Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
THE U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S FEDERAL BUILDING SECURITY PROGRAM
Thursday, October 7, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tillie K. Fowler [chairwoman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Mrs. FOWLER. The subcommittee will please come to order.
The Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency
Management Subcommittee hearing on the General Service Administration's Federal building security program will now begin. We're going to address the status of the security program today, and we will receive testimony regarding GSA's progress in adopting the security recommendations of the General Accounting Office and the GSA Inspector General.
Today, the subcommittee will hear from GSA, the GSA Inspector General, and the General Accounting Office on this important issue.
Since the unprecedented bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, the threat of terrorist activities in the United States has become an even greater concern. As a result, our goal has been to significantly strengthen the security measures in Federal buildings to protect our citizens, our Federal workforce and our Federal assets.
Last year, both the GSA IG and GAO testified that the Public Building Service had made progress in the installation of security countermeasures but that there were serious operational, financial and administrative problems that weakened GSA's efforts. GSA's security upgrade tracking and accounting system has proven to be troublesome. GAO testified last year that of the buildings they reviewed, 45 percent of the information contained in this system was erroneous or incomplete. As late as May of 1999 the GSA Inspector General said, and I quote, the database designed to track information pertaining to security countermeasures installed in Federal buildings nationwide is replete with inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated information, rendering the system useless for ongoing management of security operations or for decision- making purposes, end of quote.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I understand that GSA will be unveiling a new security upgrade tracking system early next year, and the subcommittee is interested today to hear about this new system and the time frame in which it's going to be installed.
GAO also testified that they could not reliably determine the actual cost or obligations incurred by the General Services Administration for security upgrades because its accounting system, like its tracking system, contained significant errors. The question here is whether the accounting system data is accurate and whether it actually corresponds with the tracking system.
The GSA IG in a 1999 reassessment of security in Federal buildings found that, for the 207 buildings they inspected, there were 19 major security systems or devices not working.
These are just a few of the issues that we hope to explore today, and I look forward to hearing from GSA, the GSA Inspector General and GAO for an update.
I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Traficant, for his opening statement.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I normally don't make opening statements very long. I am going to make a statement today because I have worked on a couple issues for several years that are at the bottom of this hearing as well as other hearings relative to these points you mentioned. And I want to commend you and your leadership on your subcommittee in tackling a number of issues that may not be the most first page sensationalism, they're not front page sensationalism, they're very important to the country.
As you know, in the past several years I have offered legislation to upgrade the Federal protective service; and, despite a strong bipartisan support for that bill, it continues to languish although we've heard we're going to be marking up later this year. And I have full confidence in Mr. Barnett, who has done a great job with economic development, Public Buildings Service, and Chairman Franks.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I think it's a tribute to Mr. Peck, who has done a pretty good job on this issue, too; and I want to state this before I get started. I think we're lucky to have Mr. Peck. I think he and his people have done a great job.
I'm a strong supporter of GSA and the Public Building Service, and I think there's only one area where we disagree, and I want to make that point made.
But you know there was a GSA hearing, GSA finding and a review that was in evidence in hearings in the past. Some of those were troubling and, without a doubt, brought cause for legislation. I think many of those incidents cited in '97, though, have been corrected and resolved through Mr. Peck's leadership. And I think PBS has taken steps to ensure better accounting and certain other areas are brought into focus.
But as a former sheriff let me say that metal detectors, cameras, and high-tech security equipment are all important. But the most important element of security is a well-trained, properly managed, highly motivated human protective service. And I believe in that regard there are some changes that have to be made through legislation.
Low manpower levels, a questionable compensation system and the increasing use of unqualified contract guards in my opinion have seriously compromised the ability of the service to do the best job it could do. And in not doing the best job it could do, it leaves many of our citizens vulnerable in certain areas where that vulnerability can be mitigated.
I have worked with PBS in drafting the bill H.R. 809. And that one provision, that sticky provision, it would make FPS a stand-alone service within the GSA with its director directly responsible to the administrator of the program, the GSA director. It would establish FPS as the principal law enforcement security agency in our country with respect to Federal buildings.
It makes the Service a free-standing service within GSA. It gives the FPS commissioner full command and control authority over all personnel. It sets minimum law enforcement qualifications standards for senior managers, clarifies and broadens authority of officers, increases the compensation of the officers to the same level of comparable law enforcement agencies—I think that's very important—increases the number of full-time officers to 730 and requires contract security guards to undergo the same background checks as FBS officers.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think since that time it is now endorsed by many of the national police organizations—National Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Brotherhood of Police Officers, American Federation of Government Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees.
But before I close, Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 809 embodies the FBS-related recommendations made in the 1995 Justice Department study conducted in the wake of the April 19th, '95 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. This study's recommendations, which included upgrading the position of FPS within the General Services Administration, were endorsed by the FBI, the Marshall Service, Department of Defense, Secret Service, State Department Administrative Office of United States Courts.
