[Senate Hearing 110-593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-593
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE:
WHAT IS AT RISK?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-118 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Lisa Powell, Chief Investigative Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Thomas Bishop, Minority Legislative Aide
Jessica Nagasako, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
Prepared statement:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 31
WITNESSES
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Gary W. Schenkel, Director, Federal Protective Service,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 6
David Wright, President, American Federation of Government
Employees Local 918, Federal Protective Service................ 21
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Goldstein, Mark L.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Schenkel, Gary W.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Wright, David:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 66
APPENDIX
Hon. Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator (Shadow) from the District of
Columbia, prepared sttement.................................... 84
Background....................................................... 88
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE:
WHAT IS AT RISK?
----------
THURDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. I want to welcome all of you here to this
hearing, especially our witnesses. I call this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia to order.
Today's hearing, Management Challenges Facing the Federal
Protective Service: What is at Risk?, will examine the results
of the Government Accountability Office's review of Federal
Protective Service (FPS) management and operations.
Approximately 1,100 FPS employees and 15,000 contract
security guards protect 9,000 Federal facilities nationwide.
More than one million Federal workers spend their days in these
buildings in addition to millions of Americans who visit for
government services, as tourists, or for other reasons. I
requested that GAO conduct this review because I was concerned
with the reports that FPS was weakened rather than strengthened
by its transfer from the General Service Administration (GSA)
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am sorry to say
that my concern was well founded.
The GAO report makes clear that Federal buildings remain
vulnerable to terrorism and other crime. FPS has been in crisis
since it moved to DHS. The problems are numerous. Budget
shortfalls have forced FPS to postpone purchasing and repairing
needed equipment, such as security cameras and X-ray machines.
FPS cut its workforce by 20 percent and restricted employee
training, overtime, hiring, promotions, and bonuses to reduce
personnel costs. And FPS imposed new restrictions on employee
travel, leaving FPS inspectors unable to oversee contract
security guards located hours away.
These measures have undermined FPS's ability to secure
Federal buildings and encouraged many FPS employees to look for
better opportunities elsewhere. It was clear that Congressional
action was urgently needed when the Administration proposed to
reduce FPS's workforce further to 950 employees.
I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Clinton to
the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act which requires
FPS to maintain no fewer than 1,200 employees and to raise the
building security fees enough to fund FPS fully at that level.
While that staffing level remains lower than FPS had until
2007, it will start to ease the pressure on FPS employees.
However, it will take years for new employees to build up the
knowledge and expertise that was lost as FPS officers left the
agency.
In addition, understaffing has led to inadequate oversight
of contract security guards and poor security guard
performance. FPS does not have enough employees to oversee
contract security guards properly. Some contract security
guards are very rarely inspected because they are located far
from the nearest FPS employee, or because they work nights or
weekends when practically no FPS employees are on duty. Some
FPS officers told GAO that they were instructed to conduct
inspections of contract security guards over the telephone.
With poor oversight comes poor performance. GAO
investigators uncovered numerous troubling contract guard
failures. FPS contract guards watched and did nothing as a FBI
surveillance trailer was stolen from a parking garage, and on a
different occasion as a shirtless man with handcuffs hanging
from one wrist ran away from a FPS inspector. There are more
examples in the report.
This is a chronic problem in the Federal Government that
has worsened under the current Administration with its heavy
reliance on private contractors to do government work. We lack
the skilled employees and resources necessary to oversee the
work of private contractors. We must correct that mistake with
FPS.
Even under the best of circumstances, there are serious
limits to what FPS contract security guards can do. Contract
guards are not sworn law enforcement officers and they do not
have arrest powers. We need a clear understanding of the
restrictions on contract guards' authority and how they can be
addressed.
There is some good news. The recent security fee increase
has allowed FPS to phase out some of the cost-cutting measures
that I just described. The downside of the increase in fees is
that many Federal agencies have had to divert operational funds
to cover the higher fees. We need to begin to think seriously
about FPS's funding and its fee structure. I am happy to hear
that FPS agrees with that recommendation and will be examining
its fee structure.
I am also pleased that FPS agreed with all of GAO's
recommendations and that the agency seems to be making progress
on some issues. However, it is not clear if the Administration
has yet recognized the challenges FPS faces, even if FPS's
leadership has. The Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget
again proposed to repeal the 1,200-employee requirement and to
downsize FPS to 950 employees.
We must continue to move forward with improving FPS. I will
work to see that Congress focuses the attention and resources
needed on this effort. I look forward to hearing more about
FPS's challenges and progress, in particular the issues that I
just highlighted. I want to thank our witnesses again for being
here today to discuss these critical issues.
I will now turn to my friend, Senator Voinovich, for any
opening statement that he would like to make. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I really
appreciate the fact that you are having this hearing today in
regard to the Federal Protective Service.
I must tell you that I have more than a passing interest in
this because in our Cleveland office, we are a tenant in the
Anthony J. Celebrezze Building. I had a choice of whether I was
going to go into that Federal building or continue the private
leasing of another facility and I said, if I am going to be a
Senator and I am going to have the General Service
Administration under my jurisdiction, I ought to be in the
building and find out about the management.
The ability of FPS to meet its mission to protect the
buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or
secured by the Federal Government and persons on the property,
I believe has continued to deteriorate since its transfer to
the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. For the life of
me, I can't understand why we did that, but we went ahead and
did it. If you have somebody managing the building, they are
worrying about the heating and cleaning and the security. But
in 2003 we basically said, no, that is no longer GSA's
responsibility. We are going to put building security into
somebody else's hands.
It seems that FPS has become kind of a second-class citizen
within the Department at the expense of public security and
employee morale. One cannot say with certainty whether or not
the problems we will discuss today existed when FPS was under
the umbrella of the General Service Administration, although I
doubt that. However, from an organizational perspective, there
are obvious efficiencies to agency tenants, as I mentioned,
when they have a single landlord responsible for property
management, from turning the lights on to securing the doors.
Each day, FPS is responsible for protecting more than one
million Federal employees in 9,000 buildings across the
country. In addition, they protect the thousands of citizens
who visit Federal buildings daily to access basic government
services, such as applying for Social Security or veterans'
benefits.
In Ohio, there are only 16 FPS employees responsible for
overseeing the security of more than 200 Federal buildings.
Thankfully, we have not suffered a large-scale attack which
would expose our low level of readiness.
The GAO report that prompted these hearings paints a
troubling picture of operational challenges, management
problems, and poor coordination inside and outside of FPS. To
meet their budget, FPS was forced to make poorly-timed cuts in
funding for training and retention bonuses. That is part of it.
We didn't give them enough money to do the job.
There are questions of how the basic security fee is
calculated, and FPS lacks the information necessary to measure
its effectiveness. It seems to me that fees should be more
closely modeled on the risk-based formula the Department of
Homeland Security uses when allocating a number of its Homeland
Security grants. It depends on what the situation is in terms
of the threat assessment.
Last and perhaps more troubling, there is little or no
evidence of FPS outreach to local law enforcement. The support
of local law enforcement becomes increasingly important as FPS
transitions to an inspector-based workforce. It seems that
lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina on the need to establish
working relationships in advance, before an event, haven't been
applied to the security of our Federal buildings. To my
knowledge, there isn't any real communication between the FPS
employees in the Celebrezze Building and the Cleveland Police
Department.
Director Schenkel, you inherited many of these problems and
I commend you for recognizing the need to follow through on the
GAO recommendations. As a career Senior Executive, you will
have the opportunity to continue to lead the change in the new
Administration. Acknowledging the problem is the beginning of
finding a solution. I hope you will continue to keep the
Subcommittee informed of your progress and call on us to assist
you in reaching your goals. The end result will be a more
secure environment for Federal employees and the citizens they
serve, and a FPS workforce that is proud to serve.
I would like to thank the witnesses that are here today for
coming to testify before this Subcommittee.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
I welcome to the Subcommittee today's first panel of
witnesses, Gary Schenkel, who is the Director of the Federal
Protective Service, and Mark Goldstein, who is the Director for
Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability
Office.
As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses. I would ask both of you to stand and raise
your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Schenkel. I do.
Mr. Goldstein. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let the record note that the
witnesses responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Schenkel, will you proceed with your statement? Before
that, I want you to know that while your oral statements are
limited to 5 minutes, your entire written statements will be
included in the record.
Mr. Schenkel, will you please proceed?
TESTIMONY OF GARY W. SCHENKEL,\1\ DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE
SERVICE, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Schenkel. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
address the concerns raised in the report issued by the
Government Accountability Office and to discuss the business
improvements that FPS has made over the past 3 years and our
vision for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Schenkel appears in the Appendix
on page 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this Subcommittee is aware, auditors from the Government
Accountability Office recently had the opportunity to sample
the day-to-day work performed by the Federal Protective
Service. We appreciate the thoroughness of the audit and
welcome the recommendations for improving FPS. Audited work
products are used throughout ICE for the betterment of the
agency, including within FPS.
