    [Senate Hearing 106-967]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 106-967

                          FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
                               REFORM ACT OF 2000
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
                                   __________

                                       ON

                                    H.R. 809

     A BILL TO AMEND THE ACT OF JUNE 1, 1948, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REFORM OF
                         THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                    WASHINGTON : 2002
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                   one hundred sixth congress, second session
                       BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        HARRY REID, Nevada
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            BOB GRAHAM, Florida
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              BARBARA BOXER, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RON WYDEN, Oregon
    LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
                          Dave Conover, Staff Director
                      Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

    JOHN W. WARNER, Wyoming              MAX BAUCUS, Montana
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
    LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island         JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........     3
    Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I. U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................    26
    Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
      York...........................................................     4
    Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio...     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Bellew, Steven, Vice Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police, Federal
      Protective Service Protective Committee, Dallas, TX............    20
        Letter, LESO program.........................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Gallay, Joel S., Deputy Inspector General, General Services
      Administration.................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Peck, Hon. Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
      General Services Administration................................     8
        Letter, Celebrezze Federal Building..........................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Roth, Hon. Jane Roth, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Wilmington,
      DE.............................................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich.....    35
    Traficant, Hon. James A.. Ohio, U.S. Representative from the
      State of Ohio..................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    27

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Kenneth L.
          Lyons......................................................    39
        National Federation of Federal Employees, Anthony Maldonado..    40
    Text of H.R. 809, An Act to amend the Act of June 1, 1948, to
      provide for reform of the Federal Protective Service...........    44

                                     (iii)

                 FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 2000

                                  ----------

                         THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000,

                                           U.S. Senate,
                   Committee on Environment and Public Works,
             Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in
    room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. George Voinovich
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Voinovich, Baucus, and Moynihan.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will come to
    order.
        First of all, I would like to thank our witnesses for
    appearing before the subcommittee today to testify on H.R. 809,
    the Federal Protective Service Reform Act of 2000. I would
    especially like to thank Congressman Traficant for taking the
    time to come here this morning and discuss his legislation. In
    Panel II, I would like to welcome Bob Peck, Commissioner of the
    Public Buildings Service at the General Services
    Administration, and Mr. Joel Gallay, Deputy Inspector General
    of the GSA. And in Panel III, I would like to welcome the
    Honorable Jane Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals, located in
    Wilmington, Delaware, and Mr. Steven Bellew, Vice Chairman of
    the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Protective Service Labor
    Committee.
        The FPS has been a part of the Buildings Service of the GSA
    since 1949. The Public Buildings Service provides work
    environments for over one million Federal employees nationwide,
    and serves as a builder, developer, lessor, and manager of
    federally owned and leased properties, properties currently
    totally more than 280 million square feet of office, storage,
    and special space. The Public Buildings Service provides a full
    range of real estate services, property management,
    construction and repair, security services, property disposal,
    and overall portfolio management.
        The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
    City, OK, in 1995 was a tragic wake-up call as to the need to
    enhance security at Federal office buildings in the United
    States. Shortly after the incident in Oklahoma City, the
    President directed the Department of Justice to assess the
    vulnerability of Federal office buildings particularly to acts
    of terrorism and other forms of violence. A number of other
    Federal entities participated in the process which resulted in
    a number of recommendations to upgrade security at Federal
    facilities nationwide.
        These recommendations were described in the Department of
    Justice's final report issued on June 28, 1995, entitled:
    Vulnerabilities Assessment of Federal Facilities. Included in
    the report was a recommendation that consideration should be
    given to elevating the FPS to a different level within the GSA.
        The bill we are discussing this morning, H.R. 809, would
    essentially codify that recommendation by creating a separate
    service within GSA for the Federal Protective Service. The
    separate FPS would have its own commissioner who would have
    direct command and control and authority over the FPS regional
    directors in each of the 11 geographic regions of the GSA.
    Currently, the Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Protective
    Service does not have line authority over the FPS Regional
    Directors. Rather, the FPS Regional Directors report to the
    Assistant Regional Administrators for the Public Buildings
    Service. The Assistant Regional Administrators in turn report
    to the Regional Administrators who are responsible to the GSA
    Administrator directly.
        I believe H.R. 809 addresses a serious problem with the
    current organizational structure in GSA; mainly, the line of
    command. Although the current Assistant Commissioner of FPS has
    nearly three decades of law enforcement experience, he only can
    issue guidance and has no authority over the FPS people in the
    11 regions throughout the country. Also, the FPS regional
    directors often do not have law enforcement experience and they
    report to the FPS Assistant Regional Administrator or a PBS
    Regional Administrator who in all likelihood does not have law
    enforcement experience either.
        The bill requires that the newly created Commissioner of
    the Federal Protective Service and the FPS Regional Directors
    meet minimum requirements for law enforcement experience. While
    creating the Federal Protective Service as a free-standing
    service within GSA, as would occur under H.R. 809, is one way
    to address the line of command problem, I do not believe that
    this is necessary or prudent.
        First, I think it is important to clarify that FPS
    currently performs two functions: security and law enforcement.
    However, the security function of FPS cannot be easily
    separated from the real estate function of the Public Buildings
    Service. For example, the security function which includes such
    activities as placement of security equipment and technology,
    building design and operation, should be fully integrated with
    the building management activities of the PBS.
        Second, I believe the line of command can be best addressed
    without breaking the link between PBS and FPS. I believe this
    objective can be achieved by improving the organizational
    structure of PBS to provide a clear linkage of authority
    between the Assistant Commissioner of FPS with the Regional
    Directors. However, I do agree that the Assistant Commissioner
    and Regional Directors should meet certain minimum requirements
    in terms of law enforcement experience.
        I am pleased to see that FPS has undertaken several
    initiatives to improve the effectiveness of FPS. For instance,
    I understand that PBS has created a new Law Enforcement and
    Security Officer position which is designed to be uniquely
    suited to meet the security and law enforcement needs for
    protecting Federal buildings.
        I would like to hear whatever thoughts our witnesses may
    have on this initiative. I also look forward to hearing from
    our witnesses this morning on how we can provide a top-notch
    security for our Federal buildings and whether H.R. 809
    accomplishes the goal. In addition, I hope our witnesses will
    be concise as to the provisions of this bill Congress could
    conceivably enact in the short time remaining before we
    adjourn. We are at the end right now. What part of this could
    we get agreement on and get done.
        Again, I thank you for coming today and I look forward to
    your testimony and responses to any of the questions that may
    follow.
        I am pleased to have here with us today Senator Baucus and
    Senator Moynihan. I will call on Senator Baucus first.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                            STATE OF MONTANA

        Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I welcome
    all the witnesses, appreciate your contributions here. Second,
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
        The Federal Protective Service clearly is of utmost
    importance. After all, they are the ones that secure all our
    Federal buildings. And after the Oklahoma incident, we are
    paying even more attention to the FPS to make sure that it is
    performing its duties as well as it possibly can.
        As I understand it though, there are some who feel that
    there is a bit of a disconnect between the Assistant
    Commissioner of the Federal Protective Service in Washington
    and the officers in each of the 11 regions. This bill attempts
    to change that by establishing a chain of command, as I
    understand it. I also believe that connecting the Assistant
    Commissioner directly to his Regional Directors is positive.
    And as you have said, Mr. Chairman, establishing a minimum set
    of criteria of experience for FPS Directors also makes sense.
    And there are other provisions of the bill which I think are
    also good.
        But I am not sold, frankly, on the need to make the Federal
    Protective Service a separate entity in the Public Buildings
    Service. Unless I am shown the contrary, my sense is that is
    going to create more confusion and not less. Nevertheless, I am
    not the expert on this. That is why we have witnesses; they
    are. And I look forward to their testimony.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Moynihan.
        Senator Baucus. Before I finish, Mr. Chairman, I would like
    to just honor our wonderful Senator from New York who more than
    other Senator in many, many decades has left his imprint on
    public buildings in a very solid, wonderful way. I am fond of
    saying, I think it is true, no public servant in the United
    States of America has left a more positive legacy in
    magnificent public buildings in our country's history since
    Thomas Jefferson. And if you look at both ends of Pennsylvania
    Avenue, up and down, if you look up in New England, other parts
    of our country, it is clear. We are very honored, Senator, and
    very thankful for all that you have done for our country.
        Senator Moynihan. You are very generous, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should add to that.
        [Laughter.]

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, U.S. SENATOR
                       FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Moynihan. But if you look at the upper part of
    Pennsylvania, you find guardhouses and barriers and policemen
    and all the things that you do not associate with an open
    society. We have to balance that. And we had an example the
    other day which we should keep in mind. I think Bob Peck used
    to be a member of our committee staff, Major Peck he is in the
    Army Reserves. But a few days ago in London a mortar shell was
    fired into the upper stories of the building that houses the--
    it is probably where ``M'' used to work in the James Bond
    movies.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moynihan. And they have recovered the apparatus. It
    was Russian made, which suggests that it was probably an Irish
    group. It weighs eight pounds, can be fired in 10 seconds, and
    you disappear. So keep that in mind as we try to build walls
    that mortars can come over. There is no such thing as absolute
    security. But thank you for your generosity and your
    statements.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you for being here, Senator
    Moynihan. I remember even the White House, the days that you
    were able to walk to the White House and walk around the White
    House, the barricades are now up and it looks like we are under
    siege. With the way that the environment is today, it does make
    I think a sad commentary on our society.
        Senator Moynihan. Could I make one point, sir. The first
    fence around the White House was put up by Theodore Roosevelt
    who was tired to seeing the civil servants from State, War and
    Navy walk across his lawn to have lunch at the Ebbitt's Grill.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moynihan. And it was just high enough that you
    really could not step over it. That was the only purpose. See
    how far we have come.
        Senator Baucus. I wonder, Senator, if there is some way to
    reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, maybe
    on a limited basis.
        Senator Moynihan. The Washington Post had a fine editorial
    this morning saying that.
        Senator Baucus. Oh, really?
        Senator Moynihan. Our former colleague, Bob Dole is coming
    up with a Federal-City Council effort, and I have joined with
    our Representative from Washington. And we have a plan, you
    bet.
        Senator Voinovich. Again, we want to thank you,
    Representative Traficant, for coming here this morning, and we
    look forward to your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Traficant. I appreciate it. I would like to start out
    by saying this Senate hearing is out of control with some of
    your small talk, but I have enjoyed it.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Voinovich. You ought to come over more often.
        Mr. Traficant. Yes, it is a little more loose over here.
        I want to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for the great job
    that you have done and the continuing effort that you have
    placed on our State and the Nation. And having worked in the
    past in the field of public buildings, having a long
    relationship with Senator Baucus, Senator Baucus is tough, to
    say the least, but he was always vigilant as to what really was
    best for America, and we respected that, and Mr. Mineta, Mr.
    Oberstar, and I have supported you, Senator, as well as Senator
    Moynihan.
        As far as Senator Moynihan, I can remember way back where
    his ideas for America and the many people that followed those
    ideas led to better cities, led to people having opportunities.
    I just missed the tribute on the House floor to you, Senator,
    and I wanted you to know that I think you have done a
    tremendous job. I think that everything that has been said
    about you has been good and you have always done it with
    humility and with grace. Now, having said that, I want you to
    change your position with this issue on Bob Peck.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Traficant. Let me get on to my statement. I have a
    statement that I would ask unanimous consent to be included in
    the record.
        I was chairman of this subcommittee and I was astounded to
    find out that in Oklahoma City there were three Federal
    buildings being guarded by one contract guard. The Alfred P.
    Murrah Building was a light blinking on and off for some
    terrorist to make a statement. And after the review of that,
    including the Justice Department's, task force reviews,
    independent individual studies, they came to the same
    conclusion that our subcommittee came to and ultimately the
    House of Representatives--that real estate people really cannot
    be responsible for law enforcement functions.
        This bill would have been on a fast track and would have
    been law had we made that deal and not left FPS responsible to
    PBS, the real estate arm. And the argument has always been that
    if you do that, you will take away the coordination. It has not
    done that with the Capitol Police and the Architect of the
    Capitol.
        This bill will raise the number of FPS agents. As you know
    and have read and you have stated in your opening statement, it
    will increase and mandate training and standards of those
    contract guards, many of whom are former policemen, Senator, we
    are not saying they are not capable, but it would ensure
    uniformity.
        Our bill deals with looking at parity of other law
    enforcement personnel with significant functions in a Federal
    system and the whole pension network.
        But the major issue continues to revolve around, Who is
    responsible? And as a former sheriff, let me say that in all
    the years I have been in Washington, I do not think we have had
    anybody better, more straightforward than Mr. Peck. I think he
    has done a tremendous job. I do not know what his status will
    be in the future with the Presidential election, but there are
    many people who realize his tremendous contribution. But Mr.
    Peck is a real estate man.
        The statement I am making to the Senate here today is that
    the Nation is watching. These great monuments of America's
    freedom, our buildings have become the prime targets. See, I
    believe there is a way of having a structure of law enforcement
    systematic designated approach with a coordinated effort, as
    you have between the Capitol Police and the Architect of the
    Capitol, to coordinate security concerns and needs. But once
    real estate decisions become paramount in the financing
    structure of limited Federal dollars, there is where you have
    the dichotomy that could endanger public lives. That is our job
    here is to protect lives. The courthouses are protected by the
    Marshals Service. They have a fine relationship with the
    courts. The Capitol Police have done a fine job, they have a
    fine relationship with the Architect of the Capitol. And there
    is no reason why in streamlining a law enforcement structure we
    cannot have that same type of relationship.
        Let me say, the law enforcement community in America
    supports this bill. Every study that has been undertaken by the
    Justice Department, including that recommendation for
    separation with coordinated efforts, supports this. And all of
    the other commission studies support that move.
        The point I am making, I am not going to belabor the time
    and I will be present here for questions, is basically this.
    This bill would be law were it not for that provision. And the
    reason why you are having this hearing is there are those in
    America who believe it is that important that the future
    security of Federal buildings rests on the management apparatus
    of a law enforcement perspective more than a real estate
    perspective. There is no reason in the world why we cannot
    coordinate the two, as we have done in other law enforcement/
    security issues in our Nation's Capitol.
        So I thank you for having me here. I believe this bill
    should be passed. And if the Senate in its wisdom finds that
    there has to be some machinations and changes, we would be
    willing to talk. But to let this sit, let there be one more
    Alfred P. Murrah and they will lay it at our doorstep--What
    have you done? I think we should make that change. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Congressman Traficant.
        Are there any questions for Congressman Traficant?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Traficant. None? Are you already on a fast track to
    side with Peck? I urge you to take into consideration my
    complete written text. Look at the supporting documentation
    from the studies that have been done, and also at the parallel
    examinations of other entities who have relationships while
    being free-standing.
        Senator Voinovich. I think that we understand the purpose
    of this legislation. It was just brought to my attention again
    today where in Cleveland they were discussing the construction
    of a child care center. A couple of years ago it was
    recommended that the center be placed above a loading dock and
    the word went out that this was not the place for it to be
    located. Then a couple of years later, it is my understanding
    that they are now contemplating putting it back where they said
    it should not go because of security reasons. And the big issue
    was that placing it in some other location would incur a cost
    of some $1.8 million. And so you get the tension between the
    security of the children and the building versus the cost of
    putting it someplace else. It seems to me that when a decision
    like that has to be made you need to look at the security issue
    first, and if you cannot resolve that and you do not have the
    money to do the other thing, then you do not do the other thing
    and you do not have a child care center unless you are willing
    to spend the money.
        I think, as I have observed too often around here, we are a
    little bit penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have some
    tremendous unmet needs today. I think a child care center is an
    unmet need. I think that we should have child care facilities
    in our Federal facilities. I promoted that while I was Governor
    of Ohio. That costs money. You want to make sure that they are
    put in secure places but we do not seem to have money to do
    that. But we do have money to go out and spend it on all kinds
    of new programs that are coming along that are, frankly, more
    popular in the polls than it is to deal with these unmet needs.
    As a policy thing, colleagues, I think that it is about time we
    did a study of the unmet needs of the Federal Government
    because they are tremendous and we need to address those before
    we go off getting into some new areas of responsibility.
        But I understand the problem, Congressman.
        Mr. Traficant. Can I respond briefly to the Cleveland
    issue?
        Senator Voinovich. Sure.
        Mr. Traficant. Were it not for individuals involved with
    you and your staff, Congressman LaTourette, a dollar issue
    could have placed the child care center near the loading dock,
    the most vulnerable section of the building. And certainly a
    very powerful statement could have been made by some terrorist.
    But dollar issues, in a crunch time of Washington budget
    mashing, sometimes safety may not necessarily be the focus,
    dollars become the focus. Cleveland is an excellent example.
    And the law enforcement community made the recommendation to
    not go forward with that child care center for those obvious
    security reasons.
        We cannot have the dichotomy and confusion of
    decisionmaking on these types of issues. These are issues
    certainly where qualified individuals, like Mr. Peck, can sit
    down with the law enforcement personnel and plan and promulgate
    strategies and actions that protect lives. This is our bottom
    line here. We build great facilities. We must protect them now.
    I think that is the major difference here.
        I do not want this committee to believe under any
    circumstances that we do not have a fine General Services
    Administration or a fine Public Buildings Service. Nor do I
    want you to think that we do not have one of the finest
    directors of the Public Buildings Service. We are very
    satisfied with him.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Congressman.
        Senator Voinovich. Our second panel is Robert A. Peck,
    Commissioner of Public Buildings Service and General Services
    Administration, and Mr. Joel S. Gallay, Deputy Inspector
    General, General Services Administration.
        Mr. Peck, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
      SERVICE AND GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY
       CLARENCE EDWARDS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE FEDERAL
                           PROTECTIVE SERVICE