It's time we have a great PBS. Our FPS can be better. We disagree on that one issue, and I am anxious to hear what Mr. Peck and his fine group of colleagues here, as well as Mr. Edwards, have to say to us today.
Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you Mr. Traficant.
Mr. Terry, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. TERRY. No, thank you, Madam Chair.
I did not want to comment specifically on the testimony that we're going to hear today, but I did want to state for the record that this has been an interest of mine personally. The catalyst was the tragedy in Oklahoma City and for Oklahoma. Several of you know and I have stated several times in similar hearings that McVey is on videotape in Omaha, Nebraska, scouting out our courthouse shortly before he chose to go to Oklahoma City. And I think that was part of the trial as well. But it has been the catalyst for change, and I was on a committee to make sure that our Douglas County Courthouse was secure.
So, Jim, some of the safety measures that you point out, security measures were ones that we had none in place in 1995 in our Douglas County courthouse but, as a result of a commission that I sat on, we did implement those. So I just want to make sure the panelists understood that I'm not an expert but at least I have some level of working knowledge in what works and what doesn't.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And probably the most difficult part of the discussions was focusing—what we're talking about is public buildings. And I'm sure this is discussed during the study phase of this, which was when I was still an Omaha City councilman and not a U.S. Congressman from the State of Nebraska when you were doing the study, but it was a difficult balance between protecting the public and preventing public access. And that was something I'm sure that the study has done and now in the implementation you'll probably see.
And this is where I want to also hear of maybe some of the problems in implementing the security measures, that you found out as you implement you are actually preventing access from the public. And that's something that's a fine line. It's a balance. You don't want to exclude the public from having access. You just want to make sure that the people that are in it are safe. That includes the workers and the public. So I just wanted to lay that little bit of groundwork before we started the testimony.
Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Terry.
If there are no further statements, then I would like to call today's panel.
The panel consists of Mr. Bernard L. Ungar, the Director of Government Business Operations Issues from the General Accounting Office. Mr. Ungar is accompanied by his deputy, Mr. Sherrill Johnson. Next, we have Mr. Gene Waszily from the General Services Administration, back with us again this week. And with Mr. Waszily is Mr. Joseph Mastropietro, Regional IG, I finally got it right. And, finally, Mr. Robert Peck, Commissioner of Public Buildings at the General Services Administration; and Mr. Peck is accompanied by Mr. Clarence Edwards, Assistant Commissioner for the Federal Protective Service. I understand you are going to split your time among you.
Gentlemen, before we proceed with your testimony, we will swear you in as we do with all witnesses before this subcommittee. So if you would please stand and raise your right hand.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. FOWLER. We do ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes; and, without objection, your full written statement will be included in the record.
And we have this little system of lights down there. Those who haven't been here, when the yellow light comes on it means you're about out, and red light means it's out. I want to emphasize we do have so many people here on this panel, then we have a second panel after you, so we would like to see if we could keep it moving.
And, yes, I note, Mr. Traficant, we're going to have votes in any minute, too. So we're going to go ahead and get started on this.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Ungar, if you would begin.
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY SHERRILL JOHNSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; EUGENE L. WASZILY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH MASTROPIETRO, REGIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING, NEW YORK AUDIT OFFICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CLARENCE EDWARDS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Mr. UNGAR. Thank you Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee. We're pleased to be here today to help the subcommittee in its effort to oversee the performance of GSA and the progress it's been making in its security upgrade program. As you suggested, I'll summarize my statement and highlight a few of the key points that we've made.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
First, what I would like to talk about are the key findings that we reported last year in our statement and again just briefly summarize what the status is as of today.
First, we reported last year that GSA had not done security assessments for all buildings as it was supposed to do. We can now report that essentially all the buildings have been surveyed, with a few minor exceptions.
Secondly, as you indicated in your opening statement, as did Mr. Traficant, we had reported, as did the Inspector General, that the data in GSA's security program upgrade tracking system and its accounting system were not accurate. We could not get a good handle on what security upgrades were in place and operating and which weren't; we couldn't get a good handle on what the cost of those upgrades were. We found that, in our update, GSA has acted to make corrections in both systems. However, there are still some errors in those systems for a variety of reasons; and, as you indicated, GSA plans to install a new system for tracking the upgrades fairly soon.
Thirdly, one of the problems that GSA had encountered in its implementation of the program was funding. It had to pull together funds from other various sources to basically implement the upgrade program, particularly at the start because there was no funding source designated. We had reported last year that GSA and OMB had not yet been able to reach agreement on how GSA could recoup more of its security program costs from the agencies through its rental charges. Since our testimony, OMB and GSA have reached agreement. GSA is now in the process and has been approved to collect additional revenue, to collect more revenue from the agencies starting in Fiscal Year 1999 and continuing in Fiscal Year 2000. GSA is enabled now to collect even more from the agencies.
