Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
H.R. 4034, TO REFORM THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

  

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1998

U.S. House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jay Kim (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

    Mr. KIM. Good morning. Sorry for being late this morning. The subcommittee will come to order now. I'd like to welcome all of the members this morning.

    The subcommittee is meeting this morning to receive testimony on House Resolution 4034, which is sponsored by my colleague here, Mr. Traficant, the bill to reform the Federal Protective Service. FPS, by now, is part of the public building service and the leadership of FPS is under the control of Mr. Clarence Edwards, who has a 28-year spectrum of local and Federal law enforcement. His accomplishments include past chief of police of the Montgomery County police department. Mr. Edwards has provided our staff with valuable background information on the current operation of FPS.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Mr. Edwards has never appeared before this subcommittee and so I'd like welcome you, Mr. Edwards.

    Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

    Mr. KIM. At this time, I'd like to recognize Mr. Traficant for any brief opening statement

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome everybody here as well.

    I notice an awful lot of the security here and I think this takes us back to Oklahoma City in April 19th of 1995. There was only one contract guard on duty responsible for three Federal buildings in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. And I have some significant concerns as a former sheriff. And I know that there's always Monday morning quarterbacks and everybody that could always do it better and the legislation that I've offered is not an attempt to demean anybody or to try and put anybody down. It is a legitimate attempt to try and increase and reinforce security.

    I worked for at least 8 years trying to raise the pay of the Capitol police department to parity with other like kind services and I make this statement here today that I believe that's absolutely necessary with FPS as well. I think the people who protect our facilities should be compensated in a fair fashion so that we can retain the best and move forward. Having said that, I believe true reform consists more of simply changing a job title or rewriting a job description.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The case of this bill, H.R. 4034, the most fundamental reform is to place the Federal Protective Service on an equal basis with other services provided by the General Service Administration. Other reforms contained in the bill, such as pay grade and expansion of geographic jurisdiction more than likely will eventually be enacted or provided after this process by administrative methods. However, I believe in order to achieve true reform for the FPS, the Service must be free standing within GSA, separate from the Public Buildings Service and, in fact, designated as such by statute so there are no misconceptions. Naturally and understandably, there has to be close links and lines of communication with the director of the PBS.

    So you see, providing security is not a real estate program. I believe, as former sheriff, it's a security program and it must carry the priority of its own decisionmaking and structural hierarchy, if you will. There's got to be a boss. The boss has got to make some decisions. And that decision has got to come down to lives; it's got to come down to security of the property.

    And, in saying that, I must add, that I would venture to say that anybody who would examine the Oklahoma City tragedy, if, in fact, the Oklahoma City tragedy had never occurred, that anyone and everyone in this room would score Oklahoma City as cost-effective security. If Oklahoma City had never occurred, everybody in this room, looking back now, would say that was a cost-effective program out there. Our security exposure was relatively limited.

    I think it is time for change. I am also a realist. I know the dynamics that occur within the structure around here. I know it's not going to be an easy task. And I know there's going to be give-and-take. I want to make sure that the give-and-take works out on the scoreboard of our security forces, not to the detriment.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    With that, I am glad to have those here to testify. And I thank you for having a hearing on this bill, Mr. Kim. And I don't know how many more of these subcommittee hearings that we will have, but I want to thank you for working with us, as you have. And I appreciate your work.

    Mr. KIM. You're welcome. Are there any other members who wish to make a statement? The gentleman from Louisiana. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cooksey, for his opening statement.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel very strongly about strong law enforcement. I have a lot more confidence in the professionalism of people in law enforcement than I do in politicians, quite frankly, since I'm a new politician. And I have a lot of confidence in the judgment of my friend Jim Traficant. He's come to be one of my closest friends here in Washington. And I value his judgement and I value his judgment on this bill and I personally think it's good legislation.

    I know that, at times, certain agencies and certain people that are in leadership positions in agencies don't like to give up part of their power and it gets back to power structure. But, you know, we were in a—we are in the information age. If you don't believe me, you can ask some people around Washington who are in a stew right now. And we are in an age where we are better off when you disperse power and empower individual units to have their own power structure. And I personally believe that this legislation would be good because it would accomplish that goal and it would ultimately enhance the efficiency of this organization.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This organization has worked well in the past. I have confidence they can work well in the future and they can work well and probably work even better with some more autonomy and a little bit less interference from politicians and other agencies in government. So, Mr. Traficant, I'm on your team. But, most importantly, for the people in the Federal Protective Services, I'm on your team.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KIM. I wanted to welcome our first witness this morning, the Commissioner of Public Buildings, Mr. Robert Peck and Mr. Edwards. Go ahead and proceed.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CLARENCE EDWARDS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

    Mr. PECK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for having me here this morning and for having Clarence Edwards, who is a recognized professional police officer and administrator who I am honored to have selected to be the head of the Federal Protective Service. I want to talk to you today about Congressman Traficant's legislation and also about some reforms in the Federal Protective Service that we have recently proposed.

    I have a statement that I'd like to submit for the record, if it's okay. And I will try to summarize it. I will say as I said in our hearing on June 4th on security in general, that GSA has no more important duty than to ensure the physical safety and peace of mind of the employees who work in and the members of the public who visit the space that we own or lease on behalf of the Federal Government.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The mission of FPS is to provide that protection, to provide a safe and secure environment in a knowledgeable, professional, sophisticated, and cost-effective manner. I say cost-effective because resources are never unlimited. We could spend unlimited resources on security and still never be sure that we could provide 100 percent security. We have to do the best we can with what we can reasonably apply to the job.

    And I will remind the subcommittee what I've testified to before, that since Oklahoma City, GSA has spent nearly $400 million dollars on additional security in our buildings. Is that enough? It may not be enough. One would always say that if you had an incident, but I have to say it is a significant increase over what was being spent before and we have worked very hard just to spend that money effectively.

    It is also our job to provide an environment in our buildings that is open and inviting to the public and that permits Federal agencies and members of the public to conduct their business without fear from crime or disorder. I noted that after the tragic incident in the Capitol this summer, the leadership of the Congress noted that what has to happen in the Capitol building—and we think it has to happen in Federal buildings around the country—is that we have as much security as we possibly can while encouraging the public to use the buildings which, after all, we build with their money or lease with their money and to which they have a right to get in if they are on legitimate business.

    Based on its mission and function, the Federal Protective Service is an integral and inextricable part of the Public Buildings Service and needs to remain that way. And I'll address that again later.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    On staffing, the Federal Protective Service has increased from 972 employees in Fiscal Year 1995 to over 1,300 today. Next year, nearly 20 percent of the total employment force of the Public Buildings Service will be in the Federal Protective Service. In other words, we have nearly doubled the size of the uniformed Federal Protective Service police force. We now have on board 677. As you know, we had a consultant study after Oklahoma City which said we needed to get to 724. We have been hiring very hard all year. As you know, we've also placed a lot of emphasis on completing the 8,000 countermeasures which we agreed to do after some study after the Oklahoma City bombing.

    So I have proposed what we are calling the 'new FPS' to perform the functions of the Service better. We had a Charrette that included representation from the Federal Protective Service from around the country from our real estate managers, and from our client agencies. And we had participation on the Charrette from the unions. I want to be careful because I know that some of the unions have been concerned, and while they participated, I in no way intend to imply that they endorsed the outcome of our Charrette or the report which we have recently issued.

    We took our Charrette findings from April, conducted a couple of task forces, and came out with a framework for a new Federal Protective Service. The key provisions of the report recommend the following: a transition of the work force to multi-skilled law enforcement and security officers assigned throughout the country and all key PBS market areas; an increased emphasis on collection and analysis of criminal intelligence information in conjunction with other Federal law enforcement agencies. And, I note that if you ask anybody about countering terrorism, they will tell you that the most important thing you can do is to have good intelligence. It's trying to find out about threats and possible hostile actions before they occur that allows you to stop them the best.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Our report recommends strengthening standards and qualifications for contract security guards and changing the way we do our contracting to emphasize best value, rather than just low bids. We will emphasize pricing for security that is building-specific. And it's important to note and one reason that the Federal Protective Service needs to remain an integral part of PBS is that the fundings are inextricably mingled, that the funding for the Federal Protective Service comes out of the building rents we charge.

    We proposed a strengthened Washington headquarters role in setting and maintaining standardized strategy, procedures, training, and performance measurement among the GSA regions. And, finally, upgrading our technology.

    We will establish a new position in the Federal Protective Service, tentatively titled ''a Law Enforcement and Security Officer'' which will provide the opportunity for qualified uniformed officers to perform broader law enforcement and security duties. The expanded duties will require additional training and might affect pay. I hope they will affect pay. I will try to make them affect pay. As FPS expands the focus of its uniformed force beyond the current concentration in only 22 core cities, many of these new opportunities for the Law Enforcement and Security Officer will exist in outlying areas.

    There will also be traditional uniformed officers who don't bear these additional functions. There will continue to be a large number of them in areas where we have high concentrations of Federal facilities. But, like other forward-looking police forces in this country today, they will more and more be out of their patrol cars and in their community, walking a beat, finding out what's going on in the buildings, providing the kind of intelligence that you can only have when your eyes and ears are engaged in your environment and not in an automobile.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    It's called community policing. It's worked in New York City. It's worked in other areas. The D.C. Police Department is reorganizing into a community policing department. And, in fact, our main consultant on our reinvention study is someone who helped reorganize the New York Police Department.

    In addition to cross training our uniformed officers in physical security, we will expand training for physical security specialists and provide certification for them from national accreditation organizations. We will also expand training for our criminal investigators, particularly on the intelligence analysis function.

    The final draft report of our reengineering will be completed and we will forward it to you. In the interim, we are soliciting comments from our managers and our union partners. Although the report's recommendations do not require enabling legislation, I look forward to consulting with you as we carry out this enhancement of our security efforts.

    I want to add that even before this report came out, we have taken the following actions to strengthen the posture of the FPS. We have added to the basic police officer training course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glencoe, Georgia, a 2-week unit following the 8-week basic training. The 2-week unit provides specific orientation toward the mission, roles, and strategy of the Federal Protective Service. A lot of other Federal law enforcement agencies provide that kind of follow-on training, sort of like advanced individual training in the military after basic, and we have started it now. We have begun training our criminal investigators in intelligence analysis and we are preparing the course for our physical security specialists to upgrade their training.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Regarding the H.R. 4034, I would like to note that we appreciate the interest of this committee, and particularly the subcommittee, and particularly Mr. Traficant in upgrading the Federal Protective Service and its employees. As I stated before, I believe we are in agreement on many of the aspects of FPS that need improvement and on many of the provisions of H.R. 4034.