        Mr. Peck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee. And I would like to thank Mr. Traficant for his
    kind remarks about me and the GSA. I have a statement I would
    like to submit for the record. I would just like to note that
    with me today is Clarence Edwards, our Assistant Commissioner
    for the Federal Protective Service, and I would like to submit
    his resume for the record also, if I might. I will summarize my
    statement.
        We could not take security more seriously in the Public
    Buildings Service. The Murrah Building was our building. I have
    to tell you, I was not satisfied with the management of our
    security function or the Federal Protective Service when I took
    this job. I cannot claim to be a police expert. I grew up in a
    military police family, however, and I have had some security
    training in the Army. I care about this. It is not an easy task
    running a building that is supposed to be open to the public
    and yet secure. And so, I have summarized in my statement what
    we have done.
        On the issue of money, I will just mention that we have
    tripled our spending on security since the Oklahoma City
    incident to more than $250 million per year. We have almost
    doubled the number of uniformed officers, and we have doubled
    the number of contract guards. The fact is that the deployment
    in Oklahoma City was a deployment recommended by the Federal
    Protective Service at the time. And I would note that it is the
    real estate managers of the Public Buildings Service and I who
    came together several years ago to say we need to restructure,
    reorganize, and intensify the training for security that we
    have in our Federal Protective Service, because that is one of
    the core functions that the tenants and the public tell us they
    want us to perform.
        So, No. 1, it is not the case that having at some point
    real estate managers in the chain of command is a detriment to
    security. Just as with the military, it is important that
    civilians and those accountable to the public be able to
    determine the mission, though not necessarily the organization
    and tactics in the military or the law enforcement community.
        And so what we have in GSA, I just want to be clear, the
    organization we have today of the Federal Protective Service is
    parallel to that of the Public Buildings Service. In each of
    our regions, the security personnel--notice I keep saying
    ``security'' and not law enforcement--our security and law
    enforcement personnel report to a regional director of the
    Federal Protective Service. That regional director does report
    to a regional Buildings person. It is the same chain of command
    that we have on the real estate side. Perhaps that itself
    should change.
        But taking the Federal Protective Service out of the Public
    Buildings Service would in fact go in absolutely the wrong
    direction, because what we need to do is integrate the design
    and management of our buildings with our imperative for
    security. By the same token, our security personnel need to be
    working hand-in-hand with architects, designers, engineers, and
    building managers.
        Unfortunately, it is just a fact of human life, human
    nature, and large organizations that if you put people in
    separate structures they just have a hard time working
    together. It is astounding to me, I would note to you, that the
    Public Buildings Service is actually not established in
    statute. The Administrator of General Services has the
    authority to set up and abolish services within GSA. It is
    amazing how hard it is for us to get cooperation between the
    Public Buildings Service and the Federal Supply Service, two
    agencies in the same organization but with headquarters in
    different buildings, different commissioners, different lines
    of reporting responsibility. And I just worry that if we
    created a separate FPS we would have the same basic problem.
        As I said, a lot of the impetus for change in FPS has come
    out of the Public Buildings Service and our looking to see what
    we could do for security. We thought several years ago when we
    started what we call the new FPS that our officers and their
    commanders had not been given a clear mission charge, which is
    the first thing you have to do in a military or paramilitary
    organization. We said the mission is principally security. And
    we have intensified training for that. We are cross-training
    everyone so that they are both law enforcement and security
    personnel. That is what is important in this issue and I hope
    you will not lose site of it. And I was encouraged to hear your
    statement and that of Senator Baucus.
        Because I want to hold to my time, may I just mention that
    there are a number of provisions of this bill that with some
    modifications we think could be helpful. At least one provision
    as is we think is very important. It is really important that
    we clarify the authority of our offices regarding arrest and
    investigative powers in and around our buildings. I am happy to
    see that the legislation would expand our jurisdiction, if we
    get the consent of local police departments, to areas adjacent
    to Federal property. That is essential to our officers and
    agents carrying out their jobs, and I hope you will do it.
        A number of other provisions I think, if amended, could be
    quite helpful to us. I would note one thing. In expanding the
    authority of our officers, the bill unfortunately creates the
    anomaly that our criminal investigators, our special agents
    would have lesser investigative and arrest powers than the
    officers. We think with a simple fix, and we could recommend
    some language to you, we could fix that mistake.
        We think establishing a specific number of police officers
    is a mistake. I do not know if 730 is too high or too low,
    quite honestly. We are doing a staffing study and I believe
    eventually we will have between law enforcement, security
    officers, and FPOs many more than 730 officers. But I do not
    know where that number comes from. In almost no instance of
    public policy does it make sense to set a number.
        Finally on pay and benefits, which I think is very
    important. We have been trying very hard, including in
    discussions with the Office of Personnel Management, to
    increase the pay and benefits that our officers have. I think
    that the way this bill is written would try to do that. It is a
    1-year tying of our pay scale and benefits to the U.S. Capitol
    Police. A lot of our positions do not seem commensurate with
    those and we think we may actually be able to get our officers
    better pay and benefits by not tying to that. But we would like
    to have some help in legislation in getting the pay and
    benefits increased.
        So, again, I would like to work with your staff, if you
    move this bill, to try to improve some of those provisions. And
    I am happy to answer any questions that you have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallay.

