfied, providing
operational benefits, as their new headquarters would be a single facility built expressly for them,
as opposed to their current situation—multiple leased offices on different sites not built to their
specifications.93 However, it is worth noting that the campus would have been designed
differently for the Coast Guard as a single tenant—shared facilities at the campus center would
have been moved to the Coast Guard building to minimize the footprint, and costly upgrades to
the campus utility infrastructure to support follow-on phases of the consolidation would not have
been made. Capital costs have been incurred to establish a new security perimeter for the current
facility. These could be made permanent.
The more modern and capable facility may have positive impacts on the morale of the Coast
Guard, although this could be balanced by perceptions of the new headquarters being isolated due
to its location, which would not be near other DHS components or connected to other federal
facilities. It could also have a negative impact on departmental cohesiveness, as the remainder of
the department’s headquarters functions would still remain at existing distributed facilities on
short-term leases.
DHS headquarters functions would remain distributed across the National Capital Region. The
department’s headquarters would still be heavily reliant on leased space for its real estate needs,
which in addition to bearing higher costs than federally owned space, would run counter to the
government’s stated preference to use federally owned space for national security real estate
needs. An explicit statement from Congress mandating termination of the project could relaunch
an exploration of alternatives, but there is no guarantee that any alternatives identified would
convey the same benefits as the St. Elizabeths project, or save taxpayer resources.
Such a decision should in turn lead to a decision about what to do with the rest of St. Elizabeths.
If Congress chooses not to fund DHS use of the facility as a secured space, and no other federal
client is made available, then disposal of the remainder of the site would be the logical next step.
GSA would still need to maintain the remainder of the St. Elizabeths campus until the property is
disposed of. This would entail continued costs to GSA,94 and disposal could be complicated by St.
93 Oral testimony of VADM John Currier (USCG), Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, “Review and Status of
the Multibillion-Dollar Department of Homeland Security Relocation Project in Washington, DC, and its Impacts on
the U.S. Coast Guard,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, September 23, 2011. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg68482/pdf/CHRG-
112hhrg68482.pdf.
94 Oral testimony of Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, “Review
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Elizabeths’ status as a National Historic Landmark, and the security concerns of the White House
Communications Agency (WHCA), which has facilities overlooked by the St. Elizabeths campus.
Going Further, Following the New Baseline
If Congress chooses to support further DHS consolidation at St. Elizabeths, including the post-
Katrina recommendation to establish a more capable department-wide operations center, it could
proceed with funding the project at the levels outlined in the new project baseline. The next step
would be to provide additional funding for completion of the departmental operations center and
the renovation of the necessary buildings to relocate the executive-level departmental
management to the St. Elizabeths campus.
This option would move to address the single operational concern raised repeatedly by Admiral
Allen—namely, the lack of the department-wide operations center. However, that operations
center would not benefit from the full headquarters presence of some of its users for several years
under this timeline.
Funding the reuse of the existing historical buildings to house the Secretary’s offices would
represent a significant investment, but would take advantage of infrastructure improvements
already made on the site.
In terms of the cultural impact on the department, this option could show continuing progress
toward a more fully integrated DHS, although the end point of the project would be pushed into
the future compared to previous plans. Given the slower time frame to completion, and the
significant investment still required in the first few years of the project, some may question the
sustainability of Congressional commitment to the project over a longer period. Needing
Congress to make repeated affirmative statements through supporting the project’s funding in a
tight budget era could jeopardize the project’s chances for on-time completion.
Going Further, but Sharing St. Elizabeths
Congress could explore a rescoping of the DHS consolidated headquarters project, directing DHS
to revisit its estimates of space usage and personnel projections. Currently, DHS plans to take
advantage of workplace efficiencies to increase the share of DHS headquarters functions brought
onto the St. Elizabeths campus. Downscoping the final DHS presence instead could possibly open
space at St. Elizabeths for other federal agencies that would benefit from residing on a secure
campus or collocating with DHS.