With this in mind, I believe that it is necessary to
address some of the points raised in the GAO report. Some
additional context is needed.
The transfer of FPS into the Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provided an
opportunity for FPS to comprehensively assess its mission and
to ensure that its activities were focused on enhancing the
security of Federal facilities it protects. FPS has embarked on
a strategic approach to ensure that its operations are not only
fully aligned with the goals and objectives of ICE and its
stakeholders, but also that they move FPS towards greater
compliance with the standards for internal control established
by the GAO.
Using this strategic approach and Congress's support and
guidance, we have significantly enhanced our business
processes, including contracting functions. For example, we
have improved the procurement process for guard services that
in the National Capital Region alone, have reduced the cost of
three new security guard contracts by $5.5 million in fiscal
year 2008, savings that were passed directly on to the agency
client.
This strategic approach has resulted in a number of
achievements, including in 2007 FPS eliminated a backlog of
2,200 invoices worth $92 million, some of which predated the
transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. To improve
FPS's invoice payment process, ICE FPS consolidated the entire
process by requiring that all invoices be sent to a single
location. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2008, FPS has paid
95 percent of all invoices within 30 days, and in the month of
May the percentage of payments paid within 30 days rose to 99.5
percent. Part of the success and timeliness of invoice payments
is the fact that we added contracting officer technical
representative training to our basic training curriculum.
FPS improved working relationships with its internal and
external stakeholders through newsletters and regular
communications. FPS also provided customer service training to
employees and used satisfaction surveys to gauge its success at
providing comprehensive security services that are meaningful
for FPS stakeholders. FPS formally chartered an Executive
Advisory Council to coordinate security strategies and
activities, policy, and communication with the Federal
Department and agency occupants of GSA-controlled facilities.
FPS also conducted a number of focus groups with
stakeholders to identify and resolve issues and to identify
systemic problems. The focus groups enabled us to immediately
identify a common concern of all our clients in that they want
FPS personnel to increase the level of physical security
functions, such as contract oversight, qualified building
service security assessments, and higher visibility throughout
the service.
Among the most important improvements from a strategic
approach is our movement to the Law Enforcement Security
Officer or inspector-based workforce, which will meet these
customer concerns while affording the added protection of law
enforcement presence. To put in proper perspective the
importance and advantage of transferring FPS's workforce, FPS
was responsible for protecting 9,000 buildings in 2003. At that
time, only 55 percent of FPS's law enforcement staff was
qualified to conduct BSAs, a core FPS activity.
FPS made a conscious decision to integrate the entire
security program by making the countermeasure program a true
extension of its law enforcement activities by combining those
responsibilities of a Law Enforcement Security Officer. A Law
Enforcement Security Officer-based force allows the FPS
necessary flexibility to provide law enforcement and immediate
corrective action to contract security guards. Under the prior
bifurcation of security operation, law enforcement had little
or no oversight for the contract guard program.
Notwithstanding the important issues raised and recommended
by the GAO, we agree with all that they have recommended.
I am extremely pleased to lead the proud and professional
men and women of the Federal Protective Service. I interact
with them every day. I can tell you that they are dedicated,
determined, and committed to developing, implementing, and
maintaining the security systems to ensure that facilities they
are charged with protecting are secure and that their occupants
are safe. I am confident that they can be relied upon to ensure
that FPS will continue to be able to meet the challenges of its
homeland security mission.
Thank you again, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member
Voinovich, for holding this important oversight hearing. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr.
Schenkel.
Mr. Goldstein, please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN,\1\ DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you very much, Chairman and Mr.
Voinovich. We are pleased to be here to discuss the efforts of
the Federal Protective Service in protecting Federal employees,
the public, and GSA facilities. As you know, in 2003, FPS
transferred from the General Service Administration to the
Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for
providing physical security and law enforcement services to
about 9,000 GSA buildings. Within DHS, FPS is part of the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement component, the largest
investigative arm of DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein appears in the Appendix
on page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This testimony provides information and analysis on FPS's
operational challenges and actions it has taken to address
them, funding challenges FPS faces and actions it has taken to
address them, and how FPS measures the effectiveness of its
efforts to protect GSA facilities. The testimony is based on
our report issued yesterday, ``GAO Homeland Security: Federal
Protective Service Faces Several Challenges that Hamper Its
Ability to Protect Federal Facilities.''
My testimony summarizes the following: First, FPS continues
to face several operational challenges that have hampered its
ability to accomplish its mission to protect GSA facilities and
the actions it has taken may not fully resolve these
challenges. Since the transfer, while FPS has maintained 15,000
contract guards, its staff has decreased by about 20 percent,
from almost 1,400 employees at the end of fiscal year 2004 to
about 1,100 employees at the end of fiscal year 2007. This
decrease in staff has contributed to diminished security and
increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks at many GSA
facilities.
For example, FPS has decreased or eliminated law
enforcement services such as proactive patrol in each of its 11
regions. In addition, FPS officials at several regions we
visited said that proactive patrol has in the past allowed its
officers and inspectors to identify and apprehend individuals
that were surveiling GSA facilities. In contrast, while FPS is
not able to patrol Federal buildings, there is an increased
potential for illegal entry and other criminal activity at
Federal buildings. Moreover, FPS has not resolved longstanding
challenges, such as improving the oversight of its contract
guard program.
In addition, FPS faces difficulties in ensuring the quality
and timeliness of BSAs, which are a core component of FPS's
physical security mission. For example, in the recent past, one
regional supervisor stated that while reviewing a BSA for an
address he personally visited, he realized that the inspector
completing the BSA had falsified the information because the
inspector referred to a large building when the actual site was
vacant.
FPS has also experienced problems ensuring that security
countermeasures, such as security cameras and Magnetometers,
are operational. To address some of these operational
challenges, FPS is currently changing to an inspector-based
workforce which seeks to eliminate the police officer position
and rely primarily on FPS inspectors for both law enforcement
and physical security activities.
Second, until recently, the security fees FPS charged to 10
agencies have not been sufficient to cover its costs and the
actions it has taken to address the shortfalls have led to
adverse implications. Since transferring to DHS, DHS and FPS
have addressed these projected shortfalls in a variety of ways.
DHS has transferred emergency supplemental funding to FPS, and
FPS has restricted hiring and traveling, limited training and
overtime, and suspended employee performance awards. According
to FPS officials, these measures have had a negative effect on
staff morale and are partially responsible for FPS's overall
attrition rates increasing from about 2 percent in fiscal year
2004 to about 14 percent in fiscal year 2007.
FPS also increased the basic security fee charged to tenant
agencies from 35 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2005 to
62 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2008. Because of these
actions, fiscal year 2007 was the first year that FPS
collections were sufficient to cover its costs. It also
projects that collections will cover its costs in fiscal year
2008.
However, its primary means of funding its operations is the
basic security fee, which is the same for Federal agencies
regardless of the perceived risk or threat to a particular
building or agency. Therefore, the fee does not account for the
risk faced by particular buildings, and depending on that risk,
it does not account for the level of service provided to tenant
agencies or the cost of providing those services. For example,
Level 1 facilities may face less risk because they are
typically small, storefront properties with a low level of
public contact. However, these facilities are charged the same
basic security fee of 62 cents per square foot as a Level 4
facility that has a high volume of public contact, may contain
high-risk law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and have
highly-sensitive government records.
Finally, FPS is limited in its ability to assess the
effectiveness of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. To
determine how well it is accomplishing its mission to protect
GSA facilities, FPS has identified some output measures, such
as determining whether security countermeasures, such as
cameras, have been deployed and are fully operational, the
amount of time it takes to respond to an incident, and the
percentage of BSAs completed on time. Output measures assess
activities, not the results of these activities.
However, FPS has not developed outcome measures to evaluate
the results and the net effect of its operations to protect FPS
facilities. Outcome measures are important because they can
provide FPS with broader information on program results, such
as the extent to which its decision to move to an inspector-
based workforce will enhance security. In addition, FPS does
not have reliable data management systems that would allow it
to accurately track and measure, or other important measures,
such as the number of crimes and other incidents occurring at
GSA facilities.
In our report that we issued to this Subcommittee and other
Congressional committees, we recommended, among other things,
that the security of DHS direct FPS to develop and implement a
strategic approach to better manage its staffing resources, to
evaluate current and alternative funding mechanisms, and to
develop appropriate measures to assess performance. We are
happy to report that DHS agreed with all of these
recommendations.
This concludes my comments and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have for us. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldstein.
Mr. Schenkel, as Mr. Goldstein just testified, FPS
eliminated employee performance awards and restricted employee
hiring, promotions, training, travel, and overtime to deal with
its budget shortfall. As he also mentioned, one of the
challenges is morale and he indicated that there has been harm
to morale. I understand that some FPS workers were frustrated
with the level of communication about FPS's budget and staffing
and they wonder why the budget restrictions were not eased
sooner when it became clear that FPS would not have a budget
deficit in fiscal year 2007.
What are you doing to improve morale in FPS, and in
particular to address any gaps in communication with workers
and with the union? Mr. Schenkel.