    STATEMENT OF JOEL S. GALLAY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, GENERAL
        SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY EUGENE WASZILY,
       ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING; JIM HENDERSON,
             ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS

        Mr. Gallay. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Joel Gallay,
    Deputy Inspector General at GSA. I would like to introduce two
    people with me today: Eugene Waszily, Assistant Inspector
    General for Auditing; and Jim Henderson, Assistant Inspector
    General for Investigations. I have my full statement which I
    would like to submit for the record and would just summarize
    that this morning.
        I appreciate the opportunity to come before the
    subcommittee to discuss the views of the Office of Inspector
    General on H.R. 809. Our office has done a significant amount
    of work in recent years relating to building security in
    general, and Federal Protective Service operations in
    particular. Much of this work was spurred by initiatives to
    upgrade Federal building security after the bombing of the
    Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
        The centerpiece of the bill under your consideration today
    is the proposal to remove FPS from PBS and establish it as a
    separate operating service of GSA. This new service would be
    headed by a commissioner who would be appointed by and report
    directly to the GSA Administrator.
        We agree that improvements are needed in the existing FPS
    structure. We strongly believe that there needs to be a direct
    chain of command and line of authority between the FPS
    headquarters in Washington and FPS field personnel. We also
    support the explicit requirements in the bill for the FPS head
    and the assistant commissioners and regional directors to have
    direct law enforcement experience. We believe these provisions
    are particularly critical insofar as FPS performs a law
    enforcement function.
        Law enforcement agencies which operate within larger parent
    organizations, like the Office of Inspector General, are
    traditionally staffed by professional law enforcement personnel
    with a direct chain of command from the headquarters level to
    the field level. This structure assures more effective
    oversight of the use of law enforcement authorities and
    consistent application of polices and procedures, particularly
    important with respect to matters such as jurisdiction and the
    use of deadly force.
        We think that most outsiders would be surprised to learn,
    as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that while the Assistant
    Commissioner here in Washington is the nominal ``head'' of the
    FPS, he can only issue policy guidance. He does not have
    command and control over the FPS Directors in the 11 GSA
    regions. These Directors, most of whom currently do not have
    prior law enforcement experience, report to Assistant Regional
    Administrators for PBS in the regions and not to FPS
    headquarters.
        Two of our audits serve to illustrate some of the problems
    inherent in this organizational structure. In our examination
    several years ago of the criminal investigator program within
    FPS, we found that criminal investigator activities in the
    field were generally operating in inconsistent ways, with no
    program accountability. We reported on problems like unbalanced
    staffing. For example, one region had a ratio of 1 criminal
    investigator for 42 buildings, while another had 1 criminal
    investigator for 641 buildings. We also reported on
    inconsistent investigative approaches and found that in some
    regions these inconsistencies raised real concerns about
    whether the safety of Federal employees was being compromised.
        Similar problems were noted in another audit we issued in
    March of this year where we examined FPS' management of the
    contract guard program. FPS central office has been trying to
    create a national program with standards for areas like guard
    training, weapons, guard eligibility, and suitability to be
    applied to all GSA guard contracts. Our review of this program
    concluded that an absence of controls and oversight had led to
    operational breakdowns at the regional levels. For example, we
    found hundreds of guards were on post without valid suitability
    determinations; armed guards were on post without any firearms
    training or they were overdue for firearms qualifications; and
    guard services in one region were being acquired through a
    short-cut method without being subject to critical program
    requirements.
        In addition to these formal audits, we have encountered a
    number of situations over the last few years involving regional
    FPS employees acting in violation of established national
    policy. These situations included several instances of FPS
    officers carrying firearms while off duty; a number of
    instances of FPS officers carrying firearms without having been
    properly qualified; and an FPS supervisor in one region
    authorizing the issuance of shotguns, which FPS officers are
    neither qualified with nor authorized to carry.
        The clear message in these audits and other reviews is that
    FPS would greatly benefit from an organizational overhaul to
    improve its ability to implement consistent policies and
    procedures. By requiring law enforcement experience at both the
    central office level and at the supervisory level in the
    regions and by providing that the FPS head would appoint the
    regional directors in the field, H.R. 809 takes several steps
    toward this organizational overhaul.
        We do not believe, however, that FPS necessarily needs to
    be removed from PBS in order to effectuate the changes in chain
    of command for purposes of strengthening FPS' law enforcement
    functions. In our view, these changes can be made within PBS.
    This would achieve the much-needed improvements in command and
    control over law enforcement functions while meeting the
    coordination and other concerns PBS has with the proposal to
    remove FPS entirely.
        Under H.R. 809, the new FPS Commissioner would be
    designated as the ``security official of the United States''
    for the protection of GSA-controlled buildings. We believe that
    this broad designation is generally unworkable and would add
    confusion to what are in fact legitimate and important security
    functions that are exercised by PBS. Security is a multi-
    faceted area and involves aspects of building location, design,
    planning, and operations. Building location, design, and
    planning would clearly seem to be generally within the province
    of PBS. On an individual building operations level, building
    security and safety is the responsibility of FPS and the
    Building Security Committee for that building, with PBS
    support.
        The bill's proposed removal of FPS from PBS and its
    designation of the FPS head as the ``security official for the
    United States'' leave unanswered several critical questions,
    especially: What security functions would remain in PBS and
    what functions would be transferred to FPS? Clearly, building
    design should remain the responsibility of PBS, while police
    activities and supervising guard forces should be the
    responsibility of FPS. In between, however, lies a gray area
    where the decisions on division of responsibility and transfer
    of functions are not very easy.
        We believe that, even under the current organization,
    better coordination of the building security function is
    needed. We have concerns that making FPS a stand alone service
    in GSA may not be an immediate cure for, and may even
    exacerbate, some of the problems we have seen in recent years.
    For example, we issued a series of alert reports highlighting
    serious problems in the agency's building security enhancement
    program undertaken in the aftermath of Oklahoma City.
    Ultimately, the problems there stemmed from a failure of
    coordination within the FPS organization and between FPS and
    PBS. Whatever organization may result from this legislation or
    from GSA's own efforts, a strong linkage between FPS and PBS
    needs to be developed and maintained in the area of building
    security.
        I would like to turn just briefly to the bill's provisions
    on law enforcement authority. H.R. 809 would give FPS special
    police, renamed ``police officers,'' general law enforcement
    authority, including the authority to carry firearms, seek and
    execute arrest and search warrants, and make warrantless
    arrests under specified circumstances. We support this
    provision. We believe it is a much-needed clarification of the
    uniformed officers' authorities.
        The bill also would make minor changes to the law
    enforcement authorities exercised by the nonuniformed officers
    of FPS. But, as Commissioner Peck pointed out, the way the bill
    is drafted there is an anomaly that would be produced. We know
    of no reason that would call for a differential between the
    authorities given to the uniformed officers and nonuniformed
    officers. We, too, would advocate changing the bill to give the
    new special agents the same law enforcement authorities as the
    new police officers.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of the testimony. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        I would like to start off with the Cleveland situation.
    Apparently there was some disconnect there in terms of
    decisionmaking. If the regional people were responsible to the
    Federal Protective Service and Commissioner, a decision would
    have been made that is not where that child care facility
    should be built. Obviously, somebody else came along and said,
    no, I think we can build it there, it is not such a big
    problem, and we are going to put it there because maybe it is
    going to save us $1.8 million and we need to have the facility.