    I support expanding the statutory jurisdictional authority of our officers, as the legislation would do, to areas immediately surrounding Federal buildings. We think that jurisdiction right now is poorly defined in law. It does hamstring our officers in some cases. We get around in some cases by having our officers deputized by the U.S. Marshals, but it is unduly restrictive. Before I can tell you that the Administration supports this, I have to go through a clearance process with the Justice Department, which we are going to undertake. We do believe that some limited areas surrounding Federally controlled space should be included in routine patrol jurisdictions and we have provided language, informally, that would help accomplish that.

    As I said, I strongly disagree with the proposal to divorce the Federal Protective Service from the Public Buildings Service. This has nothing to do with a power struggle. This has nothing to do with bureaucratic turf. This has to do with the fact that security needs to be tightly integrated into the location, design, and operation of Federal buildings. Our security is financed out of revenues collected by the Public Buildings Service. Making the FPS independent of PBS would seriously harm our efforts to provide tight and seamless security. And it would undermine and weaken the security of our buildings and impede the effective management of both FPS and the PBS.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And I'll be happy to go into that more. I believe this very strongly. It is just a fact of life in large organizations that if you separate functions into separate services, they just do not coordinate as well as when they are under one umbrella. I've made the analogy before, but I think it appropriate. The FPS operates within PBS much like the Park Police operate within the National Park Service. The Park Police defend in urban areas the Park Service's assets. They are a part of the Park Service so that they can coordinate together.

    And I think that that's the way we've run the FPS/PBS relationship. I think there are problem in FPS in making it the best possible security force it can be, but I don't think that separating would hold any advantage for us. I do think that what we proposed in our working group would bring about the same positive change as the proposed bill would but without the negative consequence of a separation.

    I just want to note, even in our report, if you look through it, you'll see that, for example, in each facility it says that the FPS security specialist and the PBS property manager must coordinate security, planning, and implementation. I want to be clear. I've heard it said that we are proposing that the Protective Service Officers work for the building managers. Not at all. We haven't said that at all. They have a coequal function to do in providing security and neither will work for the other. In developing new leases for buildings, the FPS security specialist and the realty specialist working together have to determine the security requirements to be built into the lease.

    I think, overall, however, the bill, 4034, is a good bill. We know that we agree on upgrading the pay of Federal Protective Service Officers. We agree on the need to change jurisdiction. I think most of the provisions are good. I have a concern about setting a firm number of FPS Officers. It just strikes me that almost always in legislation when we put in a number, we find it's not the right number and it hampers the kind of flexibility which we need to give people additional assignments or to cross train. And we wind up in various accounting methods which I think can be counterproductive. So like I said, I think the bill is many steps in the right direction and we want to work with you in making it even better.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    My goal for the Federal Protective Service, as I've said in various statements, is to make it the best facility security organization in the world. I want when anybody talks about providing security in facilities, whether they are publicly or privately owned anywhere in the world, that they say, you've got to talk to those folks in the Federal Protective Service first, because they know what they're doing.

    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

    Mr. KIM. Any questions from the members? Mr. Traficant.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. I'd like to defer to the other members and withhold mine.

    Mr. KIM. All right, Mr. Cooksey, do you have questions?

    Mr. COOKSEY. Am I clear that the main reason you want to be able to retain control of the Federal Protective Service is just so you can make sure that there's a good coordination between your building responsibilities and their protective building responsibilities?

    Mr. PECK. That's it in a nutshell. Let me say again, in protecting facilities, the first thing that happens is that you have to decide if it's a new building, where to locate it. There are security aspects in that. Even now—I'm having a meeting later today on design aspects of a building that influence security. So that needs to be integrated.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And once you open, there are all kinds of issues about how you operate the building: Who do you let in? How do you let people in? How do you control parking? Which doors are open; which are closed? What kind of barriers do you erect? What kind of equipment do you put in and maintain? All of that, a lot of it just has to do with just normal building operations.

    Here are two things. The security people in our organization need to understand real estate a little bit because they have to understand how the buildings operate to get the best security for it. Our building managers need to be thinking about security all the time. So we really need a meshing.

    Second, as I noted, the funding for our security force, completely comes out of the rents that we charge Federal agencies. And there too, there needs to be a lot of talk with the tenants about what they're paying for, how it gets done. It will be a lot less effective for us to have people from different services sitting down, talking about how fees are established, all that kind of stuff. Finally, I have yet to hear anyone describe to me how separating the FPS into a separate service of the GSA will solve any of the problems that anybody has pointed out to me.

    I will say one thing, which I think has needed to be done—and, if I can, let me talk a little bit about the timing of our report. After Oklahoma City, we made a decision and, when I took this job, I made a decision that the most important thing we could do was to finish the recommendations which the Justice Department came up with after Oklahoma City. There were two basic recommendations: Hire more FPS officers, which we are almost finished doing, and finish those countermeasures.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You know, you can't have too many priorities at one time in an organization to make them work. So we have hit really hard on finishing the countermeasures and hiring the officers. I thought it was time now that we were just about done with that, to take a look at other aspects of this organization.

    One of the things that we have noted is that we have—and this is true of all of PBS, I would note—that while I'm the Commissioner, the assistant regional administrators in each of the 11 regions actually don't report to me. They report to a regional administrator. And yet that doesn't prevent me from establishing standard measures by which we decide whether they're doing a good job or not. It doesn't stop me from issuing policy on how we go about carrying out policies like the urban location policy or a pricing system, whatever.

    I think in the Federal Protective Service, however, there are cases that appear to me in which regional Federal Protective Service directors empowerment can go too far sometimes—have gone so far off on their own that we don't necessarily have the best practices being carried out in every one of our regions. And so we are—whatever happens with this legislation—going to strengthen Clarence's hand in setting standards for training, equipment, procurement, the way we issue contracts, as well.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Let me give you a comment. I have not been in Washington long enough to learn the double-speak that a lot of the politicians here use and I don't want to stay here long enough to learn. That's the reason I made my position clear up front. I'm very transparent, up front.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Number one, we are in the information age. You know, 100 years ago, the average age—the average education of the average person working in the work sector was a fourth grade education and then you needed a large bureaucracy, and needed the leader who was the leader of the military, or the police, or the government, whatever, had the best education, the best training to be the leader of the group. But, today, the average education level of the average person is at least 1 year of college and, based on that, because were in the information age, people can make good decisions with some more autonomy. And that's the information age is about.

    That's the reason we don't need the top-down structure that a lot of people, a lot of organizations won't—and good managers—if you go out of the United States today, and around the world, the absolute best companies are the ones that have bottoms-up management where an organization has some autonomy and they empower their people to make good decisions. That's the reason I have confidence that these people will do it right and properly.

    Now, that said, in the last few years we've had a group of people who have come to Washington and been the power structure that are primarily interested in giving power to themselves and patronage to their financial supporters. And you've got a lot of responsibility at your agency in managing buildings because there are a lot of building leases and apparently there has been some controversy about building leases that I've learned about in these committee hearings last year, this year, and in reading some publications like Businessweek. And if—I honestly believe that you would have enough on your table to keep on managing those responsibilities and empower these men and women who provide this service to do the right thing. I have confidence that it could be done well and done better that way.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PECK. Mr. Cooksey, let me respond in two ways. One, in almost everything I have done in managing the Public Buildings Service, my thrust, sometimes with opposition from parts of Capitol Hill, has been to devolve power to our building managers, to our realty specialists; I always say, you know, when I served in an Army unit, I prided myself on never listening to what headquarters did and I think I was right most of the time in doing that. And so we have devolved a lot of power.

    However, number two, the proposal to make FPS autonomous seems to be grounded in the idea that we need to have stronger central direction of FPS. The way we have operated FPS, there has been tremendous amount of autonomy in the field. And I think that we could continue to operate that way. The way corporations work with having people autonomous is by measuring performance. So you say, I'm not going to tell you how to do it, I'm just going to tell you what outcome I want to see. And, second, by providing people with some sense of what are the best practices in the field. So if someone says, I don't know how to improve my performance; can you help me? The central organization ought to be able to do that. That's the way we've been trying to operate.

    One of the things we're trying to do in our proposal is to provide what we think is the best practice for patrolling and providing security in our buildings. So, you know, let me separate two things. The whole issue of the structure and who controls it is important to me, because I do believe that the security and the management of the building need to be intertwined. I just think that that's the way it works best. I'm going to say it. That's a strongly held belief.

    I'm not interested in being the head of a police force per se. You're absolutely right. There is a lot on my plate.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. Okay. We have both stated our philosophical positions.

    Now, let me ask one other question and I will defer to some more senior members—colleagues. I see that in the second panel there's people here from the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Labor Council, FOP, so forth, and the AFL–CIO. In your current structure or in a future structure, assuming these are unions that would be represented carrying out this function, is there something that would preclude them from going on strike and from us waking up one day and finding that all the Federal buildings are no longer being protected? There's no security; there's no security force? Could that occur under the existing structure? Could it occur under the proposed structure by Mr. Traficant?

    Mr. PECK. No, sir, because under—

    Mr. KIM. Can you make that a brief answer to let some other witnesses who are waiting have time?

    Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. Under Federal labor law, I mean, the unions cannot strike.

    Mr. COOKSEY. So this would not ever happen?

    Mr. PECK. No, sir.

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KIM. At this time, I'd to recognize Ms. Norton for any questions.

    Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask Mr. Edwards a question. The people who know police work best, of course, are at the local level. I'd like to ask you how important it was to you, as the chief in Montgomery County, that you ran an independent agency, not accountable in any other way? How important was that? As a chief, how important did you consider that to your mission, your law enforcement mission?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, other members of the subcommittee, and Ms. Norton. As chief of police in Montgomery County, or as chief of police in any jurisdiction, you work within a framework of a government. And the police department was a portion of that. I had line authority throughout the police department, but I had to report to the chief administrator—

    Ms. NORTON. So you have a different relationship here.