Mr. Schenkel. Well, to begin with, I have given them an
open and honest position of where we stood and where we need to
go and how we need to get there. I visited nine of the 11
regions, personally held town halls and spoke with the members,
not only the police officers and inspectors, but also the
mission support people. I think telling them the honest truth
as to where we stood and where we need to go and what resources
we have to get there, I think was the first starting point.
Because we had such a, and I will use the word convoluted,
way of doing business prior to the last several years, it was
very opaque, the way things were conducted. I am not saying it
is the wrong thing, right thing, incorrect way, and certainly
not trying to throw another agency in the limelight. I am
saying it was a very difficult system for us to sort out and I
think we finally got our hands on that in 2006, 2007. As a
consequence to that, we were able to provide performance wards
for 2007. We were able to provide some individual spot awards
for individual acts.
In addition, we were finally able to provide a uniform
allowance to get all of our officers in the same uniform.
Although it was minimal, we have actually been able to increase
that towards the end of this year.
In regards to the union, I have reached out to President
Wright. I think we have a very good relationship. I will let
him answer that on his behalf, however. I came from a very
large police department that had very large union participation
and I brought that kind of mindset with me, is that nobody
knows better about Beat 2212 than the beat officer on 2212, and
we need to listen to the people and I think that we are making
some tremendous progress on some of our operational issues. We
would obviously like to provide more financial support to them,
but at this point, I think we are making progress in the right
direction, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Schenkel.
Mr. Goldstein, I would like to hear any thoughts you have
on how FPS could improve officer morale.
Mr. Goldstein. When we did our review over the last year,
we visited seven of the 11 regions of the Federal Protective
Service and we talked to more than 160 officers, inspectors,
regional administrators, and support staff out in the field,
and we found that they were extremely discouraged. Morale was
not in very good shape for a number of reasons. They didn't
have effective equipment. Mr. Schenkel has talked about
uniforms. Equipment they were missing included security
cameras, radios that didn't work, a lot of equipment to handle
Building Security Assessments. Special kinds of technical light
meters and things that they needed to do some of those
activities were not in working order or available. So equipment
and uniforms and things like that are certainly one thing.
But more broadly speaking, I think morale would be improved
if the Federal Protective Service was able to put in place a
system that most of the officers and inspectors felt would be
effective in protecting Federal property. In our review, in our
discussions with officers, many of them felt that the shift to
proactive--that was going to eliminate proactive patrol in many
places would not be an effective means of protecting property,
which is the principal reason that they hold those jobs in
trying to protect the people and the buildings themselves.
So there is, I think to some extent, a large policy issue
that FPS is going to have to work through with its union and
with the officers to be able to achieve greater harmony.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Schenkel, GAO's report states that FPS
is no longer using its cost-cutting measures. What is FPS doing
to address the training needs that were not met during the last
couple of years?
Mr. Schenkel. That has been a very big priority of us from
when I first arrived and I found out the sad state of training,
that the officers, when I would go on the visits to the
regional offices, we were supposed to be the premier force when
it comes to being building security assessors and identify risk
and yet some of our officers hadn't been to any training for
years. Consequently, we reinstated our ALERT training, which
includes additional hours on physical security assessments and
training and new innovations that we are going to use within
that.
In addition, as I think Mr. Goldstein mentioned, we have
the RAMP Program coming online, which will give the individual
inspector a defensible document, if you will, that belongs to
the Federal Protective Service as opposed to the disparate
systems that we are dependent upon now to try and gather. That
should cut that workload down.
In addition to that, in addition to the benefits that we
will gain by having this defensible document, that should cut
that workload down substantially, as well, and we have also
revisited the curriculum at our Physical Security Training
Program (PSTP), down at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia, added the
COTOR training, as we had mentioned in the opening statement.
We are making improvements, not just in the law enforcement
side of training, but we are trying to also make those same
kinds of improvements in our physical security assessment and
physical security training programs.
Senator Akaka. Well, I am happy to hear that training is a
priority.
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. You have mentioned some of the training, but
does FPS track employee training to ensure that employees get
appropriate advanced and refresher training?
Mr. Schenkel. We are now, sir. We have appointed Josh Vayer
as our Training Coordinator at the headquarters level. We are
standardizing the process and procedures for training
throughout the regions. And we have also hired a new individual
down at FLETC to represent FPS under the umbrella of ICE's
Office of Training and Development who will also be our
advocate at FLETC and also coordinate all of our follow-on and
veteran training, our in-service training at that location.
Plus we are going to move our follow-on post-UPTP, or
individual official initial training, up to our Bryn Mawr
facility, where we will have access from the headquarters level
to also not only document and observe the training, but also
interact with any of our new employees that we may be able to
hire here in the next few years.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Goldstein, how long have you been
looking over the shoulder of the FPS?
Mr. Goldstein. We started our review about a year ago, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Did you have any previous experience
with auditing the FPS?
Mr. Goldstein. We have done several reviews over a number
of years. We have looked at performance measures there. We have
looked at the mega-centers. And we have included FPS in a
broader review at the Department of Homeland Security that we
did, looking at performance measures with respect to risk
management and to criteria for establishing security.
Senator Voinovich. Did you have a chance to look at any of
the other past reports about the FPS and compare them to the
conditions that are existing today?
Mr. Goldstein. The reports we did in the past were slightly
different in that we didn't look at the workforce in the
regions and specifically the kinds of challenges that they
faced operationally in the past, except for a little bit when
we looked at the mega-center and performance measures. But many
of the same kinds of issues--performance measures, criteria for
risk mitigation, and threat assessment and the like--that we
have seen in previous years certainly exist in the kind of
challenges they face today and we do address them in this
report, also.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the question I have from a
management point of view, after the report came back and cited
FPS as a low priority within the Department of Homeland
Security, and just based on your experience with management, do
you think the decision to pull FPS from the General Service
Administration over to Homeland Security was a wise decision?
Mr. Goldstein. I would answer it in two ways, Senator. We
are doing a two-part review for this Subcommittee, and in the
second part of that, we are looking very specifically at that
question, which is where is the best location for FPS.
But I can tell you already, based on the interviews we have
done in the field, that almost to a person that we discussed
this issue with in the field, officers and inspectors and
regional administrators, almost every one of them did not
believe that it belonged--that FPS did not belong in ICE. Many
said it belonged perhaps in Infrastructure Protection or as a
stand-alone unit in DHS, and some thought perhaps that it
belonged back at GSA. But one of the things we will look at
over the next couple of months is exactly where it might be
best housed.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Schenkel, this is probably a tough
question for you to answer because you haven't been on board
that long, but you have had extensive management experience in
the Marine Corps and then you had a very important position
with the Chicago Police Department. It is going to be very
difficult for you to answer this, but from an objective point
of view, if you looked at where FPS is today, do you think it
would be better to place FPS back with the General Service
Administration?
Mr. Schenkel. I think that any time that you put a manager
in a position where he or she is faced with the choice of
buying cleaning supplies or security guards, that puts that
individual in a very difficult position. I think that is--I
call it the Max Arrow approach. That is the screeners that used
to be at airports around the country many years ago, even
prior--far prior to September 11, 2001. It is a very cut-throat
business. There is very low profit margin in that kind of
business. And my concern would be that if it came down to
price, we would go to the lowest bidder as opposed to the
better standard of quality.
Senator Voinovich. But up until now, that hasn't been the
case. It seems that FPS has been given the back of the hand,
and one could argue that in terms of the attention given, FPS
has not been as much of a priority as it should be. If you go
to Chicago they are putting a lot more money into security than
they did prior to September 11, 2001 and building security is
given a higher priority, particularly if they do any kind of a
threat assessment as to their location.
So your answer is you think it is better off where it is at
right now?
Mr. Schenkel. I think it is best away from the General
Service Administration. I think that we are very dependent on
ICE. ICE has been very helpful, especially on the financial end
of it. We do not have those long trails and contracting support
and experience that is necessary to support our contract guard
program and our countermeasure program as a stand-alone entity.
So regardless of where we were placed, if we are placed
correctly or incorrectly in an agency within DHS, we still
require that substantial financial support that we enjoy from
ICE.
Senator Voinovich. Would you agree that after FPS was
transferred into the Department of Homeland Security, that
somebody in DHS didn't realize its importance and didn't give
it the priority that it deserved?
Mr. Schenkel. I can't answer that one, sir, because I don't
sit in those chairs. I don't have access to the information
that other people have. I think we have been treated very
fairly since I have been here and they have been extremely
supportive. We would not have been able to pay those 2,200
invoices last July. We would not have been able to consolidate
our financial system, which continually detracted from our
mission, were it not for ICE's support.
Senator Voinovich. OK. And Mr. Goldstein, do you agree with
that? The impression that I got was it came over to the
Department of Homeland Security and they had other priorities
and FPS didn't get the kind of attention that it deserved for
lack of understanding how important FPS was in terms of
securing our buildings.