    Wouldn't this legislation help clarify that kind of a situation
    in that the thing would have probably been bounced up to
    somebody in Washington and they would have discussed it and
    decided that this is what the decision is and that is the end
    of it.
        Mr. Peck. Mr. Chairman, I only became aware of this
    situation yesterday, so I do not have enough facts to know what
    has actually gone on there. But having dealt with the issue of
    where we locate and how we protect child care centers all over
    the country, because we operate 113 of them, I can just tell
    you that having separate services would make the situation
    worse, because ultimately the factors that go into a decision
    about where you put a child care center include: what space do
    you have available in a building that you do not have a tenant
    in or you can move a tenant out of; what indeed is the most
    secure or the most threatened space in the building; how much
    will it cost to fix it up; if structure or other appurtenances
    in the building have to be changed, those are going to be done
    by PBS. This just makes the point again that the security
    people and the real estate people need to be joined at the hip,
    not torn asunder, to make these decisions in an intelligent
    way.
        I am going to find out what has happened in Cleveland. But
    I can tell you, having worked through these before, I have not
    seen a situation that I have delved into where I have seen us
    make a decision based on the cost at the expense of security.
    It just has not happened in my experience. But I will find out.
        Senator Voinovich. I would be very interested because if
    what was reported in the paper is true, there is a disconnect
    there. Two years ago a memo said, no, do not do it. Somebody
    came along and said, well--and there was a quote from an
    individual there--said, well, no matter where you could put
    these things, you have got a problem, so we are going to go
    ahead and do it anyhow. So the issue is the decision was made
    apparently by the person that was in the PBS and not in the
    FPS.
        Mr. Peck. But the FPS people are in PBS. I do not know
    there is that disconnect. Without knowing the situation, it is
    easy to say, boy, they should not be over or near a loading
    dock. On the other hand, if the alternate locations are worse--
    I mean, we have had child care centers right out in the front
    of a building next to the sidewalk. We do not want to have the
    child care centers there either. So, again, without knowing, it
    is hard to know what the decisionmaking is about. I have
    discovered that with some security issues that get brought to
    my attention there is so much emotion involved that rationality
    has sort of gone out the window.
        May I mention two other things?
        Senator Voinovich. Yes. But I would like to just ask, and
    it is probably a touchy question, but is there some
    interpersonal difference between the persons who run the FPS
    and the PBS in Washington and is this maybe the reason why we
    have this legislation? Is there some adversarial relationship
    or interpersonal problem there that has exacerbated a situation
    that has brought this to the surface now?
        Mr. Peck. Well, you can ask Mr. Edwards. There is not
    between him and me. I think if there has--I will be honest
    about it--I think if there has been a problem between PBS and
    FPS, it has been that in the past FPS was regarded within PBS
    as sort of a separate entity and not enough brought into the
    decisionmaking on where we locate buildings, how we design
    them, and how we operate them. By the same token, and
    unfortunately, when I came to GSA I asked officers in FPS what
    they felt their responsibility was with respect to supervising
    the contract guards, for example, of whom we have thousands,
    and I had many officers tell me I don't have anything to do
    with them. Which is a huge mistake because our security forces
    need to believe that everything that happens on security is
    something that matters to them. We cannot afford to have some
    officers thinking that the contract guard is some other group,
    that that is not a part of my job, or that the technological
    equipment is somebody else's job. They all need to be very
    integrated. So this is one of those issues where people keep
    asking me why are you on such a tear about this, and it is
    because I believe so firmly that the course we are on is the
    right one.
        Clarence Edwards and I agree on what the principal mission
    is and how we ought to approach it. In some regions, there may
    be some disconnects between some of the assistant regional
    administrators and the regional directors. I will tell you
    this--and I want to refute this lack of qualifications notion--
    we have a really good set of regional directors. To my
    knowledge, I am trying to go down the list, I would like to
    submit for the record a list of our regional FPS directors and
    their qualifications because I know just in my mind at least
    seven or eight of the 11 have law enforcement qualifications.
    The regional director in this region came out of the
    Metropolitan Police Department at one point and the Park
    Police, if I remember correctly. So I do not know where this
    thinking comes from.
        I do not think there is that disconnect. Some of our
    Assistant Regional Administrators for Public Buildings have
    been among the most forceful advocates for higher pay,
    increased benefits, and better training for the FPS. I do not
    want to say that there is never any personality conflicts, that
    is always true in some large organization.
        Senator Voinovich. Congressman Traficant made a major point
    of what is the difference between GSA and the relationship
    between the Capitol Architect and the Federal protection here
    in Congress. Would either one of you like to comment on that?
        Mr. Peck. Having worked up here, I would rather. The
    organizational structure of the Congress as a whole, with two
    houses that are co-equal, is so different from most other
    organizations in the world it is hard to make the analogy. I
    will say we feel that we are more like the Park Service and the
    Park Police. The Park Service has control and jurisdiction of a
    huge amount of Federal property, there is a U.S. Park Police, a
    separate organization within the Park Service, that has law
    enforcement and security jurisdiction on the Park Service
    properties. I note that they are not a separate agency within
    Interior, separate from the Park Service, but a part of the
    Park Service, because the Park Rangers and the Park Police need
    to work hand-in-glove.
        That is an organization that I think works really well. I
    will just tell you, because Clarence Edwards come out of a long
    and successful career in the Park Police, that is basically the
    model we have been thinking about as we go ahead on this. And
    it is true that there is a complicating factor in GSA.
        It is true that Clarence cannot issue a direct order down
    the line in the regions, just like I cannot issue a direct
    order down the line in the regions to tell somebody to fix up
    that building. And I realize that in a police culture, in a
    security culture, that may be more of a problem than it is in
    what is more of a commercial real estate structure. And I
    think, to be honest, if you ask Clarence, he would honestly say
    that is a source of frustration to him. And I think that
    particular aspect of our organization is a source of
    frustration to him, but not the fact that he is not a separate
    service.
        Mr. Gallay. If I may just add.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Gallay.
        Mr. Gallay. I think that really does put the focus on the
    key issue here. And the example of the Park Police is a good
    one. Within the Park Police there is direct chain of command, a
    direct line of authority and command and control with respect
    to the law enforcement function. The organization does work
    well as part of a larger parent organization, the National Park
    Service. That is why we think some change is necessary and
    would be helpful to alter, with respect to the law enforcement
    functions, the kind of balkanized approach that has existed
    with respect to the Federal Protective Service in performing
    law enforcement functions.
        But the issues, the concerns that Commissioner Peck has
    raised with respect to the need to coordinate the law
    enforcement issues with the security functions are real, and
    that kind of coordination is essential. We think the changes
    that are necessary could be made within the PBS structure,
    permitting that linkage to occur.
        Senator Voinovich. Does that require statutory changes?
        Mr. Gallay. No.
        Senator Voinovich. It would not?
        Mr. Gallay. No, sir.
        Mr. Peck. We could, again because PBS was established by
    administrative order inside GSA, we could change the reporting
    relationship inside. I have considered that and I have not done
    it in the past, quite honestly, because I have thought that the
    logic of my position, which is that we all need to be joined at
    the hip, has meant to me that the reporting structure of FPS
    should be parallel to the reporting of PBS. It is an argument I
    have made. I have not discussed this before with the IG. I have
    to say I very much respect their work in this area and I am
    certainly willing to reconsider that.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Gallay, do you think the FPS is
    mostly security or law enforcement?
        Mr. Gallay. Well, that is a great question. The FPS
    traditionally has performed mostly a law enforcement function.
    And one of the things that this bill brings into focus, and one
    of the things that has been going on with an effort within PBS
    has been to try and get a handle on what is this beast: Should