However, even with that additional amount of money, it's still going to be several million dollars short—in fact, close to $100 million. And it does, however, have a team, we understand, together to try to work toward identifying additional opportunities and approaches for collecting additional revenue to lessen that gap, primarily because those funds come out of funds for other operations in GSA right now.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, the last point I would like to make is I believe the most important point; that is, as we testified last year, it's still unclear to us how we would answer the question of how adequate is security in Federal buildings overall or to what extent do buildings meet the current standards that the Department of Justice has put out. We find that question difficult to answer for at least four reasons which I would like to summarize.
First, the standards themselves are quite difficult to interpret from the standpoint that they're to be implemented to the extent feasible. What that exactly means is up to—I guess the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It's not clear what that means. What we've noted is that there are certainly some situations in which the building security committees have recommended countermeasures that have not been implemented. There are a variety of reasons for that, one of which is there are a number of leased buildings for which landlords would not allow GSA to install security measures.
Secondly, there are a number of situations where the building security committees did not want to implement some of the recommended standards for a variety of reasons, one of which may be impeding the flow of traffic into the building or interrupting the convenience of employees.
Thirdly, as we'll talk more about in the second session this afternoon, there are some security elements that aren't included in the standard, such as the command and control function. The second reason we find it difficult to make that—answer that overall question is because, as we reported last year, although GSA has made some progress, it has not yet developed a set of outcome-oriented goals and measures that would allow one to really determine how effective the security program is overall.
Fourth, at the time the upgrade program was started, GSA had to curtail its periodic program of building inspections because it needed the resources to do the upgrade program. It has not yet reinstated that program, but it plans to do so soon. At the time that GSA was doing the risk assessments, it was using an older risk assessment methodology. I think it's been quite widely recognized that that methodology has been outdated. It doesn't recognize some of the newer, more recent threats. Again, GSA is planning to implement the new methodology here in January, as far as we understand. So, hopefully, that would improve the situation.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That concludes my summary, Madam chairman, and I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Mrs. FOWLER. I think what we might do, because the other bell is getting ready to ring in a minute—I don't want to interrupt your testimony, Mr. Waszily. I know there is only one vote, and then we'll have an hour before another one. If we could temporarily recess and go vote and come right back, then we'll have an hour with no interruptions. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. FOWLER. The subcommittee will come back to order.
I apologize for the delay. I got delayed by the Speaker for a few minutes. You don't tell him no. I think we've got everybody back in now.
Mr. Waszily, if you could proceed.
Mr. WASZILY. Madam chair, members of the subcommittee, good afternoon and thank you for inviting us to appear this afternoon. It's been about 15 months since I've appeared to testify on the State of GSA' building security program. We've undertaken a lot of audit work in this area over that time, and I wanted to briefly highlight some of our findings.
As noted earlier, we initiated a major follow-up to the countermeasure implementation program, looking at 207 facilities which covered all 11 GSA regions.
Overall, we had found that actual implementation of the countermeasures had improved markedly from our first review identifying eight—only eight countermeasures that were reported as being completed which actually were not.
We also found that GSA has put to use most of the $2 million worth of electronic security equipment that we had found on our earlier review stored in a warehouse here in Washington.
It is—as Mr. Ungar had pointed out, a lot of the information pertaining to major countermeasure implementations has been corrected in the database. Nonetheless, this still remains a relatively weak area in our review. We found at least 178 data discrepancies pertaining to the individual buildings examined.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our follow-up audit also raised a new concern and that is that we identified 19 major systems that were in place but were not operating properly or not being used at all. We are aware that the Public Building Service is taking steps to correct most of the database as well as to strengthen the maintenance process to ensure that these security devices are maintained and up and running consistently.
Another aspect of the building security, GSA has worked with the other Federal agencies to develop a new set of security standards to apply to new construction and major renovation projects. These standards add security considerations into the site selection for building projects, building design as well as the building construction techniques employed. Our tests have shown that GSA has already started to adopt these new standards into its own construction program.
We also performed a review of public access to Federal building designs and blueprints. While blueprints are necessary for use in performing repair and alteration work, they contain information that would be very useful to a terrorist intent on attacking a building. We found in many instances that officials had released plans to outside parties without stressing the need for safeguarding those plans.
Through our research we had also learned that over several years many of the building blueprints and designs were available through other public sources, and we brought this to the commissioner's attention who took immediate action, saw the importance of trying to control these documents and put together a task group within the Public Buildings Service to provide better control over blueprints.
In recent months we've initiated a nationwide review to assess the effectiveness of the contract security guard program. While we're still in the survey phase of this work, we've already encountered some individual circumstances which we consider as unacceptable. And while it's going to take us several months of additional work before we can form an overall assessment, it's clear to us at this time that improvements in the program are needed.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In summary, our work has found that the Public Buildings Service has made substantial improvements from when we reported to you last and that it has plans to continue to improve over the coming years. While we're pleased with the progress, we recognize that more efforts are still needed.