    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

    Ms. NORTON. Which do you prefer? Which is most effective, sir?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Well, the—

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. NORTON. If you had not had line authority and not had independence in Montgomery County, would you have been an effective chief of police?

    Mr. EDWARDS. No, I think line authority allows a chief of police or assistant commissioner the ability to pinpoint responsibility and accountability of those persons who are accountable for the mission and the program and in this current structure, you know, I don't have that. So line authority would be helpful to me.

    Ms. NORTON. You valued that in Montgomery County.

    Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I think any police administrator would value that.

    Ms. NORTON. I can tell that, as the member who represents this city, it's important to me twice over that Federal police, as it were, be as effective as you were in Montgomery County and that we model, as closely as is feasible, what we do on proven police work in this country. We are, as I speak, in a city that fears for its security. The police have been come up with no better to deal with the major avenue than to close it down. Parts of the District of Columbia itself could essentially be shut down because we have not caught up in technology or in police work with how to protect this city from bombings and from forces that have been unknown in cities before.

    

    So I find your answers interesting because I think the challenges you face and responsibility you bear are grave compared even with 5 years ago. And I can tell you that this committee and the entire Congress are not going to be into who struck John within somebody's bureaucracy. If something happens, we're going to want to know why didn't you keep it from happening. And whether or not you could have kept it from happening if you had the kind of independence that you had in Montgomery County.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, Mr. Peck, I note in your testimony you say we support the statutory jurisdictional authority of our officers, as the legislation would do, to areas immediately surrounding Federal buildings. For example, we're concerned that jurisdiction currently is restricted to Federal property except in hot pursuit of a person suspected of committing a felony on GSA-controlled property.

    First of all, I was able to get enacted a bill called the Police Coordination Act which, in fact, does allow the U.S. Attorney to coordinate the various Federal police so that they can, in fact, begin to protect the areas surrounding their building. But, look—but just listen to this testimony. I'm sure the average taxpayer would be amazed that it took a piece of legislation to give authority to protect the area immediately surrounding the building. I have to ask you, sir, what are these people doing—

    Mr. PECK. Well, the answer is that—

    Ms. NORTON. —if they are not—especially in a time when we suspect bombings and everything else—if they are not, in fact, going around their own buildings—by the way, leaving it my overworked police force—what in the world are they doing with their considerable pensions and higher pay than the District of Columbia police force has?

    Mr. PECK. Well, Ms. Norton, the problem is that the Congress in 1949 enacted a very restrictive authority for GSA building guards, as they were called or, then, police officers. Our officers, in fact, in most cases, have been doing their job and looking at cars off of GSA property, dealing with incidents off of GSA property. The problem is, and we have been advised by the Justice Department, that there is no authority to do so and that they are at risk—we are all at risk—if they get into an altercation or some other incident off the property. And that's what we're trying to fix. That what this legislation would fix.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. NORTON. Yes. The fact is that these people, these police officers, essentially have been often kept—although highly professional—kept at the status of guards by not being allowed to do their work. There's a great deal of discretion that lies in the agency head, quite apart from GSA. But in a real sense, what Mr. Traficant's bill, it seems to me, is trying to do is to get maximum use out of fully professional police forces all around this city. And it seems to me that GSA ought to be, particularly considering the dangers posed to the city from terrorism, should be in the front ranks of trying to upgrade the place and status of its own police so that they play a truly independent role in helping to protect Federal property.

    Mr. PECK. And, in fact, as I stated, that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to increase the status and the training and the pay of the Federal Protective Service officers. And one thing I would note, that, while I do oppose creating FPS as a separate service GSA for the reasons I stated it not only bears no advantages, but could hamper our security efforts. I am on the same wavelength with H.R. 4034.

    I will note that what Mr. Edwards said about having line authority is something that also we can do without creating FPS as a separate service, that it is possible within the GSA—within the PBS structure to give more line authority. In fact, as I said, I want to give Mr. Edwards, no matter what we do—and have already given him—more authority over setting standards nationally for our officers: training standards, certification standards, contracting standards, and the like.

    Mr. EDWARDS. But, Ms. Norton, if I could, I'd like to address your concern with respect to what the Federal Protective Service and this city is currently doing. We have officers who patrol our buildings, which is our primary function, but we also patrol the perimeters of those areas. We have people who are working with the Federal task forces in an effort to obtain criminal intelligence to assist us decide on what course of action is appropriate for our buildings. So we are not just, you know, locked into a fortress.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. NORTON. But, Mr. Edwards, do you believe that your men and women are being maximally used?

    Mr. EDWARDS. No, they're not being maximally used because we have jurisdictional problems. And Mr. Traficant's bill is an effort to provide us with the authority that's needed to maximize what we have. Currently, we are in a situation where our officers would act if we saw a threat to a building, but when we move away from the building, we have no legal authority to take action. And we would be kind of like out on, you know, on a limb.

    But they're going to do it. I feel confident that if we see something that poses a threat to one of our buildings, our officers will act. But what we need is the authority to act and to act legally.

    Ms. NORTON. Well, I agree. Mr. Peck, I do think that, in the earlier dialogue I had with Edwards, that there's something for GSA to learn from—more to learn from his experience than what has been learned from his experience, from his independence. And I urge you to do what you can recognizing the difference between a city and county police force, to use that as your model and to approximate that as far as you can. And I believe that Mr. Traficant's bill takes us precisely in that improved professional law enforcement direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KIM. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions and then Mr. Traficant. I want to make sure that I understand correctly your position. So you do not object to this idea of elevating—elevating's not the right word; I should say broadening—the jurisdictional scope to authorize them—FPS—to carry firearms; they can—the court can issue them with search and arrest warrants; they can arrest individuals when a crime being committed, even without this warrant? You have no objection over those powers? Also, including the conducting of an investigation off the property where the offenses were committed? You have no objection?
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    What you are objecting to, in my opinion, today, is that you disagree with the idea of divorcing the FPS from your jurisdiction, the Public Buildings Service. You don't like the idea of FPS becoming an independent service within the GSA. You are comparing this FPS and PBS relationship with the Park Police and the National Park Service, that cannot be separated. That is your concern, isn't it?

    Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

    Mr. KIM. Okay. So you half agree and half disagree.

    Mr. PECK. I'd like to say, I much more than half agree.

    Mr. KIM. All right, then 70 percent agree. Let me ask you a question in the same line. I understand you have 5,000 contract officers right now, in addition to FPS. Well, do they carry firearms?

    Mr. PECK. Most do. Not all of them.

    Mr. KIM. Now who's going to monitor these contracts? What's going to happen to these private contracts?

    Mr. PECK. The Federal Protective Service issues the contracts and monitors the contracts and would continue to do so.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KIM. So you will be continually monitoring these private guards, but the FPS will be transferred to independent—

    Mr. PECK. Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question. If the FPS were made an independent service—

    Mr. KIM. This would be transferred too.

    Mr. PECK. Right. I mean an independent service within GSA, then the contract function would also—would transfer with FPS.

    Mr. KIM. I understand that FPS—the pay is pretty low. And how are you going to maintain such a qualified police officer with such a low pay?

    Mr. PECK. That's a serious problem. And, as you recall, when we discussed in June, we have, for going on 2 years, been in discussions—I believe it's been 3 years. Is that a fair statement? Someone help me—with OPM? We have had discussions with the Office of Personnel Management for 2 years or so on trying to upgrade the pay and benefits for the Federal Protective Service officers and, to date, OPM has not been willing to let us do that, although we have made various arguments toward that end.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Will the chairman yield?

    Mr. KIM. I'm more than happy to yield, Mr. Traficant.

 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. TRAFICANT. One of the things the bill does is it clarifies one of the underlying issues in line with your recent question. Mr. Peck has special policemen on his payroll. H.R. 4034 clarifies that they are police officers.

    Mr. KIM. I understand that, yes.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. There is a distinct difference.

    Mr. KIM. You also have a criminal investigator, a physical security specialist. Combined together, you have 13—16—

    Mr. PECK. Hundred.

    Mr. KIM. Yes.

    Mr. PECK. 1,300.

    Mr. KIM. And they'd all be transferred?

    Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

    Mr. KIM. Okay. That's the one you are concerned about?

    Mr. PECK. I'm concerned about—as I said, this is not about who—I'm just not into bureaucratic turf. For me, this is not about who controls; it's about providing the most effective security. And I appreciate all the comments you're making. We are all trying to figure out what is the best way we can provide security for these facilities. It's my contention, it is my belief—and I recognize there are other views—is that it is best done in an integrated fashion with other aspects of building location, design, and management. That's the argument I'm making on that issue.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As I said, with respect to just about everything else in H.R. 4034, I am in agreement.

    Mr. KIM. Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Traficant, the gentleman from Ohio.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. And I still would like to defer to one of our new members, the former sheriff from Pennsylvania, and see if Mr. Holden has any questions.

    Mr. KIM. Mr. Holden, the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

    Mr. HOLDEN. No questions.

    Mr. KIM. No questions. Mr. Traficant.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. What I'd just like to—I've waited. I wanted to get the input of some of the other members and I regard their insight very much. I've worked with Ms. Norton for an awful long time. I think she started in on an area of concern. It didn't surprise me that she did, with that insight. So I have a couple of comments and some serious questions. Because, number one, I am not demeaning the efforts or the record, the progress or the competency or the performance of Mr. Peck, Mr. Leaney, and, Chief, yourself. Our subcommittee—we've interacted with you enough to feel very comfortable with your competence. Our concern is with your mission and the inherent structure which, I believe, limit your flexibility as a law enforcement entity indubitably needed to protect our Federal buildings.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Having said that, there's a big difference between a private building and a public building. Terrorists that make statements don't usually make it against the local rotary or an insurance agency. They take out their frustration, signature mode, against our National structures and landmarks. Having said that, we all know that. And when I was a sheriff, if I was sheriff in Montgomery County, I would not call the mayor nor the administrative assistant nor the director of the Division of Public Works if I were to come into your jurisdiction on a specific law enforcement mission, would I? I would call you, wouldn't I, Chief?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. The reason why I would call you is because you were, without question, the man responsible for law enforcement in your jurisdiction. I didn't have to call administrative assistants or the person who worked out your budgetary problems because you assigned those cruisers and you assigned those police officers, didn't you?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. And you decided what investigation you'd undertake and what intelligence you felt, on a priority basis, was necessary for you to secure your community, did you not?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes. Mr. Peck, you made comment about New York City and that you looked at it as a model, the New York City police. The question I have for you, to the best of your knowledge, does the New York City Police answer to the Division of Public Works in New York?
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PECK. No, sir, but they have a very different function.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. This is what I'm talking about today. I'm talking about functions. Do they report to the Division of Public Works, the New York City police?