    it be doing just law enforcement, or is it really pursuing more
    of a security orientation. There clearly needs to be a marriage
    of both.
        But with respect to the law enforcement functions, it needs
    to operate as a law enforcement organization. I think when we
    talked about the Capitol Police, the structure, as I understand
    it, is that there is again a police organization but that then
    reports to a board which includes the Architect of the Capitol
    and the Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and House. They deal in
    a kind of over-seeing sense with issues of security that
    include both aspects. That is the model we think would work
    best.
        Senator Voinovich. Be coordinated.
        Mr. Gallay. Yes. I think the frustrations Commissioner Peck
    said Mr. Edwards experiences he probably experiences as well in
    terms of dealing with the regions on some issues. And that is
    part of the concerns we have seen when we dealt with the
    building security enhancement program. The Commissioner issued
    a very clear direction to everybody concerned that the data to
    be entered into the data base intended to record what
    improvements have been made, that an improvement was only to be
    recorded as having been made once it was operational. Well, our
    audit found that there were wholesale problems in that, and the
    information one was presented with as to what the status of
    those changes were was wrong in many cases. I am sure he would
    often like to be able to have a more direct authority.
        In law enforcement organizations, that is really important,
    for the reasons that we have addressed.
        Senator Voinovich. The other thing from your testimony that
    is a little disturbing to me is the discrepancy in terms of the
    privately hired people and the qualifications of those
    individuals. It is all over the lot. How do you guarantee that
    those standards are met? That is very disturbing.
        Mr. Gallay. The standards are there and the objectives that
    the Commissioner has established for the FPS are excellent. But
    you do not get there unless you provide the resources for
    contract oversight and ensure that national standards are
    enforced. And if you have individual regions which are going in
    different directions, that can cause problems.
        Senator Voinovich. I would be really interested to see what
    you observed around the country, and it would be interesting to
    get your input on, if you did that, why is it in certain areas
    these people are right up to snuff and they are doing what they
    are supposed to be doing, then you go into another area and
    they are not at all. Is it a product of the fact that the
    person managing the building was not conscientious enough in
    terms of negotiating the contract as to qualifications of the
    individuals?
        Mr. Gallay. If I may just for a moment. PBS had a real
    challenge following Oklahoma City. They had a lot on their
    plate. The contract guard program went from something under
    3,000 at that time to over 6,000 presently. That is a huge
    change in a program to have to manage.
        The breakdowns that we have seen are largely attributable
    to a need for making sure that when you have gone to a
    contracted out program you need to continue to ensure--it is
    trust but verify--you need to ensure that what you have paid
    for is what you are getting. That is the area where there have
    been problems; there is inadequate attention to the controls in
    the program and to overseeing the contracts that have been put
    in place. There are good standards but the standards have not
    been uniformly enforced.
        Senator Voinovich. Do you think that if the Administrator
    in Washington had the power over these people directly that
    those standards would be more adhered to than they have been in
    the past?
        Mr. Gallay. That is a safe bet, but there are no
    guarantees.
        Mr. Peck. Mr. Chairman, two things. One is I do not want to
    waffle on the question you asked about security versus law
    enforcement. Job No. 1 is security, physical security of the
    people who work in and who visit our buildings. And that is
    what we have said. That is a fundamental change in the FPS
    mission from what it was before. It is not to say that there
    are not important law enforcement functions, and our folks, I
    want to tell you, are as good as you get at things like crowd
    control. We had terrific experience in Seattle where overall
    one could fault the law enforcement response. Our people were
    stellar and I think were recognized for that. So we are really
    good at that. But it is security.
        Senator Voinovich. When you are referring to your people--
    --
        Mr. Peck. I mean the Federal Protective Service people who
    we brought in from other areas but who were mostly people
    headquartered in our Region 10 in Seattle. They had sealed off
    our area we thought in an appropriate way and were very well
    prepared for what happened in Seattle, to the point that when
    things got out of hand the mayor and others were using our
    buildings as the place where they had their press conferences
    because those were safe havens. I am just saying it was a great
    job.
        Senator Voinovich. OK. In terms of security, you are
    talking about the people that came in and looked at it, but you
    are not referencing the contract personnel that were there
    doing it?
        Mr. Peck. No, sir. That was our uniformed officers as well
    as our regional director who organized the response there. I am
    talking about our uniformed officers, who we do move around the
    country and need to have the authority to do that. They are
    very well trained. We think they have needed more training on
    some security issues. Individual building security issues, we
    have had a long history with crowd control and demonstrations
    because our buildings are often the focal point for those. Our
    people are very good at that.
        Senator Voinovich. So it is your security/uniformed people
    that you are talking about. For example, how many of those
    people do you have in the Cleveland region?
        Mr. Peck. I forget what the number is in Cleveland. If I
    remember correctly, it is somewhere between four and five
    actual uniformed Federal Protective Service officers in
    Cleveland. I will get you the number.
        Like every other part of PBS, most of the job of human
    security in the buildings--and remember, security starts with
    intelligence, finding out where the threats are and stopping
    them before they get even close to you. That is the most
    important thing. Second is hardening your targets, which you
    can do by technological means as well as human means. And
    third, actually using our tenants as eyes and ears and having
    everybody be alert. I am saying that that basic security of the
    facilities we think is job No. 1. We are fortunate in that we
    do not have that many major crimes in our building. We do have
    the need occasionally to go in when lines of people waiting for
    Social Security or INS get out of control. But our basic
    challenge is security. And we are getting better at that all
    the time.
        Second, on the contract guard issue, this is where we get a
    confusion. We now have 6,000 contract guards. As I said, I was
    concerned when I came in that some parts of FPS did not think
    they were responsible for even overseeing the contract guards
    or making sure they were doing their job. We found instances,
    as has the IG, in which we did not make sure that the contract
    guard sitting at a desk knew clearly and concisely what it was
    they were supposed to do, and, by the way, what they are not
    supposed to do.
        We identified 3 years ago when we came out with a plan for
    a strengthened FPS that improving the contract guard program
    was very important. This April we came out with a new contract,
    standard contract for contract guards which increases training
    requirements for the contract guards. It will cost us more
    money and we have budgeted for that in fiscal year 2001 and
    fiscal year 2002.
        We are also, and this is the final thing, and this is
    really important and important for everyone to know, we are now
    on things like firearms training, Federal Protective Service
    personnel, Federal employees will supervise the firearms
    certification. So when it is tested we will not have
    contractors, we are going to rely a whole lot less on
    contractors self-certifying that they have done the training we
    require and much more on having our own people check it. We are
    increasing the number of hours the contract guards will have to
    be trained, and the final exams will be proctored by Federal
    Protective Service personnel.
        So all of those things are big improvements in the contract
    guard program. We have also changed our contract so that if we
    do not think we are getting good service out of the
    contractors, we can terminate them fast. And that is a club you
    unfortunately need to have over contractors' heads.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Appreciate it.
        Mr. Peck. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. I would suggest that the two of you get
    together and talk about some of the concerns, and I would be
    interested in what your reaction to that is.
        Mr. Peck. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Our next panel is Honorable Jane Roth,
    the U.S. Court of Appeals, Wilmington, Delaware; and Steven
    Bellew, Vice Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal
    Protective Service Labor Committee, Dallas, Texas. We welcome
    you this morning.
        We will begin the testimony with Judge Roth. Judge, we are
    glad to have you here again.
        Judge Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANE ROTH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, WILMINGTON,
                                DELAWARE