Mr. Goldstein. I can't say specifically because we didn't
look at that as a question, but I think it is important to note
that one of the early problems that was faced was the loss of
the subsidy from the Federal Buildings Fund, and I would
suspect that the Department of Homeland Security didn't fully
recognize the impact of the loss of that subsidy----
Senator Voinovich. Well, the subsidy was if FPS, and
therefore GSA, needed money to deal with a particular security
concern, they could reach into the Federal building fund, and
that made up for any shortfall.
Mr. Goldstein. Well, for a number of years, from 2000
through 2004, they received anywhere between $95 and $140
million in order to help pay the bills at FPS, and I suspect
they didn't quite recognize the impact that would have in
losing those funds when they took over FPS and they didn't
understand a number of the other ramifications. So I am not
sure that it is a question that they didn't pay attention to it
so much as that they didn't understand all of the implications
of the agency that they were inheriting.
Senator Voinovich. The last question I have, Senator Akaka,
is to Mr. Schenkel. One of the things that I have been very
pleased about since we forced the Department of Homeland
Security is the communication that has gone back and forth
between local police departments, the sheriffs, the FBI, and
other security entities in the community. But according to this
report, that relationship hasn't been built up between the FPS
and local law enforcement agencies. I would like to know, what
have you done to try and remedy that situation?
Mr. Schenkel. Well, first of all, I am a little surprised
that the statement was even made because we have extremely good
relationships with all of our local law enforcement agencies.
We have got mutual supporting informal agreements existing all
over the country. We have expertise and assets that most police
departments don't have, that being bomb dogs, that being the
expertise in physical security assessment and determining what
countermeasures are appropriate. So on a frequent, if not
daily, it is certainly a weekly basis, there is some region at
some point doing some interaction with local law enforcement,
and----
Senator Voinovich. You are telling me that the FPS
employees in Ohio are sitting at the table with the other law
enforcement agencies today to exchange information and so
forth? Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Schenkel. I can't say that they are with every law
enforcement agency, but I can----
Senator Voinovich. How many of them? Have you ever done an
inventory of a State to find out how many of them actually are
communicating with each other? And the other issue is, are they
communicating with the private outfit that has been hired or
are they communicating with the FPS people that are in between
the law enforcement agencies and the private sector people?
Mr. Schenkel. They are supposed to be communicating with
the FPS, the district commanders, area commanders, if not
regional directors.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would sure like to get an answer
to that.
Mr. Schenkel. All right, sir.
Senator Voinovich. I would appreciate finding out just what
kind of relationship there is between the FPS in Ohio and our
local law enforcement officers and whether any of them are
sitting in on those task forces that we have currently around
the State.
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Mr. Schenkel, I believe that mentoring programs are
critical in integrating new employees into an organization and
building their skills. Mentoring might be particularly useful
in FPS because there may be skill gaps from the high attrition
and the recent restrictions on training. Does FPS have a
mentoring program or any plan to establish one?
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir. The FTEP, or Field Training--I want
to call it the Field Training Officer Program, but we changed
it to FTEP, and forgive me, I can't remember what the ``E'' is
for, but it is a field training officer program to indoctrinate
and inculcate new inspectors into the service. The initial
documents were put together. The plan is on the table and being
reviewed by employee and labor relations. We had input from
individuals from the union up in Region 10, and then it will
get a final brush from Local 918 before we enact it. It is
based on the San Jose FTO Program.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Schenkel, GAO's report detailed broken
security cameras, X-ray machines, radios, and other important
equipment. You testified that you have a national maintenance
contract in place in order to ensure timely repair and
replacement of security equipment. Can you tell us more about
that process and the time line for getting it done?
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir. The National Countermeasures
Program was a priority when I first got here, when I found out
that we bought equipment as opposed to leased equipment,
because I knew that much of this was 1960s technology. I did a
short stint with the TSA and had some experience with the X-ray
machines and walk-through metal detectors, etc. So I asked some
of the folks to reach out to TSA and to some of the other
agencies that were frequent users of these kinds of equipment.
As I mentioned before, it was a somewhat challenging way of
doing business in the past years, and subsequently we have
found out that there is a tremendous ownership question in
regards to many of these security measures, in particular
cameras, X-ray machines, and walk-through metal detectors. So
when we conducted our inventory to find out how bad a situation
this was, we found out that there were three different owners,
if you will. In some cases, the equipment was claimed to be
owned by GSA. In some instances, in particular around
courthouses, the equipment was claimed to be owned by the
Marshals Service. And in other instances, it was Federal
Protective Service.
So about 60 days ago, we were near the end of our inventory
and what I told them is if there is any question, FPS will take
responsibility for this. The National Countermeasures Program
will be in place in October 2008. This will include a National
Countermeasures Maintenance Program to where there will not be
an individual company that would have to be called to maintain
this equipment. We will have one contract nationwide, and as I
said, this will begin in October 2008. In addition, we will be
replacing the first third of the equipment that is long past
its usefulness, as well.
Senator Akaka. I would like to hear both of your thoughts
on this issue. As FPS's response to the GAO report indicates,
the building security fee structure was created to provide
basic protection to Federal buildings as real estate assets.
Since that time, it has become all too clear that terrorism is
a real threat and Federal buildings may be attractive targets
to those who would do us harm. Failure to account for the
increased risks that Federal buildings face has led to
insufficient investment in Federal building security. As you
know, FPS currently is entirely fee funded. Should Congress
appropriate money to cover some of FPS's basic costs? Mr.
Schenkel.
Mr. Schenkel. I have discussed this recently with OMB and
with other Congressional and Senatorial staffers as well as
ICE, and we think that there is certainly a good argument for a
baseline appropriation. Right now, we charge it at 62 cents, to
go to 66 cents next year for a basic security fee, with the
expectation of our customers to all who receive that same basic
service. That same basic service right now is the same at 26
Federal plazas as it is in Bangor, Maine, for a book
repository, which is unrealistic with a force of only 1,200
people.
I think once it is determined what that basic security fee
should pay for, in other words, if right now we are required to
provide the basic security assessment, assist with occupant
emergency plans, investigate all threats against individuals
inside of our buildings and investigate all threats against our
buildings, etc., and have proactive patrol and law enforcement
response. That is a big order for 1,221 people.
I think if it is determined that basic security fee would
provide only portions of that or if there was something over
and above that was required due to specific threats or a
higher-risk building or a higher-risk area, that would have to
be a separate cost. So if there was a baseline that would be
provided not only as an appropriation but for that
appropriation every customer would have that same expectation
that we could meet, I think that would be a starting point,
sir.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Goldstein, what are your thoughts about
this?
Mr. Goldstein. We recommended in our report that FPS
evaluate whether a fee-based structure or some alternative is
the most appropriate way to support the Federal Protective
Service. We are not against a fee-based structure. There are
many fee-based structures in the Federal Government that
support agencies. But this is one that isn't fully effective at
this point in time for the reasons that both Mr. Schenkel and
myself have mentioned in terms of the equitability of the
costs, the spreading out of risk across all the patrons, and
regardless of where you are, you pay the same fee.
One of the issues that FPS has to address, as well, with
respect to its charges is whether it has an effective cost
accounting system that can account for the costs of providing
security to its tenants, and we believed and made a
recommendation that they need to improve their cost accounting
and FPS has agreed to do that, as well.
So while we are not in a position to say that you should
absolutely go to an appropriations approach, we do believe that
further evaluation of the fee-based structure and an
appropriations structure is clearly necessary and that is what
FPS has agreed to do.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Schenkel, FPS's attrition rate increased
dramatically in recent years. Now that FPS is hiring again,
rather than downsizing, and does not face a budget deficit, is
the attrition rate improving?
Mr. Schenkel. The attrition rate thus far this year is 6
percent, as opposed to last year it was 14 percent at this same
time. We are able to attract some other Federal law enforcement
officers because of our ability to increase their grade.
Senator Akaka. As you know, the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus
Appropriations Act requires FPS to have 1,200 employees by July
31, 2008. Your testimony states that FPS has 1,051 employees,
which is about 50 fewer people than you had at the beginning of
the fiscal year, and you plan to be close to 1,200 by September
30, 2008. What is the cause of the delay? When did you start
hiring, and are you having a hard time attracting qualified
candidates?
Mr. Schenkel. The delay was evidently instituted by
Secretary Chertoff sending a letter requesting that he be given
the authority to wait until September 30. The ability to
attract, as I just previously mentioned, we started recruiting
in the March-April time frame.
We have been very fortunate because we targeted a very
lucrative audience, if you will, that being the veterans, many
of them coming back from the Gulf, or from the Middle East,
looking for work in security and having experience. Because we
have gone to that LESO-based force, we are able to attract
folks that would perhaps be going to a regular police
department that also would have had some challenges attracting
people. But because of our ability to increase their grade,
provide them equipment now, quality equipment, we are able to
attract a great number. As a matter of fact, we have got 800-
and-some--835, I believe--on our certification list.