This could result in a more efficient use of space, but the operational impacts on DHS remain
unclear. While DHS has stated that they continue to look at the use of flexible workspace
arrangements, there has been no public discussion of changes to building usage or footprint for
the project.
(...continued)
and Status of the Multibillion-Dollar Department of Homeland Security Relocation Project in Washington, DC, and its
Impacts on the U.S. Coast Guard,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, September 23, 2011. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg68482/pdf/
CHRG-112hhrg68482.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Capping DHS’s space to attempt to accommodate another as-yet unidentified Federal agency
would bear its own set of risks. The organizational and security benefits of consolidation could be
compromised by requiring more of headquarters to be off-campus. The historic re-use of existing
buildings represents a significant challenge for any potential clients, whether they are DHS or
other government agencies. If limitation is made and no additional partner is identified, cost
savings from reductions in leased space would have been lost for no marginal benefit.
It is unlikely that such a sharing effort would result in cost savings to GSA, whose budget bears
the majority of the project costs.
Going Further, and Expediting Completion
Congress could also choose to make this project a higher priority among those in the
discretionary budget and fund this project aggressively, in an attempt to expedite its completion
and salvage whatever savings are possible from coordinated construction of the remaining
elements.
This option would seem to provide the maximum operational return, providing the infrastructure
requested by DHS in its plans for a consolidated headquarters, establishing the departmental
operations center and shortening the time frame between its stand-up and the move of additional
component headquarters functions to the campus. As such, if seen to completion, pursuing this
option could help reduce barriers to information flow, support coordinated planning, and promote
the development of a “One DHS” culture. There is a question as to whether the department’s
seven-year-old plans still adequately reflect the needs of present-day DHS, given the changes in
the DHS budget and changing workplace practices (such as the growth of telework).
It is difficult to assess the precise budgetary impact of this option, as the Administration has only
alluded to potential savings from acceleration in its revised cost estimate. However, it would
clearly require a significant adjustment of priorities across the federal discretionary budget to
make room in the DHS and GSA allocations for a level of investment significantly higher than
what has been provided since FY2009. While this option could capitalize on some savings from
coordinated construction, many of those savings are no longer available.
Pursuit of this option could be interpreted as a statement that the general DHS structure is a
settled matter for Congress and could provide the benefits outlined in DHS’s justifications for this
project. However, there is no guarantee of improved departmental performance or enhanced
morale with this or any of these options.
Conclusion
It can be argued that the creation of DHS was a reaction to a national crisis. After years of
reaction, departmental reorganization, and increasing distance from the events that led to the
creation of the department, there are issues that remain from that more tumultuous time that have
yet to be addressed.95 The consolidation of DHS headquarters functions is one of those
95 “The Department of Homeland Security: Past, Present and Future,” Panel Discussion at the Aspen Security Forum,
July 27, 2012. Video available at http://aspensecurityforum.org/2012-video-day-3.
Congressional Research Service
24
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
unresolved issues. Congress and the department are operating in a different environment than
when the consolidation plan was originally drawn up, both in terms of the security threats the
nation faces and the budgetary situation. Even the expectations of what workspace is required for
an agency to function has evolved over this period of time with the growing acceptance of
telework and flexible office arrangements. The Administration’s revised baseline for St.
Elizabeths may or may not fit these new realities better than the previous plan.
It is worth noting that any option Congress chooses—even an option to not make a decision on
the long-term fate of the project—will bear significant costs. The costs manifest themselves as
construction and move costs for a consolidated headquarters, continued rents for leases across the
National Capital Region for maintaining existing headquarters facilities, or the possible (and
more difficult to quantify) security, management, communications, logistics, and command and
control impacts presented by both the status quo or any proposed change. GSA would also still be
responsible for the not insignificant cost of maintaining the St. Elizabeths campus. Given the size
of the department and the importance of its missions, how the DHS headquarters functions are
housed and managed will be an issue of congressional interest for years to come.