That concludes my statement. Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Waszily.
Mr. Peck.
Mr. PECK. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Traficant, members of the subcommittee. I thank you for inviting us here.
Accompanying me today, as you know, Madam Chair, is Clarence Edwards, who is the Assistant Commissioner for the Federal Protective Service. He's the head of the Federal Protective Service.
As I have stated before, although not before this subcommittee, we have no more important job in the Public Buildings Service than assuring the safety of the 1 million Federal employees who work in our buildings and the millions of other Americans who visit those facilities.
Since the Oklahoma City bombing, we have doubled the size of our uniform force, our contract guard force, and doubled our spending on security to a total of about $1.2 billion since 1995. I was very pleased to hear both the GAO and the IG report on the progress we've made. We are working hard on this issue. Although we think we have made tremendous strides, we recognize that we have further work to do. We have some comments on their report, most of which I would like to hold for your specific questions.
But to put this in context, I want to quote what Senator Moynihan said at our design awards ceremony this spring, and it echos what Mr. Terry just said to us in his opening statement. Senator Moynihan observed that when Congress authorized the Federal Triangle Building, now the Ronald Reagan Building, it did so in the spirit of President Kennedy's vision of Pennsylvania Avenue as a lively, friendly and inviting, as well as dignified and impressive public space.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Senator Moynihan then noted that Pennsylvania Avenue itself has been closed in part, and the Capitol and other buildings are ringed by Jersey barriers. Senator Moynihan called on us to have a national dialogue about security and terrorism and urged that our response, quote, be openness and fearlessness in the face of those who hide in the darkness, unquote.
As I say to our FPS personnel and to you and others, our public buildings must remain public. In a sense, it is easier to guard top secret facilities than to guard public buildings. When I was an officer in the United States Army I served in some very classified, hardened facilities. It's harder, however, to guard a facility like our Federal buildings. It must be open and inviting to the public. We have a tough job to do, a balancing act to maintain, and we think we're doing it quite well.
Let me note a couple of the accomplishments and reinforce what GAO and the IG have noted.
One is that we have, in fact, now are going forward with a new risk assessment methodology. I would be happy to describe it to you in more detail in closed session.
We have reached agreement with OMB on a new pricing system for security. Again, it's detailed and will cover most of our costs. Some costs we will absorb because we think those costs are comparable to what private sector people do with security. In other words, what we are recovering in our additional rent charges will be the additional kind of security that we provide in Federal buildings.
I would note that following the IG's report on our problems with security countermeasures, we require all of our regions to certify that they had indeed done the countermeasures that they had said they completed. We have updated, upgraded our data. We know just last week Mr. Traficant was at a hearing when we talked about data quality. Data across the government can be very difficult, and we have put a lot of emphasis in our business data as well as our security data, on making it cleaner and more accurate.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I will note, finally, one point on the reports from GAO and IG. Anyone in the Public Buildings Service can tell you I have been almost monomaniacal about buildings performance measures. I believe it's important to track performance and security, too. But this is a very difficult area.
As police deputies have learned, tracking arrests is not quite the same as tracking reductions in crime. You can get more arrests but not necessarily lead to fewer crimes, if you do it wrong. In security it's clear that for us there is only one standard. We must have no deaths, no major injuries from terrorist incidents. In that, we've been successful. But, again, that doesn't exactly tell us where to put our resources on a day-to-day basis.
We also think that how people feel in our facilities is important, and this is something we are tracking. And our customer satisfaction rates, which are tracked in a statistically significant way, are up 10 percent in the last 4 years.
Finally, I will note that we have had some work to do to improve the capabilities and training of the Federal Protective Service. As Mr. Traficant noted, we agree that we need a highly motivated, well-compensated security force. We have changed some definitions of staff positions. Most notably, we have changed the tactics we use in the Federal Protective Service from one of so-called patrol and response, where we are prepared to respond to incidents, to a more aggressive proactive stance akin to community policing that so many communities are using successfully.
We are also enhancing our contract security guard program, because they are our last-ditch defense. We do need those security guards to be better trained, and in some cases, better compensated and better selected.
I'm going to now turn over to Mr. Edwards, if I may, to describe what we're doing to enhance the Federal Protective Service.
Mr. EDWARDS. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address our security program for GSA-controlled facilities.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to begin by discussing our ongoing reengineering effort, which we have termed the new Federal Protective Service. The focus of these efforts is to pursue a customer-oriented protection model, matching our Federal Protective Service presence with our customer distribution. Ultimately, this means a Federal Protective Service presence in more cities and more buildings.