I would be lying to you if I told you it wasn't a painful
process, getting them through the process of hiring, the
Federal hiring, most of which is out of our control. But we are
pushing them very hard. We have got plenty of folks that want
to go to work for us. It is just difficult getting them through
the funnel.
Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. We keep harping on the fact that since
FPS staff has decreased by about 20 percent with further
reductions expected until Congress mandated a minimum number of
FPS employees. I keep thinking that FPS wasn't given the
attention it needed and it is unfortunate that Congress had to
step in to indicate that.
How many FPS employees and how many contract employees do
you believe are needed to meet the FPS mission? Not just the
number of contract employees, but how about FPS employees? And
do you agree with staffing recommendations contained in the
2006 workforce assessment? In terms of succession planning, do
you agree that 1,200 is the right number to get the job done or
is it more than that or less than that?
Mr. Schenkel. I think 1,200 is a good baseline to start
with. One of the things that our customers have asked for and
what we kind of term as a FPS-light situation is having
inspectors available who are stationed in nearly every Level 4
building or Level 4 complex of buildings. That would be
slightly higher than the 1,200 number that would be required,
but then again that would have to roll back to determine what
would be expected on that basic security fee. An increase--a
substantial increase--would be required to support the kind of
language that is in the FPS-GSA Memorandum of Agreement right
now. But 1,200 is a good starting point, and to get to that
frequent visibility and presence in Level 4 buildings would
require several hundred more.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have a current strategic human
capital plan?
Mr. Schenkel. We do, sir, and we are depending on several
of those systems that are coming online this year, in principal
the RAMP system and the Computer Aided Dispatch. We have made
the improvements to our daily operations log at our mega-
centers, which does our dispatching and accounts for our
personnel and location that GAO recommended back in 2004. I
think once we are able to actually capture that data, as Mr.
Goldstein mentioned, I think we will be able to provide you
some very accurate numbers as to what the appropriate number to
support the kinds of expectations that are necessary.
Senator Voinovich. You underscored the difficulty in
getting people through the system. One of the things that
Senator Akaka and I are trying to do is get rid of some of the
clogs in the system so that we can bring people into the
Federal Government. Would you like to share with us your
frustrations and why is it you are having such a tough time
hiring individuals to FPS?
Mr. Schenkel. We are able to attract people. Our HR systems
are very good. But as so many agencies, we are dependent on
outside, or other agencies to process beyond the job--even to
make it a job announcement, I am sorry. As a result, we are
just another group inside another group of priorities and
everybody has got a priority. It gets bogged down primarily at
the medical side on the medical evaluations, anything that we
can do to expedite that piece. We are getting fairly good at
the background investigations because we do a lot of our
background investigation. We do them all for GSA and for our
people and for all our security guards, so we are able to
assist in that. But it is beyond the offer stage that it
becomes excruciatingly painful.
Senator Voinovich. So it is medical. How about security
clearances?
Mr. Schenkel. Security clearances, we are doing fairly well
in. Again, that is probably because we own a piece of that, so
we are able to control it and expedite it when necessary.
Senator Voinovich. To issue a posting of FPS jobs, you have
got to do that through OPM?
Mr. Schenkel. No, sir, we go through CBP on that, sir.
Senator Voinovich. OK. So it is posted. Then you have your
applicants. Then you review them and then you do the
investigation and the health part of this?
Mr. Schenkel. Correct. Once we review----
Senator Voinovich. Who runs the health? Where do you have
to send people? Where do they get the health thing?
Mr. Schenkel. It is a contract, sir.
Senator Voinovich. So you have contract people that do that
work for you?
Mr. Schenkel. Through Customs and Border Protection.
Senator Voinovich. Can that part of the process be sped up
a bit.
Mr. Schenkel. It could probably use a little----
Senator Voinovich. How long does it take you to get a
security clearance?
Mr. Schenkel. We have got it down to roughly--well, for our
applicants, because they require a ``Secret'' clearance, it
will take approximately 30 to 45 days.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Goldstein, performance metrics
provide a clear picture of whether or not agencies are meeting
their mission requirements and are being good stewards of the
taxpayer dollars. FPS plans to implement the Data Management
System to support performance management by 2011. It seems to
me that 3 years is a long time to develop that system given the
technology currently available. Are there actions you would
recommend FPS to take to acquire this capability more quickly?
Mr. Goldstein. There may be some off-the-shelf applications
that they can use, some best practices from other agencies that
they might review. I think FPS recognizes that it has an issue
and it is taking some steps to remedy that situation. I do
think it can take a couple of years.
But I think if they were to take a look at other agencies
that have effective practices in place to help understand how
they can improve the kinds of outcome performance measures that
they need to gauge the effectiveness of their mission, I think
that would be very useful. There are many other Federal
agencies and private sector organizations that are leaders in
this field and they can probably learn from them in the
meantime so that by the time they are ready to get their system
fully underway, they will have some meaningful measures that
they could deploy.
Senator Voinovich. So they could probably look at some
other areas in order to speed this up a bit?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir. I think so.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Schenkel, you are a member of
the Senior Executive Service?
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. And you are not one of the political
appointees over in the Department?
Mr. Schenkel. No, sir.
Senator Voinovich. How difficult was it for you to come
into the position that you are in?
Mr. Schenkel. To be hired or just take on the
responsibility?
Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the problems that we
noticed is it is very difficult to get people to come into the
Federal Government. If you look at the number of people that
are coming in at the level you came in, there aren't that many
of them.
Mr. Schenkel. I applied September 9, 2006, and was hired
April 1, 2007.
Senator Voinovich. Repeat that again.
Mr. Schenkel. I applied September 2006 and was hired April
1, 2007.
Senator Voinovich. It took a while.
Mr. Schenkel. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Mr. Schenkel, you testified that moving to an inspector-
based workforce, eliminating the FPS police officer position
but expecting inspectors to do building patrol and other law
enforcement functions is useful because inspectors were
stretched too thin when they were 55 percent of the FPS
workforce. Now, they are 80 percent of the smaller FPS
workforce. If inspectors were stretched too thin to do
accurate, complete, and timely building assessments, why were
you moving forward with further reducing FPS staff? If you had
more employees, would you need them to cover such a broad range
of tasks?
Mr. Schenkel. I believe so, sir, because of our small
numbers. We are expected to do a great number of different
kinds of activities. Having an inspector or a LESO law
enforcement security officer, I have a certified police
officer. I have a sworn officer, gun-toting, badge-wearing
individual that can also concentrate on his or her core
competency and the expectation from our customer agencies.
We are in the protection business as well as in the law
enforcement business. By having an inspector-based or a Law
Enforcement Security Officer-based force, it gives me complete
flexibility to move those people around to where the threat is
the greatest or when the risk changes. If I only have half of
my force available to do that, I am going to end up in the
exact same situation Mr. Goldstein described in his report. The
9 of 10, if you will, or certainly 90 percent of the comments
made by the GAO all circled around our inability to provide the
protection mission, and the 1 percent or the one piece was a
proactive patrol. I can take an inspector or a Law Enforcement
Security Officer and put him or her on patrol. I cannot take a
police officer and assign him or her a Building Security
Assessment.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Goldstein, do you have any thoughts on
whether the problem of inspectors being stretched too thin
reflects a need to move to an inspector-based model rather than
a need to hire more inspectors?
Mr. Goldstein. We did hear many concerns, Mr. Chairman,
from inspectors in the field that they were sort of overworked
and overwhelmed by their job responsibilities and police
officers were very concerned that inspectors would not be
responding in a timely way when there were law enforcement
situations because of the other responsibilities that they had.
Inspectors are responsible for the oversight of contract
guards, for Building Security Assessments, for contracting
officer technical representation duties, for law enforcement
response, criminal investigations, collecting contract guard
time cards, and they also run the Building Security Committees,
which is the organization of tenants in each building that
represent security needs and interface with FPS.
So that is quite a lot of responsibilities and many of the
people we talked to felt that not only that were they
overwhelmed by those responsibilities, but there might not
always be a timely response, and there were several examples
that were provided to us where inspectors did not respond in a
timely way when they were called by police officers for
assistance.
Senator Akaka. If FPS converts its police officers to
inspectors, is there a danger that the agency will lose some
specialization and focus on its law enforcement functions? Mr.
Schenkel.
Mr. Schenkel. I don't believe so, because I think by having
that 100 percent flexibility, it gives the regional directors,
the district commanders, the autonomy and the authority to
address the risks as they change. If we concentrate on
absolutely just one thing, we can only protect so many
buildings from being hit by airplanes. The threat could change
literally tomorrow, and it does. Whatever kind of threat there
is that we are able to provide an adequate countermeasure for,
the enemy, if you will, will always find some low-tech means of
countering that. I think we have to remain flexible and I think
that by proper management and leadership down at the district
and area level, we don't lose that law enforcement expertise
any more than we would lose our physical security or our
protection mission abilities.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Goldstein, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr. Goldstein. I think when we did our review, we looked at
this as sort of a three-legged stool. You have the protection
provided by the FPS itself in terms of its people, its
inspectors and its police officers. You have the
countermeasures of Magnetometers and X-ray machines and cameras
and the like. And then you have the local police forces that
can respond if and when they have a good working relationship
with FPS. And it seems to me that you need all three of these
for effective security of Federal property and that currently
there are certainly challenges that FPS faces in providing
effective protection in all three of these areas. And so I
think the view is that you need to be able to assure that you
can work effectively in providing security through all three of
these components.