Congressional Research Service
25
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Appendix. History of Project Appropriations
Analysis of Fiscal Years with Denied Requests or Partial Funding
Appropriations for the DHS headquarters consolidation effort are carried in two bills: the
construction needs for the basic buildings and infrastructure are typically funded in the Financial
Services and General Government appropriations bill, through the General Services
Administration (GSA), while the mission-specific needs are typically funded through the
Homeland Security appropriations bill. Table A-1 at the end of the Appendix provides a
summary of funding requested and ultimately appropriated for the consolidation of Coast Guard
and DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
FY2007
In the course of developing the FY2007 appropriations bills, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee for Homeland Security stated that the initial proposal for Coast Guard
headquarters evolved into a consolidated headquarters project without answers being provided to
the committee on the reasoning behind the site choice, the full range of costs involved and what
components would move. The Committee rejected funding for the Coast Guard Headquarters
project in the report accompanying the bill.96 Roughly a month later, the Senate Homeland
Security appropriations report took a substantively similar position, which was echoed in the final
conference report. Both House and Senate appropriators were concerned that DHS was wasting
money on investing in the Nebraska Avenue Complex, which they would then abandon for a
newer, larger, more expensive headquarters at St. Elizabeths.97
When the House Appropriations Committee reported out the Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, which at the time included GSA, the
committee report for the bill also rejected the Coast Guard project, but on the basis of their belief
that the project would have little positive impact on the local community.98 The Senate
companion report was silent on the project, and the year ending continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5)
expressly denied funding for a Coast Guard Headquarters at St. Elizabeths.99
FY2008
For FY2008, the House Appropriations Committee recommended partial funding for the project,
while still expressing concerns about overinvesting in the Nebraska Avenue Complex and the
breadth of the St. Elizabeths project.100 The Senate also provided partial funding for the project,
but in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), $6 million was provided for
continuing improvements at the Nebraska Avenue Complex, rather than the $101 million
96 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2007, Report together with Additional Views to accompany H.R. 5441, 109th
Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2006, H.Rept. 109-476 (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 15-16.
97 H.Rept. 109-699, pp. 118-119.
98 H.Rept. 109-495, p. 175.
99 P.L. 110-5, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 121 Stat. 57.
100 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service
26
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
provided in the House bill for the NAC and St. Elizabeths or the $88 million provided in the
Senate for St. Elizabeths alone.101
In FY2008, the GSA appropriations were moved to the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, where they remain today. The House Financial Services
Appropriations Subcommittee expressed concern about the size of the Coast Guard project, and
about possible overinvestment in the NAC given the impending move, but did not explicitly
restrict funding for the projects, despite undesignated cuts to the accounts that would support the
projects.102 The Senate funded the requested projects in full, but in the final version of P.L. 110-
161, only $28 million in funding for the NAC remained.103
FY2011
No request was made for the St. Elizabeths project for FY2010 through either GSA or DHS. In
FY2011, the requested budget for the project was unmet, falling over half a billion dollars short
of the combined request, despite testimony before the House Appropriations Committee’s
Homeland Security Subcommittee about the urgency of the need and the potential long-term
budget savings.104 FY2011 appropriations for federal government operations were provided
through a year-long CR, which included $77 million for the headquarters consolidation project
through DHS.105 The GSA had requested $381 million for St. Elizabeths, ultimately provided $30
million to the project from the $82 million it received for construction projects nationwide under
the CR.106
FY2012
For FY2012, the Administration requested $215 million for headquarters consolidation through
the DHS budget, including $160 million for new construction at St. Elizabeths, and $55 million
for lease consolidation. They also requested $217 million in the General Services Administration
budget for the project through the Federal Buildings Fund, including funding for planned
highway alterations to provide better motor vehicle access to the campus.