The catalyst of this change is our recently created Law Enforcement and Security Officer position. The focus of the LESO position is a uniformed, multi-skilled officer which will be called upon to perform a wide range of physical security and law enforcement duties. In general, we expect that many of the traditional uniformed police officers will opt to move to the new LESO position, with enhanced skills, upward mobility, increased responsibility, and higher salary.
As a part of the new Federal Protective Service we are also developing a Physical Security Specialist Certification Program and are tasking our criminal investigators with the job of criminal intelligence analysis. We have developed a training doctrine and are working to ensure that all Federal Protective Service positions receive enhanced training to meet our new direction.
During the past few years we have worked hand in hand with the General Accounting Office and the GSA Office of the Inspector General to improve our security program.
When we became aware of the inaccuracies of the data contained in our tracking systems, we sought immediate action. We have tasked our security specialists with performing on-site reassessments of all GSA-controlled buildings, verifying the status of security measures and making appropriate corrections to all inaccuracies. These assessments were completed in May of 1999.
This I recognize has been a short-term solution. Our ultimate goal has been to replace our tracking system with a more user friendly system, one which captures the critical elements lacking from the original system. I'm happy to report that the new system prototype is scheduled for completion in November of this year with full rollout to all regions by February 2000. Enhancements will include a listing of excessive inventory for interregional use, direct interface with our real property inventory system to assess accurate building inventory; differentiating between active and inactive buildings; enhanced editing capabilities; and interfacing with GSA's financial system to assess actual costs, among others.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In November of 1998, we trained our security specialists in a new survey process using a risk assessment methodology employed by the Federal Aviation Administration. As we began to perform these new surveys, we determined that the methodologies required further customization so that it could be fully beneficial to GSA. We now have made those alterations in concept and methodology and have begun methods to automate the new process. Our prototype system is scheduled for completion in December of this year, with full rollouts to the regions by January of 2000.
In response to our concerns regarding the contract guard program and the recent GSA office of Inspector General ordered findings, we initiated a number of corrective actions. Specifically, we hired two contract specialists to develop a national contract specification and provide continuous monitoring of the program. The contract solicitation is scheduled for rollout this fall.
Enhancements will include increased training and testing, with the training being provided by GSA so that we can ensure quality and consistency; strengthened guard qualifications requirements, including educational standards, medical and psychological testing; new testing requirements, including a higher mandatory passing score and fewer chances to pass the test.
All future contracts will be procured using contracting by negotiation, which eliminates the lowest bidder, lowest price approach to acquiring guard services. We have established a nationwide network of contracting officers from all regions, reduced the security clearance recertification time frame from 3 years to 2 years, and instituted a new contract guard manual.
In the 15 months since my appearance before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, FPS has done much to strengthen the security of the Federal workplace. There is much work to be done, but we have made some significant progress which I would like to share with you.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Specifically, we have developed a secure messaging system for the exchange of intelligence information; received approval from the FBI for electronic submission of fingerprints for contract employees; completed security design criteria for the construction of new facilities, developed a standardized policy for house security, glazing assessments; created medical and psychological standards and testing program for all applicants covered by the 318 law enforcement authority; and agreed to lease a mobile x-ray scanner to screen vehicles at the Ronald Reagan Building and other facilities.
In closing, I thank the subcommittee for their attention and support in the improvement of security for GSA-controlled facilities. We are pleased that both the GAO and IG recognize the significant progress we've made in improving security of Federal facilities. I want to assure you of my personal commitment to rectifying all open issues and ensuring that the Federal Protective Service becomes a world-class security organization.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
I thank each of you for your testimony.
I'll start with the questioning.
Mr. Peck, it was referred to earlier, I think in Mr. Waszily's testimony, about the inventory that the national Capitol region had purchased for GSA security enhancement. And this large amount of equipment that was there a year ago and then I gather the IG in March of this year went back and looked at it again and it had reduced, but there was still like 100 fixed cameras and 23 combination cameras, 104 monitors, you know, go down the list. Has any further action been taken by the region to use this equipment somewhere?
Mr. PECK. I would like to submit you the numbers for the record, but the numbers are down from what you just cited. If I remember correctly, they have been further allocated to various buildings where we needed equipment.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. Because it's good equipment. We just need to put it in use.
Mr. PECK. We were not happy to receive the initial report. I will just note that some of the equipment had been purchased in anticipation of requirements. Then, it just turned out they didn't match up with some of the requirements. Nonetheless, we have made special efforts to move it out to other regions and into buildings.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you.
Mr. Waszily, can you verify that? Have you looked since March?
Mr. WASZILY. The latest information we have, all that's remaining are 60 of the older black and white cameras. Most of the other VCR equipment and all has been put into use.
Mrs. FOWLER. So that has substantially gone down, I guess. Was all this bought in anticipation of need and then the need wasn't there?
Mr. PECK. Yes, ma'am. We actually had a concern that the industry might not be able to produce as much equipment as we would need. Therefore, a number of regions actually advance ordered. That's part of the answer. I don't believe that's the entire answer for why we had some of it left excess.