I do agree that flexibility for an inspector would be
useful, provided that there are sufficient resources in terms
of the inspector workforce as well as to ensure that having
enough of them would allow for some level of proactive patrol
that has been demonstrated to be an effective countermeasure to
surveillance and other kinds of criminal activities.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Schenkel, I understand that FPS night
coverage was reduced as staffing declined. Most major cities do
not have a single FPS employee on duty throughout the night.
How many cities currently have a FPS employee on duty during
night hours, and do you plan to expand overnight coverage?
Mr. Schenkel. I am going to have to get back with you on
the first question, but on the second question, I can answer
yes, most definitely, we intend to return to our 24-hour
patrols wherever they were before based on risk. The situations
may have changed and may have shifted to other locations, but
will return to the 24-hour patrol.
Senator Akaka. Any questions, Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have a
vote at 3:30 and I have other questions, but I think we ought
to get Mr. Wright on so we can hear his testimony.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the first panel for your testimony. They
will certainly help us with what we are trying to do. Thank
you.
Mr. Schenkel. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. At this time, I would like to welcome to the
Subcommittee David Wright, President of the American Federation
of Government Employees Local 918, which represents Federal
Protective Service employees.
As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear
all witnesses, so please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Wright. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record note
that the response was in the affirmative.
I want you to know that while your oral statement is
limited to 5 minutes, your entire written statement will be
included in the record. Will you please begin with your
statement?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID WRIGHT,\1\ PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 918, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member
Voinovich, my name is David Wright and I am President of AFGE
Local 918, the Federal Protective Service Union. I have been a
FPS law enforcement officer for the past 22 years, to include
time in management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wright appears in the Appendix on
page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 7 years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, I have
watched with growing frustration and outrage amongst my fellow
workers as the Federal Protective Service has been allowed to
deteriorate and drift like a rudderless sinking ship. Mr.
Chairman, every American should be shocked and frightened by
the GAO testimony we heard here today. The sole Federal agency
charged with the critical mission of protecting thousands of
Federal buildings and millions of people from terrorist and
criminal attack has had its core mission challenged, its
funding cut by $700 million since September 11, 2001, its
employee pay reduced by 10 percent, and its law enforcement
ranks nearly depleted.
If one of our local unions had performed in such a manner
with respect to carrying out its mission and responsibilities,
it would have been put into trusteeship. It is clear to us that
we need Congress to act as a trustee for the Federal Protective
Service.
It has only been through the intervention of this and other
committees of Congress that we have stopped this dangerous and
irresponsible trend. Meanwhile, in fiscal year 2008, FPS is
projected to have 1,200 personnel with a budget of
approximately $238 million nationwide for operational purposes
while there are over 1,600 Capitol Police budgeted at $281
million to protect the Capitol and Congressional offices in a
12-block area of Washington, DC. The Secret Service has over
1,300 officers in its Uniformed Division to protect its
assigned facilities in Washington, DC. The Veterans Health
Administration has over 2,500 police officers to protect their
154 medical centers nationwide. I should also add that all
these agencies use extensive proactive patrol by police
officers to detect and deter attack, the very critical
activities that GAO found missing in FPS.
The questions we need to answer today are, why was this
allowed to happen to FPS and what needs to be done? My written
testimony answers both of these questions in detail and I
appreciate them being placed in the record.
I want to make four key points here this afternoon.
Regardless of why this agency has been allowed to ``twist in
the wind,'' as the Senate DHS appropriations report put it last
year, we need to continue to rapidly rebuild the FPS. A
comprehensive review and assessment of manpower needs and
requests for sufficient personnel to perform the mission must
be produced by the agency as quickly as possible and as
recommended by GAO. In the interim, Local 918 is asking
Congress to increase the current level of 1,200 personnel by
about 400 in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill.
Two, the GAO pointed to the importance of the uniformed
Federal law enforcement presence surrounding Federal buildings
as an essential security requirement to detect and deter
attack. It is an approach embraced by all law enforcement
agencies across the country, yet this is precisely the
component of FPS activity that DHS and ICE have worked so hard
to eliminate. The union believes that eliminating police
officers and maintaining a depleted all-inspector workforce is
a dangerous mistake. While inspectors can and do perform law
enforcement jobs, they also have a very different set of
responsibilities on a day-to-day basis--overseeing the contract
guard workforce, performing Building Security Assessments, to
name several. In the performance of these duties, it is less
likely inspectors will uncover criminal or terrorist activity.
Three, in the post-September 11, 2001 world of today, it
makes virtually no sense to rely upon a square footage-based
fee to entirely determine funding for the FPS. While the union
does not oppose the continued funding of some optional FPS
services through this mechanism, we strongly believe that most
activities, to include operations of FPS, can and should be
funded through annual appropriations. I want to make it very
clear, the current funding formula is one of the two root
causes of the problems here at FPS and it is in desperate need
of reform.
Four, just within the past 2 years, FPS police officers and
other law enforcement officers have seen their pay cut by 10
percent. Many have been told their jobs were being eliminated
and we have watched as the agency's core mission has been
threatened by a misguided attempt of non-law enforcement
bureaucrats to eliminate critical FPS law enforcement
activities. I can tell you, we have lost many talented,
experienced officers as a result. As you can imagine, morale is
in the tank. Your FPS Federal law enforcement officers have
borne the brunt of recent FPS budget reductions. We need
Congress to step in. Restoration of retention pay and provision
of law enforcement retirement benefits are two changes that
should be implemented as part of any FPS rebuilding process.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the state of FPS right now is a
little different from that of the airline industry security
prior to September 11, 2001. There, a reliance on poorly-
trained, unmonitored contract guards with no law enforcement
authority, security implementation by conflicting entities, an
unworkable funding structure, and a perception of security
through inspections instead of protection by boots on the
ground Federal officers proved disastrous. It should not have
happened then and it should not be allowed to happen now.
I am available for your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.
FPS's spending restrictions harmed employees' morale over
the last couple of years. Repairing that damage will take time.
Do you have any thoughts on what FPS needs to do to improve
morale within the agency? You mentioned the word ``reform''. If
you can be specific on what you mean by reform and on your
thoughts specifically on improving the morale within the
agency?
Mr. Wright. Correct. I would like to reiterate that I have
been with FPS for 22 years. We have always had our problems,
and in my opinion, we have always been treated as second-class
citizens. That just became magnified as we came into ICE.
As far as reform, there is a culture in FPS. We have 11
different regions. I like to call them 11 different kingdoms. I
know that headquarters does their best to pass the word on and
unify the regions with uniform processes, but this doesn't
happen. Improving morale--we have always been the boots on the
ground. We have always been the first responders. Yet we do not
have law enforcement coverage. We do not have the benefits
afforded other Federal law enforcement officers. That would be
a great start.
Senator Akaka. The GAO report contained some troubling
accounts of poor work on Building Security Assessments,
including copying and pasting information from old BSAs into
new ones. Workers often get the blame for these types of
problems, but they may be a symptom of inadequate staffing or
training. Are the FPS inspectors you represent being pressured
to conduct BSAs too quickly, and are they receiving all of the
training they need?
Mr. Wright. It has been my experience that training is
nonexistent after the physical security training program, or
Physical Security Academy, as we call it. There is tremendous
pressure to conduct these assessments. It is seen as our bread
and butter. It is seen as the major service that we provide, at
least in the eyes of the agency.
What is happening here this year is a good indication. We
have a 12-year, or a 12-month cycle. It has effectively been
reduced to 6 or 9 months for inspectors across the Nation. I
can tell you that here in a major municipality on the East
Coast, I was speaking to an individual, myself and an officer
having lunch together. He was one individual responsible for a
patrol zone, a very large patrol zone where he had to travel
about 45 miles between calls for service. He was the only
individual on duty and the inspectors were tucked away in a
room conducting their assessments. So these timeliness issues
of assessments, unfortunately corners get cut, tremendous
pressure by first-level management to get these things done.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Wright, you recommend that FPS officers
be granted the enhanced pension benefits that other Federal law
enforcement officers receive. Could you tell us more why you
believe FPS officers deserve these benefits and how the
benefits might affect recruiting and morale?
Mr. Wright. As we all know, these benefits are commonly
referred to as 6c/12d, early retirement age, more benefits.
Most police agencies out there at this point, CBP, Border
Patrol, and ICE, are actively hiring. DRO is actively hiring.
We are competing for these officers and when they look at FPS
and they see that the benefits are not there that they can
obtain in other agencies, then they are likely to go elsewhere.