The House did not fund the project in the House-passed DHS appropriations bill. In report
language, the Committee stated:
[B]oth costs and schedule of the current project are matters of concern for the Committee. In
hearings the Committee held on the St. Elizabeths project in 2010, it became clear that
adequate cost controls were essential for this project.… Yet costs have grown in a year from
$3,400,000,000 to $3,600,000,000 chiefly due to increases in the General Services
101 House Appropriations Committee Print, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), Division E—
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, p. 1022.
102 H.Rept. 110-207, p. 63-64.
103 P.L. 110-161, Division D—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008, p. 828.
104 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Hearings, Part 2,
Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 333-
405.
105 P.L. 112-10, 125 Stat. 140.
106 Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Headquarters Consolidation: CRS St. Elizabeths Tour” slide deck,
November 16, 2011, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
27
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
Administration share of the project. The Committee notes that dependence on GSA funding
requires coordination of funding and management, and that the proposed DHS request, even
if resources were available, would likely not coincide with necessary GSA funding.
Furthermore, delays are already being factored into the Department’s planning, as it has
projected it will postpone work on the FEMA section of the facility.107
In minority views included in the report, the ranking members of the House subcommittee and
full committee had a different perspective:
Of particular concern is the decision to provide no funding for the new DHS headquarters or
for the consolidation of leased property, a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already,
based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced resources provided in that bill
for DHS headquarters construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project has grown
by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion. The decision to deny an
additional $159,643,000 in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the new
headquarters project and begin construction on the second phase will result in higher costs in
the out years and will delay, by at least one year, when the Coast Guard can move into its
new headquarters facility (phase one), which is already under construction.108
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $56 million in Title V of their version of the
DHS appropriations bill to complete the Coast Guard headquarters facility, $159 million (74%)
below the President’s requested funding level. The Senate Appropriations Committee also
expressed concern that limited funding would result in no other DHS headquarters components
using the St. Elizabeths campus, and included in their bill a requirement that DHS provide within
60 days of enactment an expenditure plan and an initial analysis of the mix of offices to be
housed at the headquarters complex.109
The House Appropriations Committee’s Financial Services Subcommittee rejected the
Administration’s entire $840 million request for construction and acquisition under GSA’s
Federal Buildings Fund. In zeroing out the request for construction, the report noted “Adding to
the Federal inventory of buildings is not welcomed at a time when the management and use of the
current inventory is less than optimal.”110 The chairmen of the House subcommittee and full
committee expressed concern about the deep cuts in GSA’s budget, noting that it reversed a
position taken by the current chamber majority in the FY2008 bill. However, the report does not
mention the DHS project specifically.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Financial Services Subcommittee provided $65 million
for the entire construction and acquisition activity at GSA, rather than the $840 million requested.
No mention is made in the bill or report of the DHS headquarters project.111
In the final consolidated appropriations bill for FY2012, the overall combined request of $377
million for GSA and DHS contributions to St. Elizabeths resulted in only $93 million in
107 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 16.
108 Ibid., p. 202.
109 S.Rept. 112-74, pp. 161-162.
110 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2012, Report to accompany H.R. 2434,
112th Cong., 1st sess., July 7, 2011, H.Rept. 112-136 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 48-49.
111 The Senate Appropriations Committee Financial Services Subcommittee provided $65 million for the entire
construction and acquisition activity at GSA, rather than the $840 million requested.
Congressional Research Service
28
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
appropriations, with $56 million provided to DHS to complete only the construction of the Coast
Guard portion of the headquarters.112 The remaining $37 million for the St. Elizabeths project
came from the $50 million GSA received for construction projects nationwide. DHS has indicated
that the GSA funding was inadequate to complete work as planned for the Coast Guard to occupy
its new headquarters, so several elements of Phase I have been delayed and the funding for those
elements redirected to ensure the needed work could be done.