Mrs. FOWLER. It would be good just to get the updated report.
Mr. Waszily, you felt it was bought in anticipation of need also?
Mr. WASZILY. My understanding—if I recall, there was a substantial amount of equipment that was originally slated to go into some Defense Department installations, and the Defense Department had a slightly different need for heightened technology, and for a period of time the equipment—they could not identify another use for it and, ultimately, they did, but there was a lapse of time in there.
Mrs. FOWLER. Okay. Thank you.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Peck, I have to ask—you know I'm from Florida, and so I'm not opposed to flamingos, pink or otherwise. I think they're great. However, I am opposed to using money that has been earmarked for security upgrades to light a flamingo sculpture. I draw your attention to the picture over there, which I will refer more to in just a minute. You know, decorating—I'm a woman. I like to decorate. So I don't have any problem with that. But I do have a problem with decorating a judge's chambers or any chambers and charging it to the security budget.
What I'm referring to are examples which I think you are familiar with from a GSA IG audit that reported that on 13 occasions regional officials inappropriately used security enhancement funds, money that had been set aside for security enhancement, to pay for projects that were not approved by the FPS central office or which had limited or no building security committee involvement. And these totaled over $1.5 million which could have been going for security enhancements.
As I refer again to this sculpture here—and I am an Alexander Calder fan, I think it's great—but over $40,000 was spent on lighting the pink flamingo sculpture there that is at the Kluczynski building in Chicago. Money was spent on furniture, artwork and loading dock restriping at the Fresno Federal Building; carpet, wallpaper for a judge's chambers in Charlottesville. That Charlottesville project also included some space build-out for the IRS.
I thought it was your policy that those funds were to be spent for security purposes with no exceptions, and I would like to know what disciplinary actions did you take when you were notified that these funds were being inappropriately used.
Mr. PECK. Let me speak to Calder's flamingo first. My understanding is that the building security committee in our plan for the Kluczynski building security included lighting the plaza. It's on a big plaza which is owned by the Federal Government. And the lighting, as I understand it, of the sculpture—and I hope this is true—was incidental to the lighting of the plaza.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The other thing that I suspect may have happened, and I will check and get you an answer for the record, is this would not be the first time that one of our artworks was considered a security hazard by people in the building. There's sometimes a fear that people could lurk behind some of the sculptures. There was a piece in Baltimore where the same thing happened many years ago.
I want to be clear. I was unaware of these instances, and specifically, I'm not familiar with the incident of carpeting for a judge's chambers.
Mrs. FOWLER. You might want to look into that, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mr. PECK. You noted that in Charlottesville.
Let me cite the one incident I was familiar with. In Boston we discovered that our region used $375,000 of money we had fenced for specific building requirements for a security control center. So the money was, in fact, spent on security but not for the precise security item.
Mrs. FOWLER. That's okay. As long as it's for security.
Mr. PECK. But I want you to know, even then we penalized the region for spending the money.
Mrs. FOWLER. Was this region penalized? Was the Charlottesville region penalized? All of these were in the IG report. So they shouldn't be any surprise at all.
Mr. PECK. I suspect that in the Chicago—if I'm correct about why the security lighting was done--we would not penalize them. I suspect it was done for security purposes.
Mrs. FOWLER. I read the IG report, which I hope some of your people did, too, and according to it you still can't, with the security cameras, distinguish what you need to distinguish with the lighting which lights the sculpture, not particularly the grounds around it. So as the GSA release said, and I have the quote up there, it's fulfilling the vision of the late Alexander Calder so that this flamingo would have a visual lift at night allowing it to gracefully float in place at the open plaza.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is not what security upgrade dollars are supposed to be spent for. I know Chicago has an arts commission that can privately fund this. They probably set aside a certain amount of their public building dollars for art. There are other sources of funding for art type of lighting.
Mr. PECK. Well, that one was our Federal tax dollars, that particular sculpture. But I agree with you that security dollars should not be spent on lighting the artwork. And I'll check and get an answer on what happened there and on the other incidents you cited.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you. Since we have got these needs that we have been documenting, you could take that $1.5 million and use it for some true security.
Mr. PECK. No spending of security dollars on something other than security is acceptable to me. We will make sure that people who did it are disciplined and the money reallocated. However, in context, we spent well over $400 million on the security upgrade program, and our numbers show that the vast majority of it was spent properly.
Mrs. FOWLER. That's great. Thank you. Another question. I know Mr. Waszily referred to this issue on protecting the blueprints, and I gather there GSA has started up this intraorganizational task force. What I was just concerned with, because I didn't hear it in the testimony, is what the time frame is on issuing the policy as far as keeping these building plans from falling into the wrong hands and all.
Mr. PECK. I am issuing a policy letter on that. If I remember correctly, I have a September draft that I have not finalized. I have approved the draft, and I will get you answer.