    Mr. PECK. No, sir, they—

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Who do they report to?

    Mr. PECK. They report to the commissioner of police and, through him, to the mayor.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. They report to the police chief. The police chief, he does his political machinations with the mayor. We know how that works.

    Now here's a significant question—

    Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield a moment?

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Just go right ahead.

    Ms. NORTON. Because I thought your question was very pertinent when you asked about the New York City Police Department and the answer that the function is very different was very troubling. Could we have an elaboration of why it is very different.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PECK. Yes, madam. The job of the Federal Protective Service is to provide security for the buildings under the control of the General Services Administration and the job of the New York City Police, obviously, is to patrol the streets, the parks, the public and private buildings of New York City. And this is a facility security function.

    Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I really think in there that we've got it. I think if you asked the police chief, in fact if you asked Mr. Edwards, he would not describe his job in terms of buildings and grounds, but in terms of people. And I'm here to tell you that inside those Federal buildings are thousands of people and I thought your job was to protect the people in those buildings. And I believe therein lies the rub. As long as you see your job as protecting buildings, you can then see it as an offshoot of the Department of Public Works. Once you being to see yourself as a police force, I don't think you refer to your job in terms of structures.

    Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, I started out my statement saying that the job is to protect the people who work in the buildings, the visitors to them, and the people around the buildings. In law enforcement, I mean, there is a field called installations security—

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time. The police officers of New York City are responsible for the jurisdiction of New York City and the corporate limits, structured by law. The police officers—they should be police officers—are responsible for securing our Federal buildings, have the jurisdiction of our Federal buildings. If we draw a much broader based analysis, trying to look at metropolitan forms of law enforcement and government, we would dilute the major issues. We're talking about function, the ability to secure Federal buildings. And I say, as a former sheriff, by the nature of our structure, we limit, not enhance security in our Federal buildings.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, having said that, I want to talk about just basically—and then ask you this question—by the nature of the description of your police force, Chief, you had special policemen?

    Mr. EDWARDS. That's correct.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. They sort of like in the real law enforcement community can see, but don't touch. They can touch, but probably don't feel; they can watch, but careful about making an arrest. When in doubt, fill out a report. I have a very pointed question, who made the decision, ultimately, that had one contract guard in Oklahoma City? Whose call was that? Was that your call? You weren't there then, but was it your predecessor's call?

    Mr. EDWARDS. The decision on the number of people in a particular facility would fall to the regional director. We have 11 regional areas within the system and we have a regional security director. That regional security director, which is in Fort Worth, would be responsible for the number of people, contract or otherwise, that would have been in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. All hindsight 20–20, with 3 Federal buildings in Oklahoma City and 1 contract guard, do you believe we had a security program or we had a cost-effective security program in Oklahoma City at the time?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Traficant, that's somewhat difficult question for me to answer. I wasn't present and I don't know the circumstances. As I understand it, there was a significant reduction in the number of law enforcement officers assigned to the Federal Protection Service.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. That's fine. You weren't there, but the ultimate point is, who made the decision? Was it a regional security director, you're saying, that had complete control on the number of security personnel, police officers?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Okay. Are you familiar with the intelligence now that was banging around about April 19th, 1995, Chief?

    Mr. EDWARDS. Portions of it.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Was there ever any investigation, any facts transmitted from the FBI or any other Federal law enforcement entity to the Federal Protective Service, relative to some of the dynamics of that particular day? Such as, it was an anniversary of Waco? And on that day there was scheduled to be executed in Arkansas, an individual by the name of Richard Wayne Snell, who had threatened to blow up the Federal building, the Murrah Building, several years earlier? Was any of that ever made available to any police officer in GSA hierarchy or structure to the best of your knowledge?

    Mr. EDWARDS. I don't know, I can't answer that.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Let me ask you this. Is there an intelligence unit that cross analyses intelligence data that could, in fact, speak to potential terrorist threats in the FPS?
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. EDWARDS. Currently what we've done in response to a directive or mandate coming out of the 1995 DOJ vulnerability study is to establish a function within our criminal investigators. They will be primarily responsible for coordinating information that's gathered by the FBI or other intelligence agencies and disseminating that information to the regional directors so that we can properly posture our people. That's what we do now.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. You know what I think? I think we looked at FPS as less than police officers. We put some bodies in Federal buildings to pass and we hoped for the best. We took for granted—sheriffs do it; I've done it; everybody's done it—that there would not be crime or significant tragedy. Then when it occurs, we all look back. But we're not going to beat the drums on that issue and hold anybody's head up for an execution.

    I think that is the systemic problem that we face in securing our Federal buildings. We haven't looked at our police force as a police force. They do not have the strict autonomy in structure to do their job. They're not intracoordinating with other police units. Perhaps maybe they're not even viewed by the police units as being, in fact, police entities.

    And this is the problem. There are lives in those buildings that are at stake. We could spend all the money in the world on all this technology. I think prevention has much to do with that qualified police force. And, evidently, the Congress of the United States—and I must take that blame here, okay?—has evidently relegated the FPS to less than police status. And that's the major problem. I think the Congress deserves a slap here.

    But we can't have that continue. Now here's where we are in this bill from what I see, Chairman. We basically have one major issue, is whether or not that FPS should be a free-standing entity in GSA, report to the GSA administrator, or whether it should still be aligned with PBS. I don't know what it's going to take, but I will say this. Our current program does not protect the American people from the phenomenon of terrorist acts to the best of our ability. And that that's our job here. That isn't Mr. Peck. That's not GSA's job. That's our job. That's where the buck stops.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But I'm looking very carefully at this and I'm willing to work—I know it's late in the year here. I don't know what the status of this bill will be because it does involve increments of money and that may involve more of a scoring process and more of a delaying process.

    But I'm going to say this to the staff and the committee, one thing that must be done with this bill, these must be police officers. Those police officers should be administered, not through a real estate activity, but through a police activity. They should be intercoordinating with other Federal police officers and they should have the respect of other Federal police agencies. Because if someone comes into a building with a bomb, the FBI is not there to greet them, it's the FPS and that FPS has got to do the same job as any other police officer and so trained to do it. They have to be better trained. They have to be specifically trained, even though their jurisdiction may be limited.

    Second of all, they see an action within a reasonable distance of that facility, they should be able to go out and bust that person. There's the language. Bust them; arrest them, wrongdoers.

    And until we do that, we don't have a police force. Right now, we have a security watch post. And we have officers that are too qualified for that. And we should be keeping them; we should be continuing to reinforce. So I am not going to get out with anything more, but I'm hoping, Mr. Peck, we can get on with this. Because I will say one thing, for the future here, as sort of a precursor, unless we make some of these structural changes, they'll be another Oklahoma City. Because we leave open the potential for it. And with that, I yield.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KIM. Thank you.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. One other thing, I ask unanimous consent that some of the other questions in writing be submitted to Mr. Peck, Chief, and their related staff for answer in writing.

    Mr. KIM. Without objection, so ordered. I wanted to say that I firmly support this legislation. I'm going to do my best to expedite this. But I also want to make sure that there's no firm opposition from the administration. That could create some problems. So can I work with you on this?

    Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. I would like to, if I can conclude. As I said, we agree that there is a need for legislation to upgrade the status of the Federal Protective Service Officers to put them in a position to be better able to do their jobs. I agree with just about everything Mr. Traficant just said about the need for more training, they need more people. And I want to work with you, also, to get this legislation to where we can get it passed.

    Mr. KIM. All right.

    Mr. PECK. And I will work with you also to try to get from the Administration a statement of support for what, for the agreement.

    Mr. KIM. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, for participating. The subcommittee will take a recess of two minutes.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [Recess.]

    Mr. KIM. The subcommittee will come to order.

    Our next witness panel this morning we have Mr. Bobby Harnage, National President, American Federation of Government Employees, with officer Tom McGoff; Mr. James Statnick, Regional Vice President, National Federation of Federal Employees; Mr. John Blake, President, Local 529, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, accompanied by Christopher Donolan, and Mr. Robert Byrd, Interim Chairman, National Police Labor Council for the Fraternal Order of Police.

    I'd like to welcome all the gentleman here today. Good morning, and thank you for participating in this hearing.

    Who wishes to start, to make a statement—from left to right?

    Mr. HARNAGE. That works fine with me, sir.

    Mr. KIM. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Harnage.

TESTMONY OF BOBBY L. HARNAGE, SR., NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY TOM McGOFF, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE OFFICER, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; JAMES STATNICK, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; JOHN BLAKE, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS, LOCAL 529; AND ROBERT J. BYRD, INTERIM CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL POLICE LABOR COUNCIL, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HARNAGE. Chairman Kim and Ranking Democrat Traficant, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I'm the National President of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, which represents more than 600,000 Federal employees serving across the nation and around the world.

    Although AFGE represents Federal employees in 70 different agencies, I take particular interest in the work performed by AFGE members, who are responsible for safeguarding the government's customers, employees, and properties.

    I'm accompanied today by Tom McGoff, President of AFGE Local 2264 and also a physical security specialist for the Federal Protective Service. As I'm sure you'll recall, Mr. McGoff represented AFGE at the important hearing Chairman Kim and the subcommittee held in June on Federal building security.

    It is no secret that FPOs are among the lowest paid of all law enforcement personnel in the Federal Government, despite the fact that they face constant personal risk and are often required to make difficult sacrifices. This pay disparity has sometimes made it difficult to recruit and retain the most qualified to be law enforcement officers.

    H.R. 4034 would address this significant problem by requiring the GSA to provide FPS police officers and criminal investigators with the same pay and benefits package given to members of the Secret Service Uniformed Division, many of whom reportedly earn as much as $10,000 more than FPOs who perform similar work.

 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    FPOs have been arbitrarily prevented from doing all that they can do to safeguard persons and property in and around Federal buildings. FPOs have had their hands tied by jurisdictional issues, which arise because they have not been accorded full status as law enforcement officers, and have, thus, often lacked the authority needed to provide a safe environment for Federal employees and the millions of Americans who patronize government facilities every single day.