As far as deserving, we are the boots on the ground. We are
the first ones on the scene. I think that has always been a
fault in the law that first responders are basically not
included in law enforcement benefits. The history shows that
those benefits were aimed towards investigators and have since
been tweaked to include detention, transportation of criminals,
and protection of Federal officials, whereby the first
responder does not receive those benefits.
Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. You were here to hear the questions that
I asked the other two witnesses and one of the major questions
I asked was looking at this from an objective perspective, and
based on cutting the budget and a few other things, and now you
are talking about comparable fringe benefits, do you think we
would be better off taking the FPS and bringing it back under
the General Service Administration?
Mr. Wright. No. General Service Administration was a
different situation. I look at it as GSA is the government's
landlord. I look at it as being in an agency dealing with real
estate, realty professionals managing a law enforcement force,
in effect, tantamount to having a mayor or someone being over a
police force. There is not enough separation there. A separate
division within GSA may be possible. We would have to be pretty
much a sovereign entity within GSA if that happened.
Senator Voinovich. Looking at it from a management point of
view, if I have responsibility for the oversight of the
building and other additional responsibilities, I believe one
of the most important ones is security. So, you are saying that
when GSA had FPS, you don't think GSA gave enough attention to
the security aspect of this?
Mr. Wright. That is my opinion.
Senator Voinovich. So you think you are better off where
you are at?
Mr. Wright. It is a really tough spot, two different
circumstances. The placement within ICE is--it is a terrible
fit. I am not sure what the solution is.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would be interested in what you
think the solution is.
Mr. Wright. Personally, I think the solution is a stand-
alone agency within DHS. We have responsibility for 9,000
properties, millions of employees and visitors on a yearly
basis. We have our authority issues. We have jurisdiction
issues. And I think the placement of FPS going into ICE and
being placed in a turf battle of Immigration versus Customs and
we are low guy on the totem pole, that is a problem.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, and that----
Mr. Wright. My opinion----
Senator Voinovich. Is that the reason why you think you
have gotten the back of the hand or short shrift, because in
terms of priorities, they don't think that what you are doing
is as important as some of the other responsibilities?
Mr. Wright. Absolutely. The fee funding structure and the
lack of respect for the FPS mission are the cause of our
problems today.
Senator Voinovich. Based on your observations, following up
on the question that I asked the other witness, Mr. Schenkel,
what is your evaluation of the relationship between the FPS and
local law enforcement agents around the country, and to your
knowledge, do you participate in these task forces that we have
throughout the country where we get the various law enforcement
agencies together to talk about sharing of information and so
forth? Are there strategic plans in place, for example, if
something would happen at one of your buildings to bring in the
local law enforcement agencies to enhance your ability to deal
with some of these things?
Mr. Wright. I can speak for Kansas City, Missouri, where I
spent the majority of my career. We have an informal
relationship with Kansas City PD. As far as the strategic plan,
no. We know who to call. We ask them to assist and they
generally assist. But as far as a plan, no. My experience
from--coming from my counterparts across the Nation is there is
a lack of reciprocity, that local police departments will
respond to our situations, but when it comes to us assisting
the locals, say we have a canine bomb detection team and they
could use that team for a couple of hours, these local
departments are turned down.
Senator Voinovich. They are turned down from using the
equipment that you have to enhance the job that you are doing?
Mr. Wright. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Wow. Why are they doing that?
Mr. Wright. We have a management structure that is stuck in
the 1970s. They all believe that FPS does not have the
authority to assist other agencies, say, for example, a bomb
threat call to a school. I mean, that is the main
consideration. That is not GSA property. You can't go. You
cannot assist. We have had instances in Kansas City where the
police department has requested our presence at major functions
and without that agency compensating FPS, we do not respond. So
it is a reciprocity thing.
Senator Voinovich. Well, here is the question I asked Mr.
Schenkel. I want a report back about the number of task force
relationships there and the strategic plans in place in the
event that would happen.
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Voinovich. I am going to be real selfish about it.
I want you to start in Cleveland, Ohio.
Mr. Wright. OK.
Senator Voinovich. I was mayor in the State of Ohio, and I
was governor, and I want to know what is really going on in my
home town and where we have our Cleveland offices in that
Celebrezze Building. We will use that kind of as a model to
find out just where we are at.
Is one of the things that we had hoped would happen when
the Department of Homeland Security was created was that we
were going to try and compare the various responsibilities that
law enforcement had. Within Homeland Security, you have FPS and
a lot of other groups. Has any effort, to your knowledge, been
made to look at the respective responsibilities that various
law enforcement personnel have and fringe benefits that accrue
so you don't end up having people shopping from one agency to
another?
Mr. Wright. No. I don't know of any such study.
Senator Voinovich. Well, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I
would like to have that question answered because from what I
understand, your fringe benefits are different than some of the
other Federal law enforcement entities. And your folks feel
like you are maybe second-class citizens within ICE.
Mr. Wright. Right. CBP just got 6c law enforcement
coverage. ICE and DRO get law enforcement coverage. We are law
enforcement officers in one agency and we are being treated
disparately.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Following up on the Senator's request, I would like to ask
that you respond to that, if you can do that in writing, as
well.
Mr. Wright. OK.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Wright, as you know, contract security
guards do not have arrest powers. They may detain people who
are suspected of committing a crime, but according to the GAO,
some do not because they fear liability. GAO reported numerous
troubling incidents in which guards stood by as they witnessed
security incidents. You have worked for many years for FPS and
its predecessors. In your experience, how widespread is this
problem?
Mr. Wright. I have seen and heard of numerous incidents. I
think just about every FPS law enforcement officer can tell you
at one time or another about an incident in which contract
guards have released individuals or failed to pursue
individuals. The problems with contract security is, and I am
not anti-free enterprise here, but they do work for a company,
so they do have that added pressure of liability towards
themselves and the company. They are also basically at will
employees. An individual can be removed from a Federal security
contract with no rights at all. So you have individuals that
have these concerns and they are basically working a day-to-day
job without a career.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Wright, FPS inspectors oversee contract
security guards, but they are not able to spend much time
inside Federal buildings. Do contract security guards generally
have a supervisor from the contracting company on site?
Mr. Wright. Yes. When the agency pays for that supervisor,
they can be provided on site, the proviso being that they are
being paid for their hourly wage and contract cost. Otherwise,
it has been my experience that at least the major companies
that I have worked with have a roving supervisor that go from
one property to another. But as far as a supervisor on post,
yes, the FPS does pay a premium to have a contract supervisor
on post.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Wright, although contract security
guards are not sworn law enforcement officers, many of them are
armed. Is FPS able to ensure that contract security guards are
well trained and vetted before coming on board? Have there been
any security incidents that you know of involving contract
security guards?
Mr. Wright. I think the most notorious security incident
was a theft of FPS weapons by a contract security guard, and
consequently transported to another State for sale. I do know
that they are vetted. I do know that we do background checks.
But as I say, these are individuals. When they walk into these
jobs, these are not really careers. These are day-to-day jobs
in which they earn a good wage and things happen. I could
research on more incidents. I just fail to recall any more at
this point.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Wright, as you know, very few cities
have any FPS officers on duty at night and on weekends. Why is
night and weekend coverage valuable, and how many cities should
have it?
Mr. Wright. Night and weekend coverage is valuable. These
are the times that it is known that surveillance of properties
take place by criminal or terrorist elements. No one is on duty
to watch. Of course, we had the recent pipe bomb explosion at
the San Diego Federal Courthouse. There were no FPS officers on
duty at that time. That may have been averted by just the
patrol or the surveillance. We will probably never know.
I know of two major cities that have 24/7 patrol, and even
at that, it is very minimal at this point. As far as the number
of cities, I have seen several different breakdowns. I think
the union recognizes a cut-off of about 22 major cities that
need 24/7 coverage.
Senator Akaka. As you know, FPS plans to move to an
inspector-based workforce, eliminating the police officer
position but expecting inspectors to do more law enforcement
functions. Could this model work if FPS was staffed at the
level that inspectors had adequate time for their traditional
duties as well as for law enforcement functions, or is there a
danger of losing focus on law enforcement activities regardless
of the staffing level?
Mr. Wright. For an all-inspector workforce to work, I think
the given average now is an inspector could probably work 20
percent of his time on law enforcement patrol and response. At
least that is the agency's stance. I don't agree with that. I
know that I can spend my 40 hours in a week on physical
security duties. It would be a matter of process. It would be a
matter of procedures, getting all the regions online, mandating
inspectors to go on patrol at certain times, maybe a semi-
yearly basis changing duties. It is tough to be sitting there
conducting physical security duties and then have your call for
service and respond in that mindset. It is not a good mix.
The original intent of the inspector was you had your
police force that provided primary law enforcement patrol and
response. They were out there 40 hours a week. You have your
inspectors that are conducting assessments, conducting physical
security, protecting the properties by implementing
countermeasures and procedures, and then be available when that
unexpected demonstration hits, or to be available when that
bomb threat comes out.
I would be much more satisfied with a large number of
police officers conducting their patrol. I would be much more
comfortable with that model, but that being said, I guess if
you give me 3,000 or 4,000 inspectors, we could work that out.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you.