Mrs. FOWLER. It will be coming out soon then.
Mr. PECK. Let me mention one complicating factor which is difficult for us. Again, we have to balance the public policies that we have. We, of course, have to—when we go out for bid on a new building--issue to potential contractors a set of plans for the bidding so that they can give us a bid. Part of our policy now is going to try to get some controls on what they do with those documents once we put them out. But it is not the way you would do it if you were building a highly secure building. In some instances, where we have built really high secure buildings, we go to great expense and time to protect those blueprints.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. But you will be issuing some sort of policy before the end of the year.
Mr. PECK. Yes, ma'am.
The other thing I will note, we have one unfortunate instance in which we think our blueprints came out because we shared them with fire departments so they know where to go in case there is a fire in the building. We believe someone in the fire department gave them to somebody that was a threat to our building. It's a complicated issue. We're trying to figure out how to balance a number of problems.
Mrs. FOWLER. One last question, what is the GSA Public Buildings Service's annual expenditures for building security and do you have a figure there—what it's used for? You might just want to send that in for the record.
Mr. PECK. Our budget at this point for the Federal Protective Service is about $280 million.
Mrs. FOWLER. And that goes to building security.
Mr. PECK. This includes the money buried in all of our repair and alteration measures on security.
Mrs. FOWLER. We were just interested on the security aspect. Thank you.
Mr. PECK. Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Traficant.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I have a number of questions that I want to submit to this panel. I would like for them to answer them completely as possible, submit it to us for the record. But I also have a number of questions I would like to pursue while we're here.
I would like to ask, Mr. Peck, to the best of your knowledge you made a decision to spend the security dollars on the lighting for that flamingo.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PECK. Mr. Traficant, since I'm not familiar with it, I don't know, and I'll have to find out.
Mr. TRAFICANT. All right. Let me ask another question. These can be very brief answers. I prefer them. Because there is—for a number of years I've been asking this question, and every time I see testimony it amazes me.
In Mr. Waszily's testimony he says the estimated numbers of contract security guards has doubled to an estimated 5,000 to 6,000—5,000 to 6,000. I keep asking this, that's 1,000 variations. I want to know if anybody can tell me to the man and woman how many contract security guards protect and help protect our buildings. How many more years do we have to wait for an updated report? Does anybody know that?
Mr. PECK. Mr. Traficant, our estimate is that there are 5,500 full time equivalent, full time contract guards. That's the number we use. The reason that it varies is that some are full time, some are part time, and we have shifts.
Mr. TRAFICANT. 5,500 estimate.
Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Not between. Okay. Fine.
In the next statement here of Mr. Waszily he says they did a survey phase and they encountered some circumstances that were not acceptable—specifically, guard personnel placed in service without being subjected to criminal background checks. Also found guard personnel posted without proper training and guard service firms providing inadequate levels of service for extended periods of time.
We're back to square one on issues that management should be able to resolve. You have to question whether or not the management structure is amenable to such resolution since we're spending security dollars on fixed assets like that turkey. I'm dead serious about it.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Some of the questions I want answered more thoroughly, but one that could be answered with a yes or no, will new security standards increase the cost of construction?
Mr. Peck.
Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Waszily.
Mr. WASZILY. Yes, sir.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Ungar.
Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Has GSA conducted any customer surveys to gauge our consuming public's satisfaction with our protective services and/or recommendations for improvement of said services?
Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. It is a normal part of our customer satisfaction surveys which happen—.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Have you submitted this to the Congress?
Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. Some of the numbers are included in my statement.
Mr. TRAFICANT. What is the status of security business performance measures and how will they be integrated into the budget process that you're so concerned about?
Mr. PECK. Mr. Traficant, we have been working on a number of security performance measures and have been working with some outside groups. We've also been working internally, and we have not yet decided on the couple of countermeasures that we think would be most effective in guiding our budget.
Please allow me a couple more seconds.
One measure we do have now is the cost of our contract guards benchmarked against the cost of contract guards in the private sector. I've not been satisfied that this is the cost side. Still, this doesn't address the real side of this business, which is providing security. Figuring out what those right performance measures are is difficult. We have sophisticated performance measures on the business side. We want them in security, too. But I do think in the next couple of months we will decide what they are, and I would like to discuss them with you when we do.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TRAFICANT. Briefly explain the customer-oriented protection model, how it is integrated in now to FPS and PBS and how, if anything, does it differ from past security approaches. And is there parallel with the FAA customer security model and, if so, do you horizontally look at other mechanisms of security success? And have you incorporated such models of success into your methodology of program?
Mr. PECK. Now you're into operations. I'm going to ask Mr. Edwards to answer that question.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Traficant, we have adopted the FAA model, as I indicated during my testimony. This model is in the process of being customized so that it will adequately do what GSA needs to do, and that process will be finished by the first of the year.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I just have a couple more little statements here.