        Judge Roth. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 809, the
    Federal Protective Service Reform Act of 2000.
        In March of 2000 the Judicial Conference of the United
    States resolved that H.R. 809 be amended to make clear that,
    should this bill be enacted into law, it would not diminish or
    interfere with the statutory authority of the United States
    Marshals Service to provide security for the Federal judiciary.
    The Marshals Service authority to provide security for the
    judges, judicial employees, witnesses, and jurors derives from
    28 United States Code Section 566. The Judicial Conference
    recommends the following amendment be added to H.R. 809 as a
    new Section 11. It would state:
        ``None of the provisions of this Act shall be construed to
    interfere with, supersede, or otherwise affect the authority of
    the United States Marshals Service to provide security for the
    Federal judiciary pursuant to 28 United States Code, Section
    566.''
        Prior to 1982, the General Services Administration and the
    Marshals Service shared responsibility for security inside
    Federal courthouses. Under this shared responsibility, security
    was inadequate. In 1982 Chief Justice Warren Burger and
    Attorney General William French Smith, in cooperation with the
    GSA, agreed that the Marshals Service should assume primary
    responsibility and authority to provide security and protective
    services in Federal buildings housing court operations.
        In order to assist with implementation of this agreement,
    the Marshals Service received delegated authority from the GSA
    Administrator to contract for guards in court-occupied space.
    In 1983, as part of a joint judicial and executive branch
    initiative, the Marshals Service established the Judicial
    Facility Security Program. As a result of this agreement and
    its subsequent implementation, the Marshals Service assumed
    responsibility for all security inside courthouses and GSA
    retained responsibility for security outside courthouses.
        The judiciary believes the Judicial Facility Security
    Program has proven to be efficient and effective and that it
    should be continued.
        We are concerned that Section 6 of H.R. 809 could be read
    to infringe upon the role of the Marshals Service to provide
    security in court-occupied space because it gives authority to
    the newly created position of Federal Protective Service
    Commissioner to serve as the Government's law enforcement
    officer in buildings under the control of the GSA
    Administrator. In addition, Section 9 of the bill could be read
    to change the responsibility for contract guard employment
    standards. Currently, the Marshals Service uses standards of
    suitability which it has developed for employment of contract
    guards. The judiciary wants to ensure that enactment of this
    proposed legislation would not lead to a change in this
    arrangement.
        We believe the amendment proposed by the Judicial
    Conference would only clarify the intent of H.R. 809. The
    report of the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure which accompanied the bill to the House floor
    states: ``This legislation enhances the FPS, and has no impact
    on the facilities secured by the Secret Service, Federal Bureau
    of Investigation, and United States Marshals Service.''
    However, the report language is not binding. The judiciary
    believes that language in the proposed bill itself is
    necessary.
        We also believe that the Marshals Service and GSA do not
    support any interference with the authority of the Marshals
    Service as found in 28 United States Code Section 566, and
    affirmatively support continuance of the Judiciary Facility
    Security Program.
        I also spoke to Representative Traficant this morning. He
    does not oppose the language that we are proposing. He wants
    the bill to move forward quickly, but he does not feel that the
    language that we propose in any way impinges upon the
    legislation that he is supporting.
        I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and,
    once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bellew.