    H.R. 4034 would address this set of problems by establishing firm rules for FPOs with respect to conduct and arrest, undertaking investigations, working with other law enforcement agencies, and carrying weapons. These additional powers have been carefully drawn by Representative Traficant, and to avoid conflict with other jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies while still allowing the Federal Government to tap the heretofore terribly underused resources of FPOs in the ongoing fight against crime and terrorism.

    The Federal Government's ability to ensure the security of Federal buildings continues to be crippled by in-house staffing shortages. This legislation would address this problem by requiring that there be at least 730 police officers, FTEs, in FPS. Although this falls well short of the 1,000 floor Congress imposed not long ago, the floor in H.R. 4034 would at least force GSA to bolster its in-house workforce.

    While GSA has fervently resisted increasing ESF FPOs in the past, even in defiance of the Congress, I urge Representative Traficant and the subcommittee to improve upon the legislative floor of 730. GSA has repeatedly attempted to bolster its depleted FPO workforce by taking on more and more rent-a-cops. Although AFGE does not object to the wise and judicious use of rent-a-cops to supplement a strong, robust FPO workforce. It is imperative that GSA's contractor security personnel be held to a higher standard.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Representative Traficant's legislation addresses this problem by requiring GSA to develop standards to ensure that contract personnel receive adequate training and are subject to the same background check requirements as FPOs. This would go a long way toward making the contractor workforce more accountable.

    At the same time, AFGE believes that the legislation should be strengthened so that GSA's use of a rent-a-cop is finally made faithful to its original intent: augmenting FPOs, not replacing them.

    Currently, PBS is contracting out the security surveys for Federal facilities. Determining where a facility is vulnerable and how it can be made secure is surely an inherently governmental responsibility, which should be performed by reliable and experienced Federal employees. It would be foolhardy and perhaps even dangerous to rely on contractors to perform this critical function because of how this high-sensitive information can be abused.

    In conclusion, this legislation is an excellent response to the severe problems which continue to jeopardize the safety and security of Federal buildings. Representative Traficant is to be commended for the comprehensive scope of his thoughtful legislation. We look forward to working with him this years and in the years to come to protect his legislation and secure its enactment.

    Chairman Kim, thank you and your capable staff for your continued interest in Federal building security, as well as the two opportunities you have given AFGE to provide our views to the subcommittee. We look forward to working with you and your staff to address these issues raised by this hearing, and I look forward in answering any of your questions.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I've summarize my comments this morning and submitted a written testimony and I ask that that be entered into the record.

    Mr. KIM. Mr. Statnick?

    Mr. STATNICK. Good morning, Chairman Kim, Representative Traficant, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.

    My name is James C. Statnick, and I am a police officer. I have worked for the Federal Protective Service since October of 1993. For the record, I'd like to submit the congressional testimony, dated October 2, 1998, as the official testimony.

    I have worked in the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing, national disasters with FEMA, and the Centennial Olympic bombing in Atlanta, Georgia. To put it simply, I am the police officer who works the street every day. I am also the regional vice president for the GSA Council of Locals. I represent dedicated Federal employees who greatly depend on the passage of 4043—4034. These police officers have long been overlooked and ignored.

    Federal Protective Service police officers are the first line of defense for virtually all Federal facilities across the country. We provide police and security services to more than 8,700 government-owned and leased facilities. We protect the employees, the visitors, and the property for nearly every Federal agency.

    I have traveled throughout GSA and have seen firsthand how differently FPS operates. In most instances, FPS regional directors possess the education and background of real estate professionals, not a law enforcement official. Additionally, there is no requirement to have a law enforcement experience to be the director. In any law enforcement organization, the top level management has to meet the experience levels of the position.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    On the national level, FPS currently has an assistant commissioner, who has the credentials to run FPS as it should be run. But once again, he reports to a real estate person, Commissioner Peck.

    Because of the existing management structure of PBS, the assistant commissioner only has oversight authority, thus limiting his influence and control on national FPS operations. Divorcing FPS from PBS will correct this dilemma, while improving its operation and ensure there are law enforcement personnel at the helm of this service.

    Today, PBS Commissioner testified before you about how they created a new reorganization of the Federal Protective Service. This FPS reorganization was initiated as the FPS Charrette, and later defined as the new FPS.

    The charette team encompassed professionals from PBS, FPS, to include the police officers and special agents. But it was evident the police officers and special agents were only invited to give a legitimacy to the charette, not there to advise as law enforcement professionals.

    Prior to the breakout of the charette teams, PBS officials made it clear, the team should focus on a white paper, meaning FPS should be created from the ground up. However, these same officials made remarks to team leaders about taking FPS police officers out of the patrol cars and making them security specialists in the buildings.

    For police officers, this means they'll be merged with physical security specialists and criminal investigations employees, taken out of uniform, and out of the police cars, in the majority of areas. The police officers will be placed in the building with a blazer. I believe this, as well as my constituents, their duties—excuse me—this dilutes, not enhances the police officers ability to perform what is a normally a specialized function.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    FPS police officers must be fluid and remain on constant patrol in a marked police vehicle, ready to respond for a call for service or deter criminal activity. The majority of all bombings of facilities have occurred outside the building, on the perimeter, not inside the building. The Federal community deserves and wants to see a uniformed police officer responding to incidents.

    For the special agents who remain, this organization—this reorganization would mean they act as intelligence analysts, with the duties of gathering intelligence on foreign and domestic terrorism, as stated in the new FPS.

    These intelligence duties need to be in addition to investigative responsibilities of the special agents. Currently, within FPS there are 54 special agents. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, there were 63.

    Over the years, PBS has tried to pass off its inherently governmental responsibility of maintaining a law enforcement agency to other Federal, State, and local police organizations. The charette recommends the agency should contract out its protection and law enforcement duties.

    In 1995, GSA solicited local police agencies to give a cost analysis of what it would cost to take over the law enforcement duties of Federal facilities. It is very apparent that PBS is trying to do it again with this reorganization, the new FPS.

    Several important quotes from the new FPS concept summary: ''avoid duplication of service that is already provided by other units of the government at the local level.'' This is not true. Law enforcement is an inherently governmental function, which FPS prides.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The new FPS will take this—the new FPS will make the transition from responding primarily to incidents in Federal facilities to a group of law enforcement security officers who can rely on local police. Local police do not have the authority to take action on exclusive jurisdiction property.

    Again, this is not a cost effective measure. PBS has limited the locations with the core city concept in the FPS police force. They have shown this by having the Public Law 100–440 repealed, which mandated a thousand police officers for FPS. It is obvious that the charette is part of GSA's historical attempt to eliminate the FPS police officers.

    In closing, the preservation and enhancement through your assistance will ensure the ever important mission will be accompanied—accomplished with the highest degree of professionalism and standards.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you today. At this time, I'll be glad to answer any questions.

    Mr. KIM. Well, thank you. Mr. Blake?

    Mr. BLAKE. First, I would like to thank the committee and you, Mr. Kim, Chairman, on behalf of the police officers of IBPO for the chance for me to speak here today.

    My name is John Blake, and I have been a FPS police officer for 11 years. Prior to that, I worked for the DOD police and started my career with the Army National Guard. Myself and the membership of the IBPO are sorry that so many tragic events finally brought this issue to light.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    My first point will be to reaffirm our commitment to provide quality police and security services to the Federal community and the general public. I only wish that I could be standing before in front of the Murrah Federal Building memorial instead of this committee room so that my words would have more impact and drive home to everyone that we must work together to ensure that the tragedy of Oklahoma and the ones since are not repeated.

    My next point will be to address our concerns over how FPS has been utilized and how we feel, as the cops on the beat, it should be.

    First, the IBPO strongly supports House Bill 4034, and we feel it is long overdue and will help ensure that FPS will be able to respond to the law enforcement and security needs of the Federal community and the general public, who visit and utilize government facilities, by the millions, each year.

    Our hope is that the momentum brought by the tragedy, which have brought this issue to light, will carry us towards our common goal and that it will done before any further tragedies occur.

    I would like to say that the police officer, who is highly motivated, properly trained and adequately compensated is the first line of defense against crime and terrorism. And I stress that because that is the person—when you're in your GSA or your SSA, or your IRS office, or your whatever other government agency that occupies a Federal building under the GSA control, and you call for the police. And the local police don't come, or the local police don't come as quickly. You expect the service of a police officer, which means that you expect a uniformed police officer to respond and to take charge of the situation and to rectify the situation, be it by arrest or be it by counseling. And this is important because everything that's been coming out now as far what the other people stated on the charette has been, I believe, watering down, or a diminishing, of the police officer duty, which I believe and which a lot of—which the IBPO believe is just another way the GSA has come across with, like, I would almost call it a back-door attempt to get rid of the GSA FPS police officer.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    After all, it is the police officer who has to take approach the irate visitor or the upset and sometimes violent client. And it is the police officer whose life will be ultimately on the line. I myself carry the unit number of a fallen FPS police officer, who was murdered on his last night on duty as he resigned to find a higher paying job. I wear this number with pride and think about his sacrifice every time I go on duty. Every day FPS police officers go that extra mile in the pursuit of their duties, and quite frankly they do it because of personal motivation and dedication, not for compensation, which is woefully inadequate when compared to other law enforcement agencies.

    Just recently, we had an SSA claimant threaten to kill an entire office of SSA employees. We doggedly pursued the suspect, using all available avenues to see him prosecuted and ultimately found guilty of this crime. We did this despite the lack of resources and even the apathy of many involved. But in the end, a heavily armed, mentally unstable man, who the local police had a policy of avoidance with, was finally dealt with, and the safety of the SSA employees was safeguarded. This is the type of service that FPS gives to the government agencies that occupy GSA buildings. And this is the level of service that they should expect as the norm, not the exception.

    This and similar stories repeat everyday throughout the country. FPS constantly responds to this type of incident, just as other like law enforcement agencies do, but is not as equipped to handle them. And through the grace of God and the dedication of its police officers does.

    In closing, I again thank the committee and your, Mr. Kim, and look forward to working with you on this important, timely legislation. I also thank you on behalf of the membership, who sincerely hope that FPS will be brought into the 20th century, because essentially what we are doing is catch up. And it would be something if FPS stop being the training ground for other law enforcement agencies, who take our personnel and our expertise to one that sets the standards.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. KIM. Well, thank you, Mr. Blake.