Have been for a number of years one of those Members that have participated in the Committee of Oversight of Public Buildings and Grounds; and there's been usually a turnover of Members of Congress that have been able to get a pretty good understanding of the nuances, problems and concerns. And I don't want, Madam Chairwoman, any of my concerns to be taken as a derogatory statement to the leadership of Mr. Peck. I believe, under the circumstances, considering the size of their operation, the GSA Public Buildings Service is probably a model for most of the executive branch in our agencies and should be getting more credit, with downsizing, attrition, budget manipulations.
But I think there is a significant concern that at some point must be addressed by this Congress and it must be a legislative resolution. There is one great dichotomy that exists here, and security business should focus totally on security and should not be subject to other areas of budgetary concerns and priorities. As a result, I think it is absolutely necessary for the separation where there must be close communication, coordination, between the PBS director and the director of FPS. But I believe, as the PBS director reports directly to the director of the General Services Administration so should that FBS director. I feel very strongly about that.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, in making that statement, Mr. Edwards, you come from a fine background, and we're proud and glad to have you. When you were the police chief you made the police decisions. And when you had a police budget you budgeted those dollars and you reported to the mayor and you reported to that council. But at some particular point we have to get somebody in charge here, not that we're not in charge, but to be able to run the Public Buildings Service and the massive real estate and other concerns. I think that that is a flaw that can resolve some of the issues we keep revisiting.
So I want to thank GAO. I think they did a very good analysis and continue to do a good analysis. And having said that, I want to commend Mr. Peck and his staff. I think they have a real tough job. Thank God, we haven't had a serious incident. And evidently you're doing a good job within the structure that you have and, hopefully, that structure might make things better in the future.
So I have some other questions, Madam Chairwoman; and I want them spread across the record when they're answered in full.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Traficant. We will enter those for the record.
I have some also I'll submit for the record. Mr. Terry.
Mr. TERRY. I yield.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Peck.
Mr. PECK. Madam Chair, could I make one point?
I do have my written statement. I want to state this orally. We have a very good constructive and productive working relationship on this issue with the both the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General's office. I think that we quite appreciate that even when they criticize what we've done, their comments have been fair and thorough and have been constructive so that we've been able to fix things.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also like to, if I might, thank Mr. Traficant for his constant concern for the Federal Protective Service and for this issue. He knows enough about it now that we can have really good dialogues and a lot of shorthand. We do appreciate his attention. We disagree on one issue, which we can take up some other time.
Mrs. FOWLER. I want to thank you each of you for your testimony because the information you shared with us is extremely important—if you will remain seated here—that this hearing is the second of this type since the unfortunate attack on the Murrah building; and clearly this information that's been presented before us today has at times been disturbing as we look at security for our Federal buildings. I believe, though, as you've testified, that the level of security in our Federal buildings is continuing improve and GSA is to be commended for that.
As we've seen, there's still much to be done, and it's very important that we continue to assess the security on an ongoing basis. I'm hopeful that with each review GSA will continue, as you have done, to make improvements and that we'll have fewer and fewer instances of inadequate security that will be revealed. We do intend to continue to track the status of Federal building security upgrade programs, and so I look forward to the subcommittee working with GSA to improve it. And I do ask, as you've already stated, you will give your full and complete attention to the matters we've discussed today.
This concludes the public portion of this hearing on security.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Will the Madam Chairwoman please yield for one last question?
Mrs. FOWLER. Yes, Mr. Traficant.
Mr. TRAFICANT. To Mr. Peck, H.R. 809, is it my understanding, and for clarification on the record, that you support H.R. 809, save for the one provision that would, in fact, separate the FPS position to a free-standing and report directly to the administrator, GSA? Is that your opposition or are there others as well?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PECK. Sir, I will have to issue this caveat. The administration, I don't think, has issued a position. My personal view is that I support it except for that provision. I think there was also one provision on contract guard training. I don't think we have a substantive disagreement on this but I would like to look at this further. But I personally think that H.R. 809, with respect to compensation and benefits of the FPS jurisdiction and all those other issues that are in there, save that one we've talked about, is really worthy of enactment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. One last point. Would you please amplify on the record in a written response as to your actual objections and enumerate those objections in that management change?
Mr. PECK. Thank you.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Well, this concludes the public portion of this hearing on public security, and you're excused from the witness table. But if you could remain in the room since we may have some additional questions that would apply to you during the executive session.
And at this point the subcommittee will go into executive session. House rules require that hearings are to be open to the public. However, the matters which we will be discussing are specific to certain Federal buildings, and public disclosure of them may affect national security. Therefore, it has been determined that it's prudent to close this hearing and under House rules it is permissible to close a hearing for this reason. So I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this hearing be closed. Without objection, so ordered.
Will all persons in the room who are not committee, GAO or agency designated staff, GSA, also please leave the room.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded in Executive Session.]
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[insert here]