Senator Voinovich, do you have any final questions?
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Again, I would go back to my home
town, and it would be interesting to know how many people
actually are doing policemen's work and how many are doing the
inspection work. I would just be interested.
Who does the threat assessment on these buildings?
Mr. Wright. Inspectors do threat assessments.
Senator Voinovich. So, somewhere in DHS or FPS, there is a
file that talks about all the buildings around the country that
you are responsible for and there is a threat assessment in
regard to those as to what needs to be done or does not need to
be done?
Mr. Wright. Generally, an inspector is given a list of
buildings to be responsible for. While I was actively in FPS in
Kansas City, I had a list generally of 18 to 20 buildings. That
seemed to be the average for Region 6, although I have heard of
regions where individuals are responsible for 60 buildings.
Senator Voinovich. OK, but the fact of the matter is that
initially, there is somewhere an evaluation of where buildings
are located and the threat assessment. I think you would start
from there. Then is there any kind of a dynamic updating of
that on a periodic basis to review it, again to determine the
threat that might be likely there? Can you answer that?
Mr. Wright. We are basically working off the DOJ security
assessment, or Department of Justice Federal Building Security
Assessment that was accomplished in June 1995. Level 4 is to be
inspected every 2 years. Level 3 is to be inspected every 3
years----
Senator Voinovich. You mean to say that there hasn't been
an update to the system since September 11, 2001? My logic
tells me that somebody would look out across the country at the
buildings and do another threat assessment.
Mr. Wright. No. We have basically continued on from when
that cycle began in 1995. The courthouse is evaluated every 2
years.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to get an
answer to that question, to know just exactly what the threat
assessment is with regard to respective buildings around the
country.
Mr. Wright. I can say that immediately after September 11,
2001, and it is always baffling how these things work, that a
pile of money became available for countermeasures. So I do
know that in the 3 months after September 11, 2001, I was asked
what buildings of my building list do I have mandatory
countermeasures recommended that I could not get paid for, and
when I named those buildings and I named those countermeasures,
I got them paid for. That was September 11, 2001 emergency
funds. So there was that effort to look at countermeasures that
were on record, recommendations that were on record. Beyond
that, we have just continued that cycle.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Who goes out to determine whether or
not the private contractor that has been hired, in fact, really
is getting the job done in terms of securing the facility?
Mr. Wright. We are talking about contract security guards?
Senator Voinovich. Well, you have got contract security
guards that have been hired and your people are the interface--
--
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. With them, but who
determines whether or not they have an adequate number of
people on the job, or better yet, where they are placed and
other technology or barricades or whatever it is to try and
make sure that the building actually is secure?
Mr. Wright. It is the inspector's responsibility to come up
with those recommendations, those lists, and then it is the
inspector's responsibility to go to the Building Security
Committee, which normally is composed of building tenants, and
say, we need a 24-hour guard here. We need five more cameras at
these positions. We need hydraulic vehicle barriers at these
doors. And then you--basically, you have to sell it to them,
and then someone on that Building Security Committee has to
come up with the funds somehow, and it doesn't work.
Senator Voinovich. So the money to take care of the
problem, all that kind of equipment, say a hydraulic barricade
like we have here for the Senate and all that kind of stuff,
that is paid for by the General Service Administration?
Mr. Wright. The General Service Administration can
generally front the money and then charge it back to the agency
in the rent. The most successful I have been, besides September
11, 2001 emergency money, is to do an assessment, to do my
recommendations, and to talk to this Building Security
Committee year after year and say, it is upcoming on your
budget process. It is important that you share this security
assessment with your superiors. We need the funding for this.
Beyond that, every agency pays, whether it is through the rent
or they don't pay.
Senator Voinovich. So they get together, decide what to do,
and then they say to their tenants----
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. If you want this, then it
is going to cost so much money. We will put it in and then you
guys will amortize the cost over a period of time as a part of
your rent.
Mr. Wright. And it is very convoluted and it does not work
very well at all.
Senator Voinovich. That is why I am going back to the
General Service Administration----
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. In terms of if they had
that responsibility, then maybe some of that would be more
forthcoming.
I have to tell you something. From what I have heard today,
I have really got some real concerns about what is going on and
I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to get some more information
here.
Mr. Wright. Well, I express the fullest confidence in the
officers, the employees that we have left. I have confidence in
Mr. Schenkel. I will say that he and I do have an open line of
communication that I do not use very often. I am very
disappointed when it filters down to the regional directors,
because what I hear comes out from Mr. Schenkel absolutely does
not filter down to the ground level.
Senator Voinovich. Well, get together and talk about it.
Mr. Wright. OK.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
I want to thank you, Mr. Wright, and each of our witnesses
again for the time that you spent preparing and presenting this
valuable testimony to the Subcommittee. Your work will help to
improve the Federal Protective Service.
It is clear that FPS must focus on rebuilding its
relationship with its employees. I hope that FPS will continue
to address its staffing, training, and morale problems. FPS has
an obligation to act as a responsible employer. Just as
importantly, these workforce problems can undermine the
security of Federal buildings and put Federal workers and
members of the public at risk.
Additionally, I believe we need to begin to look more
closely at the FPS's heavy reliance on contract security
guards. It is clear that FPS does not have enough staff to
oversee the contract security guards. Moreover, it concerns me
that even the most high-risk Federal buildings do not have a
single sworn law enforcement officer on site most of the time.
Often, having contract workers do Federal employee jobs saves
little or no money and it creates very serious risks. I hope
that GAO will look closely at this issue in the next phase of
its review.
Finally, FPS's funding should be revised. FPS needs to
review its rate structure to make it more equitable. I believe
that Congress should consider an appropriation to cover some of
FPS's expenses to ensure that we are investing properly in
Federal building security. GAO's report was eye-opening. It is
clear that there is an urgent need to address FPS's management
and operational challenges. This Subcommittee will work to
address those challenges.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for
additional statements or questions other Members may have.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
At today's hearing we will examine challenges facing the Federal
Protective Service (FPS) in its mission to protect 9,000 Federal
buildings and 1 million Federal employees all across this country that
have been detailed in a report released yesterday by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and requested by this Committee last year.
I have no doubt that the men and women working for the Federal
Protective Service are dedicated individuals, however, as the GAO
report details, the problems at FPS are serious. The agency has been
forced to grapple with expanding responsibilities following the attacks
of September 11, 2001 in the midst of funding shortfalls and a
shrinking workforce.
As the GAO report notes, staff levels have decreased by 20 percent
since 2004, which inevitably contributes to diminished security and an
increased risk of crime or terrorist attacks at Federal facilities.
GAO also found that FPS oversight of its contract guard program has
continued to lag, with some posts not having been inspected in over a
year, and that funding challenges and poor financial management have
handcuffed the FPS--by freezing hiring challenges and poor financial
management have handcuffed the FPS--by freezing hiring and limiting
training--and has led to declining morale and safety, increased
attrition, and poor overall performance.
Unfortunately, the Administration's proposals to address the
funding and financial management challenges facing the FPS only appear
to make the problems worse.
The proposal to eliminate all FPS officers--but not their duties--
and move to an all inspector-based workforce with responsibilities for
both inspection and law enforcement would further strain a workforce
already stressed perilously thin. It's hard to imagine how these
employees could fulfill the agency's patrol, response and physical
security roles simultaneously.
This plan is also likely to increase the burden on local law
enforcement forced to respond to incidents at Federal facilities;
something FPS seems to have spent little time discussing with local law
enforcement.
Some of the problems highlighted in the GAO report need to be
addressed by the FPS' customers--other Federal agencies. As the FPS
continues to work to secure Federal property and personnel, by
assessing the physical security of Federal facilities and recommending
security countermeasures to address vulnerabilities, Federal agencies
need to heed FPS' advice and implement and maintain those
countermeasures.
However, it is also unacceptable that the FPS has allowed security
countermeasures it controls, like cameras and metal detectors, to fall
into disrepair.
These problems have not sprung up overnight, and they can't be
fixed overnight, but I am committed to working with DHS and the FPS to
address the challenges highlighted by GAO.
We should begin by ensuring the agency has the support it needs to
fulfill its mission. FPS' increase of the basic security fee it charges
agencies for its services is an important first step towards providing
financial stability for the agency.
Now the FPS needs to implement GAO's recommendations, and develop
and implement a strategy and staffing plan, clarify the roles and
responsibilities of local law enforcement agencies, assess the agency's
methodology for charging fees for services, develop standards for
measuring performance and improve its ability to collect and analyze
relevant data.
I look forward to reviewing the testimony of today's witnesses: FPS
Director Gary Schenkel, employees' representative Inspector David
Wright, and U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) representative
Mark Goldstein.
The Federal Protective Service is a crucial, but often overlooked,
component of the Department of Homeland Security. The shortcomings
highlighted by GAO are serious, and it's important that Congress work
with the agency to meet these challenges head on.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee, DHS
and the FPS on these issues.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4118.066