    The Chair recognizes Mr. Byrd.

    Mr. BYRD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Traficant, distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development.

    I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this morning.

    I am Robert Jackson Byrd, Interim Chairman of the National Police Labor Council of the Fraternal Order of Police, and an officer with the Federal Protective Service. I am here today at the request of Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest organization of law enforcement professionals, to testify about the pressing need to enhance Federal building security, an issue of the utmost importance to members of this committee, FPS officers, Federal employees and the millions of Americans who visit Federal buildings every day.

    The Fraternal Order of Police strong supports H.R. 4034, the Federal Protective Service Reform Act, introduced by Representative Traficant. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and the deaths of 168 innocent people in 1995, many in the Congress and FPS began to seek ways to ensure that such a senseless loss of life would never happen again.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, those of us who put our lives on the line every day to ensure the safety of Federal employees and visitors to America's Federal buildings believe that H.R. 4034 is an important step toward improving the capabilities of the Federal Protective Service to meet the security challenges of the 21st century.

    Recently, and in direct response to this legislation, the General Services Administration has proposed a series of sweeping reforms for the Federal Protective Service, implemented under the auspices of the Public Buildings Service. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we view these changes as too little, too late. Rather than enhance the professionalism of current FPS, GSA's approach is to move away from our traditional focus on patrolling and response activities to simply maintaining a security presence in those Federal buildings under the control of the administrator and relying more on local law enforcement to provide rapid response to critical events.

    Unfortunately, one of the most frustrating and dangerous aspects of the tragedy in Oklahoma City was its unpredictability. This is the nature of terrorists and terrorists action. The randomness of their targets leaves little opportunity to plan ahead. We believe that the only way to ensure security at America's Federal buildings is through a highly trained and dedicated group of law enforcement professionals serving in the Federal Protective Service.

    The goal of the Federal Protective Service Reform Act is simple: to remake the Federal Protective Service into an elite Federal law enforcement agency, with well-trained, professionally led, highly motivate cadre of officers. We believe that this—that it correctly addresses the problem with the Federal Protective Service, namely the status of FPS within the General Services Administration, unclear lines of authority and jurisdiction, and non-competitive salary and benefits for our officers.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would like to deviate from my written testimony and just address a few issues, not go over things that have already been stated by our counterparts here.

    We should look at the history of the organization. It was created in 1971 under its current status of the Federal Protective Service by an Executive Order signed into law by Richard Nixon. FPS was consolidated to do a function of protecting Federal employees, Federal workers, visitors, and the buildings. By doing that, it put a function that was created to be specific—had a direct mission. The officers in the 1970's had a strength of 5,000 strong. The number of 5,000 is approximately what we have in contract guards today. Since that number of officers have been reduced to less than 400 at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing; and today, around 670 or a little more.

    History should be a guide to us for the future. We should learn from the mistakes of the past. One core issue here that we are continuing to discuss is the structure of the Federal Protective Service within GSA. The simple thing we should look at is—all the studies and monies that have been spent over the decade come to at least close to a $1 million or more. Have we learned anything from the studies? Yes, we have. We've learned things from the recent charette program. But the question is what are we going to do. Are we just going to write studies, make proposals, have posturing, and look nice for the public and members of Congress. The answer should be we're going to take action. Action is what is needed. And by making the Federal Protective Service a dedicated law enforcement organization with a specific mission, not to infringe upon States' rights or the local authorities, this will go a long way.

    Federal employees want service. They don't want excuses or bureaucratic finger pointing. They want action. Our officers in the nation's capital today are not able to take any action unless it's on GSA property. They witness crimes routinely that affect Federal employees. Two Federal employees were recently killed in 1997, I believe, in the summer, run down by a motorist going at high speed in an area frequented by Federal employees, adjacent to Federal property. If we had such jurisdiction, this tragedy may not have occurred. That's just one example of why the Federal Protective Service needs to be given its full authority and made a separate entity within the General Services Administration.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now the charette talks about the issue of going away from the core city concept. Well, simply, the reason we're in the core city concept is because the agency, over a decade ago, decided to cut back, dismantle, contract everything out. That is why we are in the core city concept. Officers were moved away from cities that had large numbers of Federal employees or diminished numbers of Federal employees into a core city. Those cities that didn't have a certain amount were relegated to the local authority. While local authorities have a mission of their own, they do provide service to our Federal workers. That service is not always to what FPS officers could do, but it is done. The GSA does not even know for sure that the crimes that are committed in those buildings are even reported, because of inaccurate and obsolete data collection processes.

    Simply: we should move forward and take action. Over a year ago, I sat down, after completing my first year on the Federal Protective Service, and drafted out some basic ideas that I thought would be necessary to improve our organization.

    I sent these ideas to Congressman Traficant, who graciously assisted me in putting this into the format necessary. And it has been a work in progress since that period. In consultation with numerous officers across the nation, other union officials, to include officials of the Federal Protective Service. And his is where we are today. We are at the crossroads. Do we move forward or do we go backwards. Those are issues that need to be settled by you, the Congress of the United States.

    The General Accounting Office has done numerous studies. In June of 1998, we had a previous hearing in this subcommittee, to summarize issues of building security upgrades and many problems that have been hindered by program implementation.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would just like to give you couple of comments based on the review of that study. GSA—thus, GSA is not in a good position to manage its own program to mitigate security threats, and that basically that was defined to the continued bureaucratic system that it operates under. Even though we want to move into a more business-like posture, some functions of government will never be able to operate as businesses do. We're not making money. This is not a profit-making operation. We're just transferring the taxpayer dollars from one agency to another—playing the shell game.

    Upgrade obligations, data unreliable or not available by type. Now, the General Accounting Office is very credible organization, so I take what they write and produce as being legitimate. It's just to say that FPS has made efforts, but we need to move forward. We need to move forward and take action.

    Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Byrd. I do have some—a couple of questions.

    I want you to understand that everybody's in agreement in expanding or actually broadening the jurisdictional scope to include carrying firearms and et cetera. As a matter of fact, I commend Mr. Traficant for taking the leadership to bring this piece of legislation to this subcommittee. It's long overdue. The question is separating this FPS from the PBS. So let me ask a question focused on that issue.

    Mr. Harnage, in your opinion, is FPS properly managed under PBS? Are you having some problems in the way that PBS is managing FPS?
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HARNAGE. No, sir, it's not. And I think besides the—what's available to us from what's taken place over the years, I think Mrs. Norton's question this morning should have alerted the members of the committee that it's going to continue to be a problem. We're talking about real estate people dealing with law enforcement. And that's oil and water when it comes down to what you have to do in order to protect not just property, but people, Federal employees, and the public that move in and out of these properties each day. I thoroughly support this piece of legislation. It's good legislation. And it seems to me that the only real disagreement that GSA has in this legislation or the significant disagreement is over this issue. And I think we just simply have to look at the history of the organization and just say it is has not worked. And there is no assurance that any proposed changes they make is going to improve it working.

    Mr. KIM. So how does separating FPS from the Public Buildings Service facilitate better communication and better service? Can you tell us why is it that separation would do a better job?

    Mr. HARNAGE. Well, first of all, you remove a layer of bureaucracy. It may be looked at creating a layer, but actually removing a layer. The law enforcement official can go directly to the GSA with whatever problems they have rather than having to go through another layer of bureaucracy who does not have necessarily the training or the experience or the desire to do what's necessary for security.

    Mr. KIM. Mr. Statnick, you don't believe that PBS attempted to downgrade FPS, do you?
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STATNICK. I believe they have. They've shown it over the years. They showed it by repealing the legislation that mandates the 1,000 police officers. They're showing it now by this charette that they have put forward the new FPS. This new FPS calls for offering the police officers an opportunity to leave the uniform and become a professional that wears a blazer—put him in a building. Who's going to be left to patrol? If they get rid of us, take us out of uniform, offer us these enhanced pay and benefits packages, who's going to stay in uniform? Who's going to be the one that answers the calls? They guy in the blazer? The guys who's out doing a survey? No.

    They've shown it by doing cost analysis with local police. I have an analysis from 1995, which was issued 20 days after the Oklahoma City bombing. And in that analysis it said the San Francisco Police Department would sit there and do our jobs, just for the City of San Francisco now, for over $2 million a year, and that's not including the cost of responding to each call; that they will charge an additional amount of money every time that they respond.

    Mr. KIM. PBS is downgrading FPS to maintain a certain level of pay scale, is that the way you believe?

    Mr. STATNICK. Yes, I don't think they've supported the police officers enough or even at all. You know, if you look at the history, PBS would always use our FTE. The FTE of police officers has always been lower than that of PBS. They use our money. They use our staffing. Why would they sit there and want to support something now that's going to make us better?

 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KIM. Mr. Blake, what would consider a reasonable and acceptable level of contract services in your opinion? What do you think of the 5,000 private contract guards out there working in parallel with you?

    Mr. BLAKE. I think that the problem with the contract guards, other than the fact that there's inadequate screening, that it seems to, at least in our region, we've had some major, major criminal activity involving contract guards. I think the real problem with the contract guards is that they're supposed to augment FPS, not replace FPS. I think the—that what people fail to remember is that GSA promotes contract guards as a viable replacement of FPS police officers. When GSA talks or puts forth to a client agency that wants FPS police officers, like—we're very well know and very well respected throughout the government community as being very professional people and being very government specific in our duties. And when an agency will say to GSA, we want FPS police officers. GSA counters with we'll give you security guards who are just as good as FPS police officers. There's no follow-up documentation to that. There's no—there's no, GSA, you know, follow-up response to questions of professionalism other than they're just as good. And I think that the real problem here is that the original or at least the goal that I was—that I thought that they security guards would play would be to augment FPS police officers to report crimes to FPS, and to be almost a buffer in areas where or jobs that FPOs would be unsuited for, which would be simply standing by a garage, or simply standing by a door, checking, you know, government employee ID's. And the problem that GSA—the problem that we've had with them is now they replace FPS police officers. And I think that's a really, really unsafe situation for the government to be in and for the general public to be in, especially when given the problems that we've had with these security guards as far as criminal activity, abandonment of posts. There have been security guards that when a fight breaks out decide because of age or disability or whatever that it's not their problem. And they leave. Or when a bombing incident—a bomb threat is made, they decide that their $5 a hour job or their $6 an hour a job isn't worth the potential of their life, so they leave. So then the FPO who responds or the FPS officer that responds later on, who's not paid much better, is the one whose life is on the line.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KIM. In other words, well—

    Mr. BLAKE. I support augmentation. I don't support replacement.