FY2013
The Administration’s FY2013 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security included
$89 million for construction related to St. Elizabeths, and $24.5 million for the Coast Guard to
cover operational transition costs for the move to the new facility. The GSA budget included no
funding request for the project. However, it is noteworthy that the DHS budget justification
indicated the request is “to construct I-295/Malcolm X Avenue interchange improvements and
West Campus access road extension from Gate 4 of the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building
to Malcolm X Avenue.”113 Funding for this type of infrastructure, which in this case supports
access to multiple federal facilities aside from the St. Elizabeths campus, has traditionally been
requested and provided in the GSA budget.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding for the highway interchange or
any part of the St. Elizabeths project through the management accounts, noting in its report the
irregularity of funding a highway interchange through the Homeland Security bill. The bill would
have provided the Administration’s requested funding for the Coast Guard. In addition, $10
million would have been provided through the Coast Guard’s construction budget to provide
additional support for the project.
In the report accompanying H.R. 5855, the committee noted the following:
The Committee recommends no new construction funding in the bill for new Departmental
Headquarters Consolidation expansion. This is $89,000,000 below the request. Funding is
included, as requested, as part of the Coast Guard appropriation to cover the costs associated
with completing the move of the Coast Guard headquarters to St. Elizabeths. Associated with
this, as described below, is additional funding under Coast Guard construction to ensure
completion of the current project, improve site access, and support analysis for follow on
work and any necessary planning adjustments for schedule, scope, and cost.
…
The Committee understands that the Department … is actively exploring options to
creatively modify or consolidate current leases, in the expectation that a permanent
headquarters construction site will be significantly delayed or amended. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue this effort and to inform the Committee of its
progress in consolidation no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
including a revised schedule and cost estimates. Further, as noted above, the Committee
includes $10,000,000 under the Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
112 In their spending plan released on January 27, 2012, GSA indicated they would spend $37 million on the St.
Elizabeths project.
113 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, Departmental Management
and Operations, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project, Washington, DC, February 13, 2012, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
29
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
account to complete Phase 1 of construction, ensure Coast Guard will be able to move in
2013 and that there will be no obstacles to access and transportation into the site, and to
support orderly planning and analysis for the overall project.114
In the minority views accompanying the report, the ranking members of the subcommittee and
full committee noted the following:
The bill also fails to provide the $89 million for site access, including necessary road and
interchange improvements, for DHS personnel to access the new DHS headquarters. The
new DHS headquarters project has been shortchanged over the past few years, causing
repeated schedule delays and increasing the costs from $3.4 billion to just over $4 billion if
all three phases are constructed. In the interim, the Coast Guard may be the only tenant at
this new facility for the next 3-5 years, as the bill funds only this relocation in 2013. The bill
does not include any funding for Phase 2, which was to begin construction for DHS central
headquarters and FEMA.115
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $89 million for the highway interchange,
although it was funded as a part of the Under Secretary for Management’s office through a
general provision rather than as a stand-alone appropriation in departmental operations as
requested. The committee also fully funded the Coast Guard’s operational transition costs for the
move. No funding was provided for the project through the Coast Guard construction budget. An
amendment116 was offered in full committee markup on May 22, 2012, to use the $89 million for
the highway interchange as an offset for an unrelated amendment. The amendment failed on a 15-
15 vote, and the funding remained in the reported version of the legislation.
In the report accompanying S. 3216, the committee noted the following:
Pursuant to section 549, a total of $89,000,000 is provided for ‘‘Office of the Under
Secretary for Management’’ for costs associated with headquarters consolidation and
mission support consolidation. The Under Secretary shall submit an expenditure plan no later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act detailing how these funds will be
allocated, including a revised schedule and cost estimates for headquarters consolidation.
Quarterly briefings are required on headquarters and mission support consolidation activities,
including any deviation from the expenditure plan. According to the Department, an updated
plan is being developed in coordination with the General Services Administration to
complete the headquarters consolidation project in smaller, independent segments that are
more fiscally manageable in the current budget environment. The Department expects this
updated plan to be completed by the end of summer 2012 and it is to be submitted to the
Committee upon its completion. The Committee expects the plan to identify the discrete
construction segments, the associated resource requirements for each segment, and the
proposed timeline for requesting funding to complete each segment.117
P.L. 113-6 provided $29 million is provided in a general provision for “necessary expenses to
plan, acquire, design, construct, renovate, remediate, equip, furnish, improve infrastructure, and
occupy buildings and facilities for the department headquarters project and associated mission
114 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 19-20.