    Mr. KIM. You mentioned inadequate screening—that kind of implies that some of them may not be qualified to be in that position. What you're saying is augmenting, not at the same level, basically. But when the FPS—yet when a vacancy is created then they, the GSA, hires a private contractor to replace the FPS, and they are not quite as qualified sometimes, with inadequate screening. You think they use that as bargaining chips to press your pay scale down? Is that what you're implying?

    Mr. BLAKE. I think that that's a good point. I think that the GSA can say that they have on paper 6,000 security people without having to specifically say that only 675 of them are actually FPS police officers. And I think that your point about pay is a good point because we have situations now where there are FPOs paid less than these private security guards.

    So, yes, I think that it is a tool.

    Mr. KIM. Is creating this independent operation will it sort of, not eliminate98 but result in a better situation——

    Mr. BLAKE. It gives you much more oversight.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KIM. All right.

    Mr. Byrd, you mentioned a couple of times that GSA is not managing well running the police department. They are profit making et cetera. What do you mean by that? You mean the GSA or GSA or PBS, which is not operating well?

    Mr. BYRD. Well, the Public Buildings Service is—the Public Buildings Service is the real estate enterprise. The way the Public Buildings Service funding comes is from the Federal Building Fund. That comes from the rents generated, the rents appropriated to Federal agencies from you the Congress and paid to GSA, which facilitates the spaces that they occupy.

    Mr. KIM. I understand that.

    Mr. BYRD. They pay for—their rents include maintenance, security, and various other taskings dealing with facilities. The Public Buildings Service manipulates every aspect of that, from the monies that the Federal Protective Service receives. FPS is a division of the Public Buildings Service, as the Federal Supply Service is a division. But real estate is their main focus. While security is an important issue, people who are not versed in security matters or law enforcement may not always give it the priority it should be given, or they are not aware that while a security is the same as an FPS officer, they do not have that experience. They will not know that. GSA is divided into 11 regions. There are 11 FPS directors. Out of the 11, less than four have any law enforcement or credible security backgrounds. So if you're tasked with making decisions of budgets in regard to issues in your area, you don't have the experience. You're going to focus on what you know. And if you're real estate, real estate is what you're going to decide on.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Byrd. At this time, I would like to yield to Mr. Traficant.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. I will defer to Dr. Cooksey and hold my questions after he's done.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Traficant and Mr. Kim. First, I will compliment all of you on your presentation. You all do a good job of handling the questions. We get witnesses here sometime that I'm skeptical about what they say. I came here very gullible and believed everything that everybody said when they sat here at this table. But you are very credible witnesses.

    Mr. Byrd, do you have a background or a degree in business besides your law enforcement degree?

    Mr. BYRD. No, I don't, sir, but I am a college student.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Yes. I'm impressed with your understanding of business and the economics and the structure of that. And I was particularly impressed with your testimony. It was real good.

    Unfortunately, this day and time all agencies have to have some business responsibility, even law enforcement people, because we're basically managing the taxpayers' money that's given to us. And that has to be done, and that's just part of the responsibility, no matter what part of government you're in. And I agree with a lot of what you said, but that one thing, we've got to handle the taxpayers' money properly.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Harnage. That is the correct pronunciation?

    Mr. HARNAGE. That's correct.

    Mr. COOKSEY. I understand your concern about outsourcing, and you stated that also, Mr. Statnick, but still that's just a fact of modern-day business practices and outsourcing and using rent-a-cop, which is a term I was never familiar with. I think it's just a part of what we're doing. But I agree with you that we need some basic structure or organization to—of people that are full time in the Federal Protective Service. My question, then, is how many of you get your check from the Federal Protective Service. How many of the four of you do that—are paid by the Federal Protective Service directly?

    Four of you. You are not, Mr. Harnage.

    How many of you get up every morning and put on a uniform and put on a weapon and go out and carry out some protective service.

    All of you. Good. Great.

    I consider that absolutely fundamental to being a good witness, and that's good.

    My question, maybe to you, Mr. Statnick, what is the average salary of someone who works for the FPS. What's the highest salary and the lowest and beginning salary level?
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STATNICK. Right now, it depends on what region you work in. You do receive locality pay, depending on what city you're working in.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Where are you?

    Mr. STATNICK. I'm in Atlanta, Georgia. And right now, we have a total of, I think, it's 12 police officers, which are GS–8's and the remainder of our police force that's there, which is another 14, are all GS–6's. So if you look at the average, your average salary is going to be around $28,000 a year.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. That answers that question. What do you think it should be?

    Mr. STATNICK. Comparable to the job we do. And to be honest with you if you look at all the other Federal police agencies that are here in Washington and across the board, their starting salaries are a least around $32,000, $33,000 a year.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Good. Do you get any additional pay if you're actually out on the street or if you're in a situation where you're exposed to more risk? When I was in the military, we got combat pay when we were over in southeast Asia, for example, but we didn't get here. Do you get any additional?

    Mr. STATNICK. No, there is no additional pay.

 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. COOKSEY. Higher incentive. So that's the basic salary?

    Mr. STATNICK. That's correct.

    Mr. COOKSEY. One comment to you in particular, but really to all of you. Number one, I think the Federal Protective Service should consider moving from a 9 millimeter automatic to a 40 S&W R45.

    Mr. STATNICK. Sir, if I can.

    Mr. COOKSEY. A 44 magnum.

    Mr. STATNICK. To be honest with you, we do carry—Mr. Peck had testified in the past, in June, that we carry 9 millimeters. We do not carry 9 millimeters. We carry 40 calibers.

    Mr. COOKSEY. But the two men that were killed here this summer were both carrying 9 millimeters, and they were taken out by a man using a .38 special. Would you compare the two cartridges as a difference in the size?

    Mr. STATNICK. Yes, there is.

    Mr. COOKSEY. One other—I know a criticism of members of Congress. I think Congress needs to be held to higher standards here. I think there are lot of members of Congress that walk through the security places and take their guests without them really being checked. To me, that's a big loophole in the system, because there could be someone that's a guest of a member of Congress, and they do not go through a metal detector, and they could have a weapon or a bomb. So, I think you ought to put that in as a recommendation to Congress, and I'll support it. I see it all the time. And I've heard stories of members of Congress walking through with 50 or 100 guests. This is their group, and it may be good politics back home, but it's not good safety or security.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I think that we will continue having a problem in this country. We're going to have terrorists. There are certain parts of the world that have a habit of exporting terrorists. I'm reading—I'm in the process of reading a book, just the last couple of days, about one of the major countries that produces terrorists. And that is going to be a problem. We're going to always have these psychopaths like this guy that did the bombing and that was convicted of doing the bombing grew up in New York, moved to the Southwest. And, you know, he obviously either was either a psychopath and a terrorist. And I think that's going to be a continuing problem.

    How many men do you think—men and women—do you think you need? If you've got 400, or, say—do you have 400 or 670?

    Mr. STATNICK. There is 674, I think.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. How many additional people do you think you need in the FPS?

    Mr. STATNICK. To be honest with you, I couldn't give you an exact answer on that. If we have 8,700 owned and leased facilities across the country, what is an adequate amount? You know, is 8,700 police officers for 8,700 facilities adequate? I can't give you an honest answer on that. I couldn't even begin to justify it. Because if you look at it, in New York City, to bring that up as an example, you have millions and millions of people there. And yet, they only have—what's the number of police officers in New York? Eighty some thousand police officers. I'm talking about how many police officers? No. Thirty-eight thousand police officers in New York City. Now, they have millions and millions of people, so how do you do a comparison. I couldn't give you an answer on that.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COOKSEY. Well, it's a problem.

    Again, part of your—your biggest problem is that you are working for politicians, and I think the two biggest problems—I am probably more pro law enforcement than anyone else in this room for reasons that I'm not going to state here publicly. But your biggest problems are politicians and Federal judges. Politicians use and abuse law enforcement people too often. I'm from Louisiana. We had a really bad situation in New Orleans, where you have bad politics, bad politicians, and you know that the police force was so bad there that they were part of the problem. And it took some—actually some business people that came in and straightened it out. It was not the mayor or the city council. And the FBI helped, and it's becoming a safer city, and I think this is becoming a safer city.

    The other problem is Federal judges. They had down rulings that make it difficult for you to carry out your responsibilities, and I sympathize with you there. Again, as I stated earlier, I'm on your team. You do a great job. We appreciate what you do.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KIM. The Chair recognizes Mr. Traficant.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Number one, I want to compliment this panel on your competency as police officers. You really testified well here, and you show the ability that we have from the broad-based knowledge you have. And we're proud to see that. I'm proud to see that.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Also, good to see you, Mr. McGoff. I know you're from Boston. You testified previously. Didn't testify here with Mr. Harnage today, and thank you for coming back.

    I want to tell this panel that you mentioned me quite a few times, and I'm glad they worked on this legislation. But I want to tell you something. Mr. Kim, Dr. Cooksey, and all staff and members on both sides are very supportive of you, or this thing would never have been today, if they didn't, in fact, even schedule it. And I want to thank them for that. Because I think what we're talking about here today is very important.

    I have a couple unanimous consents before I go forward.

    Number one, I'd ask unanimous consent that the qualification of the FPS regional directors be made available to our subcommittee in writing and with documentation in a reasonable time period.

    Mr. KIM. Without objection.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Number two, I ask unanimous consent that the answers to the questions posed to this panel be made available in writing to the Director of GSA, the Director of PBS, and the Director of FPS in a reasonable manner for their response in writing to the answers of the questions that this panel has given to this panel. Do you understand my unanimous consent?

    Mr. KIM. Without objection, so ordered.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. And before I go any further, I'd also further like to ask this panel for any ideas and suggestions you have in the event that the jurisdictional resistance of separating FPS from PBS in its chartered structure. If that becomes a hangup detriment, I would like in writing from you any suggestions you would have relative to that in the event that it might be the only stumbling block we may have to make with some other necessary. Now having said that, I think the autonomy of FPS is very important for the reasons that we've talked here.

    I have a couple questions and a couple comments.

    Number one, contract guards are not on the government's schedule of benefits. Is that correct?