115 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 204.
116 The amendment was offered by Senator Dan Coats and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
117 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
30
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
support consolidation.” According to the DHS operating plan, this amount was not reduced
through sequestration.
Table A-1. DHS and GSA Appropriations for St. Elizabeths (FY2006-FY2014)
(in thousands of dollars of budget authority)
FY Dept.
Activity
Request
Appropriation
GSA
Coast Guard Consolidation
24,900
24,900
2006
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
13,095
13,095
Total 37,995
37,995
GSA
Coast Guard Consolidation
306,139
0
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
6,444
6,444
2007
GSA Subtotal
312,583
6,444
DHS
Coast Guard Headquarters (Operating Expenses)
50,200
0
Total 356,339
6,444
GSA
DHS Consolidation and Development of St. Elizabeths
318,887 0
Campus
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
20,752
0
2008
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Site Acquisition
7,000
0
GSA Subtotal
346,639
0
DHS
Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths
120,000
0
Total 466,639
0
GSA
DHS Consolidation and Development of St. Elizabeths
331,390 331,390
Campus
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
8,249
8,249
2009
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Site Acquisition
7,000
7,000
GSA Subtotal
346,639
346,639
DHS
Coast Guard/DHS Headquarters
120,000
97,578
Total 466,639
444,217
GSA
Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths
n/a
450,000
2009
(ARRA)
DHS
Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths
n/a
200,000
Total ARRA funds
—
650,000
2010
No
Request
—
—
GSA
St. Elizabeths DHS Consolidation and Development
267,675
30,000
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
99,281
0
GSA
St. Elizabeths Historic Preservation Mitigation
4,990
0
2011
GSA
St, Elizabeths Highway Interchange
8,350
0
GSA Subtotal
380,296
30,000
DHS
Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths
287,800
77,245
Total
668,096
107,245
Congressional Research Service
31
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress
FY Dept.
Activity
Request
Appropriation
GSA
St. Elizabeths Activities
100,000
0
GSA
St. Elizabeths East Campus Road Development
20,400
0
GSA
St. Elizabeths Highway Interchange
55,400
0
2012
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
41,906
37,300
GSA Subtotal
217,706
37,300
DHS
Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths
159,643
55,979
Total
377,349
93,279
2013
GSA None
0
0
DHS St.
Elizabeths
89,000
28,962
DHS
Coast Guard Operations
24,500
0
Total
113,500
28,962a
2014
GSA
St. Elizabeths Activities
201,531
n/a
GSA
St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure
60,000
n/a
GSA Subtotal
261,531
n/a
DHS
HQ Consolidation – St. Elizabeths
92,700
n/a
DHS
St. Elizabeths Support Costs
12,800
n/a
DHS Subtotal
105,500
n/a
Total
307,031 n/a
Source: CRS analysis of GSA and DHS budget request documents and appropriations conference reports.
Notes: GSA funding for headquarters consolidation and St. Elizabeths has been provided under multiple project
names over the course of the project. Subtotals are therefore included in the table for GSA. In FY2007, funding
for Coast Guard Headquarters consolidation was requested under Coast Guard Operating Expenses,
Headquarters Directorates. GSA provided $30 million in FY2011, designated for critical occupancy issues for the
Coast Guard and the first stages of the Departmental Operations Center. It was not attributed to specific
projects.
a. Reflects the post-sequester funding level reported in the FY2013 DHS Post-Sequester Operating Plan released
April 26, 2013.
Author Contact Information
William L. Painter
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
wpainter@crs.loc.gov, 7-3335
Congressional Research Service
32