    Mr. STATNICK. Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. So they have become part of a cost effective mode of—modus operandi for PBS. Now if a contract guard is responsible, as it was—as that occurred in Oklahoma City. And let's say that in any building, they're patrolling a building, say, after normal business hours. If an incident would occur in their jurisdictional boundary as it's written today, who would they call and who would they report that incident to first?

    Anyone?

    Mr. STATNICK. If I may. If there's an incident, depending on where it happened. To give an example, in the City of Nashville, which is within the region I work, if something happens in that region, that security guard is going to set there and call the local police, because there's not FPS available to get there in a timely manner.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    If it happened in the City of Atlanta, they're going to call FPS.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Then, they would report after the local police report—whether it was a full-time FPS officer or contract guard—they would then report the local police report as it is to the FPS or to PBS?

    Mr. STATNICK. It would eventually get forwarded to FPS. I've known. I can give you an example, and it happens constantly down in region four, that the security officers call the local police. They do their little report, and then months, a few months later, it finally gets down to the police officers to do a follow-up investigation on it.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. To the best of your knowledge, each of you can give a yes or no on this, have you ever been a part of an intelligence gathering mechanism from either PBS or FPS that brings the officers together and goes over the likelihood of similar incidents that may speak to perhaps some orchestrated plan that could speak to some possible terrorists activity. Have you ever been a part of any of that strategy or planning?

    Mr. STATNICK. If I could. Well, I worked in two different regions. I used to work in San Francisco, and I was the intelligence officer for the police officers. In my role as the intelligence officer, I was a part of a team that encompassed local police agencies in the Bay Area. And we didn't really deal with terrorism issues. We dealt with demonstrations, crime, things that were daily occurrences that would go against the Federal Government and the local police. We would meet every couple weeks and sit down and discuss what was happening—crime trends and so forth. Currently, right now, within FPS, there are only two special agents that are a part of the FBI's task force. One of them is John Hartman in San Francisco, California; the other one's a special agent in Texas. No other FPS police officer—excuse me, FPS special agents sit on that task force with the FBI.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. See the reason for my question is: for example, let's just say there's organization X that is known to be a terrorist organization, and there's an incident filed where in an abstract situation a guy was of organization X on the grounds. He wasn't supposed to be on there. There was a police report on a John Doe. And then there was police report on a John Doe, Jr., maybe in Memphis. And John, Jr., Doe the third may be in Boston. And they were all organization X, and they had traced organization X. What I'm trying to find out is there anybody that's looking at the possibility of organizational terrorist activities and the likelihood over and beyond what you people are doing?

    Mr. Blake?

    Mr. BLAKE. Yes, thank you, Mr. Traficant.

    I think I understand the gist of your question there, and what Mr. Statnick spoke about from his prior experience was something that was obviously done because of the local dynamic of the supervisors that he worked with—in other words, to appoint a regional police intelligence officer. And this goes back to something that you mentioned earlier, which is that depending on the individual dynamics, the individual law enforcement experience of the individual regional securities director, you're going to have—you're not going to have the cohesion, which I think was what you're saying, that normally would be part of, say, a large metropolitan police department or even like another—like the Capitol Police or the Park Police, where they have a streamlined structure where information is shared across the board. There is no way, at least in my summation and at least from my experience that if you had a group in San Francisco that also had ties to Atlanta that ultimately would be planting something in Boston—I would think that it would be a matter of luck that something like that would be discovered, not as a matter of any official policy that's freestanding right now. And that to include the fact that there are just two people on this intelligence task force. And even those two people, you know, he knew their names. I didn't know who they were.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. It's mostly because of the innovation of the one particular area it's not a systemic type of strategy or intelligent approach to securing building. That's what you're saying, right?

    Mr. BLAKE. Yes, it's more ad hoc. Yes, there's 11 regions, which are kingdoms. Each kingdom has a presidential appointee who dictates what they do and how they do it.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. See the point, and I'll get to Mr. Byrd your comment—the point I'm getting at is that I'm not so sure to the committee that our FPS is getting the respect that it should be getting as a police entity. And they're just the recipient of notices, and they're not necessarily a part of—an integral part of a strategy and law enforcement mechanism.

    Mr. Byrd.

    Mr. BYRD. Well, in regard to your issue about intelligence, to my knowledge, we currently don't have a mechanism today that could operate effectively as it should. Now they're in the process of developing that mechanism. That's going to take time due to the fact of intelligence gathering analysis is a very complicated matter and requires a level of skill that we currently do not have. The information we do receive, if I'm assigned here in the nation's capital, we get briefings on heightened states of alert or to look out for a certain thing. But I don't believe we get the things we should get. Intelligence, in my opinion, is more than just CNN and newspaper clippings. It's a lot more. Now, FPS in the early 1970's and the mid 1970's had such an entity, when they had demonstrations and anti-government groups demonstrating during that period. That mechanism was dismantled prior to the early 1980's as the organization changed from being in the buildings to a more smaller organization.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. The point that I'm getting at, and I'm sure all of you are familiar with the vulnerability surveys, are you not? Would you agree that vulnerability surveys that are also a part of an intelligence system, if you will, a model to try and hopefully prevent and identify at least on a priority basis the most vulnerable of buildings and systems and weaknesses within regions. Do you agree with that?

    To the best of your knowledge, did PBS plan to contract out that function?

    Mr. MCGOFF. If I may, sir. In region five, which is your region, they did 23 separate occasions where they contracted out this survey process, unbeknownst to the unions. And basically, they've given a private security firm access to Federal facilities. And these security—there's no way to control that information. We can't control it. We don't know where it is now. It may be in cyberspace. We don't know—I think GSA may have to move those agencies, quite frankly, because they've been breached—the security's been breached there. PSS is considering—they do the security survey, and we don't even give those surveys out to government agencies that request them. They almost need a FOIA to get them. Yet, we're going to let a private company come in and do this. It's amazing to me.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. McGoff to the best of your knowledge, or anybody, did the FPS object to this or have they been on record as having objected. Not the officers I'm talking about. The FPS administrators?

    Mr. MCGOFF. I talked to an FPS administrator in region five who just dropped his head, because an ARA made him to it. He had no control over that.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. TRAFICANT. That point I'm making to start here and to the members is, you know, our security in Federal building has one major driving influence, and that is us. And it's not to be taken lightly, and it is significant and must be addressed in an economical fashion, we must provide security. But at what price? And what price do you put on human lives? We're now getting to the point, we're contracting out—how vulnerable it is. Well, who gets this information? Where does this information—how do we secure this information? Do we have it? Does our committee have it? I would ask unanimous consent that any of these vulnerability surveys and—that have been done or contracted out or the process for which they are done be made available to us in writing, with an explanation from the PBS administrator.

    Mr. KIM. Without objection.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Okay, I just have one last thing I'd like to say. I think that you are involved more in a process here today than in the hurdle—I don't know if there's a way this thing can be done in this Congress. I'm at least hoping that our Transportation Infrastructure Committee will be able to act on this matter. And if our subcommittee can do that in the coming week—at least have some action taken by the Congress. And then the respective entities that play within can go to work and do the job to try and help. I want you to write to us. I want you to give us your suggestions. I want you to look at that one major thing I talked about, because what I am hearing is they'll accept the bill. The don't want the separation. And I'm not willing personally and I'm not the person that's going to make that decision to just back off the separation because I think that's a part of the answer to this, that that separation and the jurisdictional structure is very important to whether or not we're going to have a police entity here or if we're going to have out a—the throw's you ball out type of program and good luck. You see and I'd rather err on the side of the police answer to it. Now I am very strengthened by your testimony here, not because you support this legislation, but the quality of your testimony. You represented yourself well. You know your line of business. That business is police work. That's what's going to protect our citizens. I don't care how much money we put into technology. So I agree with Dr. Cooksey on that, so I would hope, Chairman, that this panel would appreciate your efforts. I really mean that, and I want to thank you here personally. You didn't need to bring this up. I know there's cost issues. I know how tough it is with cost issues. But you have helped. You helped to bring it this far. And I want to thank you, and I would hope that maybe we can mark this thing up and see if we can lobby to get it done.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you.

    Mr. KIM. I thank the gentleman.

    Mr. HARNAGE. If I may, I would like to touch on a few of your questions.

    First of all on cost effective, it's a matter of how much risk we want to take. Contractor guards or rent-a-cops, there's a certain degree of risk as long as they are allowed to be employed without the qualifications required or background check required. You can get them at a lower cost. So, it's a matter of how much risk. You can lower the cost, but if you have another Oklahoma bombing, I'm not too sure it was cost effective.

    On the jurisdiction risk, one thing that was said this morning that I want you to look into. It was indicated by the previous panel that although their jurisdiction was limited, they were professional people and if something occurred just outside their jurisdiction, within their view, they was trusted to respond. They would do the right thing.

    The fact is that GSA has put these people on notice that they, if they act outside of their jurisdiction, GSA will not be behind them. They're on their own. They're at risk. The only people they can rely on is the judge doing the right thing, not GSA. They would have to even provide their own defense at their own expense. So, I think you need to explore that with GSA—that, sure, they would do the right thing. They're human and they're seen with a uniform and the public would expect somebody standing there, in that physical presence to do something. And they're in jeopardy if they don't do anything, because then they might taken to court for not doing anything. But GSA has already put them on notice that they're on their own. And, Mr. Chairman, for your concern and for yours took Mr. Traficant, about the support of the administration and particularly in this area of separation. I' fully support your bill. I think it's a good bill, a good piece of legislation. And I'll use whatever influence my office has to see that the administration gets behind this legislation.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KIM. The Chair recognizes Mr. Traficant for the last comment.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. Look, but don't touch. And be careful—sometimes in law enforcement you have to react and instincts are important to law enforcement at a critical moment of time. And when that's taken away, you really don't have law enforcement. We all know that.

    Mr. HARNAGE. Cost you your life or whoever you defended life.

    Mr. TRAFICANT. So I'd like to mention one thing, though, that this bill does not affect the U.S. Marshall Service in any way. This is a bill that affects the FPS, at this point. And I wanted to make that clear for the record. We had some concerns. And that's the legislative intent.

    Mr. KIM. Thank you, gentleman, all. I'd like to wish—to thank all participants of the hearing this morning. If there are no further questions, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]

    [Insert here.]