     STATEMENT OF STEVEN BELLEW, VICE CHAIRMAN, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
      POLICE, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE LABOR COMMITTEE, DALLAS,
                                 TEXAS

        Mr. Bellew. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. My name
    is Steven Bellew, and I am a Federal Protective Service Police
    Officer from Dallas, Texas, and Vice Chairman of the Fraternal
    Order of Police-FPS Labor Committee. I am here today at the
    request of Gilbert Gallegos, National President of the Grand
    Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest
    organization of law enforcement professionals, to testify about
    the importance of enacting into law H.R. 809, the Federal
    Protective Service Reform Act.
        In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and the deaths of
    168 innocent people in 1995, many in the Congress and the
    Federal Protective Service sought ways to ensure that such a
    senseless loss of life would never happen again. In the 5-years
    since the bombing of the Murrah Building, much has been done to
    enhance Federal building security and public safety. However,
    the General Services Administration and the Public Buildings
    Service have proven themselves unwilling or unable to implement
    those reforms which are most necessary to address several
    current problems within the Federal Protective Service.
        First, and foremost, is the internal dismantling and
    weakening of the FPS. Over the last several years, the Public
    Buildings Service has moved FPS away from its traditional focus
    on patrol and response activities, placing a greater reliance
    on State and local law enforcement to act as first responders
    to critical incidents in major U.S. cities.
        A related problem is the lack of law enforcement experience
    in front-line management. The Regional Administrators of the
    Public Buildings Service and at least five of the Regional FPS
    Directors do not have law enforcement backgrounds. The
    Assistant Commissioner of FPS exercises no direct control and
    has been relegated largely to an advisory and policymaking
    role, despite having over 20 years of command level law
    enforcement experience. Thus, the effectiveness of the FPS as a
    law enforcement agency is severely crippled by the fact that
    the Commissioner does not have direct command and control
    authority over his officers across the Nation. This view was
    also expressed in the 1995 ``Vulnerability Assessment of
    Federal Facilities.''
        Finally, the heavy reliance of GSA on the use of contract
    security guards to provide the bulk of protective services in
    America's Federal buildings presents serious security concerns.
    As a whole, private security guards do not receive the same
    level or quality of training as do FPS police officers. While
    the use of contract guards by GSA has been steadily increasing
    over the years, along with the increase in the PBS inventory,
    the number of full-time police officers has declined.
        How does this legislation address the problems which have
    been outlined above? The primary goal of H.R. 809 is simple: To
    reestablish the Federal Protective Service as an elite Federal
    law enforcement agency with a well-trained, professionally led,
    and highly motivated cadre of officers. H.R. 809 will enhance
    the safety of America's Federal buildings in a number of
    important ways.
        First, the legislation provides for the separation of the
    FPS from the Public Buildings Service and elevates the agency
    within GSA. By placing the FPS outside of the Public Buildings
    Service, the legislation will ensure that law enforcement is
    given the same level of consideration as property management,
    and not as a secondary concern of PBS.
        The Fraternal Order of Police continues to believe that
    separation and elevation of the FPS is the only sure way of
    improving the effectiveness and capabilities of the agency. Not
    only would this move establish direct command and control
    authority over FPS officers with the Assistant Commissioner, it
    would also ensure that individuals throughout the chain of
    command have the experience and knowledge necessary to
    effectively command a law enforcement force.
        As I have already mentioned, over the years we have
    witnessed the quiet dismantling of the FPS, most noticeably in
    the staff reductions which continue to occur throughout the
    agency. H.R. 809 will reverse this trend by requiring GSA to
    maintain a minimum of 730 full-time Federal Protective
    Officers. Unfortunately, this provision is greatly needed due
    to GSA's disregard of the provisions of Public Law 100-440. In
    looking into the issue of GSA's noncompliance, the Office of
    Inspector General concluded in 1995 that:``. . . whenever
    funding and FTE positions became available, these additional
    resources were directed into an alternative protection program,
    even after Public Law 100-440 was enacted.'' And ``Not only
    were the FPO ranks not increased, but GSA also permitted the
    number of officers to decline significantly.''
        H.R. 809 has several other provisions vital to the future
    of the Service. It will clarify and enhance the authority of
    FPS officers, and it will require that the Commissioner of FPS
    establish minimum standards and training requirements for
    contract security guards.
        In the end, Mr. Chairman, this is not a ``pay raise'' bill
    and I do not know of any direct benefits which will accrue to
    FPS officers by its passage. Those of us who do put our lives
    on the line every day to ensure the safety and protection of
    Federal employees and facilities believe that H.R. 809 is an
    important step toward improving the capabilities of the Federal
    Protective Service to meet the security challenges of the 21st
    Century. Passage of this legislation is a top priority of the
    Fraternal Order of Police, and we hope to work with members of
    this subcommittee to ensure its enactment before the end of the
    106th Congress.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the
    opportunity to address you this morning. I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
        Judge the Federal Marshals Service, how does that work out
    with the Federal Protection Service? You have your marshals and
    you have got to change so that the marshals have authority then
    for you say the internal security and the FPS has the external.
    Does that work out pretty good?
        Judge Roth. That works out very well, and we would like to
    have it continue that way. As I mentioned, there was concern in
    1982 that there was insufficient security in courthouses. With
    the arrangements we have worked out now, we feel it works very
    well. We are concerned at the present time that there is a
    disconnect with GSA doing security outside courthouses and the
    marshals doing security inside courthouses. We would like to
    coordinate and consolidate that security more. But we feel it
    is very important that the Marshals Service continue to play
    their present role inside courthouses. Since statutorily that
    role is given to GSA and the Marshals Service does it under
    agreements, we feel that, unless the statutory language is
    added to the bill to clarify that the FPS jurisdiction will in
    no way impinge upon or affect the Marshals Service, there could
    be problems.
        Senator Voinovich. The Federal Marshals Service, do they
    have contract employees that they hire?
        Judge Roth. They do. The court security officers program,
    which is within the budget of the judiciary, is managed by the
    Marshals Service. The court security offices provide, for
    instance, the entrance guards at courthouses. They patrol
    within courthouses. Their qualifications and training and the
    determination of who is needed where is done under the
    direction of the Marshals Service.
        Senator Voinovich. So the Marshals Service is like, you
    heard the testimony of Mr. Peck about the FPS, they have got a
    few uniformed people that, say like in Cleveland, there are not
    very many of them, but they are in charge of looking at the
    security of the building and working with the judges and so
    forth, and then they determine what kind of contract services
    they need to run the checks and----
        Judge Roth. Yes. This is done on a national basis. The
    standards that are required for courthouses are established by
    the Marshals Service, in coordination with our Committee on
    Security and Facilities.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Bellew, so I have a complete
    understanding, the people that you represent are the
    investigators and the uniformed people, for example, to go back
    to Cleveland, Mr. Peck said five or six people.
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. When you are talking about increasing
    the numbers of people, you are talking about increasing the
    numbers of those kinds of individuals. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir. This number is primarily a base
    number. It was put in the legislation basically so that they
    could not drop below that number. That is for all of them, yes,
    sir.
        Senator Voinovich. And the purpose of it is not to
    eliminate contract people from being hired at these Federal
    facilities, but rather, you do not think there is enough people
    in the Federal Protective Service in those areas to do the job
    that they are supposed to do. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. All right. Is there any interest within
    the FPS work force in the law enforcement and security officer
    position, the new LESO position?
        Mr. Bellew. The LESO position was primarily supposed to be
    for putting these officers into remote locations out of the
    core cities so that we would be able to provide law enforcement
    to places that were not within the core cities, such as
    Cincinnati, Cleveland, New York, and the larger metropolitan
    cities where we do have large forces of police officers. That
    was the original purpose of the LESO. That way they could have
    a physical security person in that location as well as a law
    enforcement.
        The way that the position was brought about was that it was
    supposed to encompass 51 percent law enforcement and 49 percent
    physical security duties. Even though they received a lot of
    training in both areas, that is not really what we are seeing
    nationwide. Out of all 11 regions, there are only a few of them
    where the people are actually in uniform. One of the primary
    purposes of that was to augment the uniformed force and allow
    the uniformed personnel to hold a job where they could be
    fairly compensated. In some of the regions they did not even
    look within the uniformed positions to begin with. What they
    did was they went to college campuses and just recruited people
    straight out of college that did not have any law enforcement
    experience for these positions.
        Senator Voinovich. So, initially, the concept was that
    people would be moved up within the Federal Protective Services
    into another level, because I guess they move up to another
    category where they are eligible to receive better
    compensation.
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. But that has not been the way it has
    worked out. I would really be interested if you could give me
    some information on that so I would have it, on how is that
    really working, and what are your concerns about it, and how
    can it be improved.
        But getting back to this number of new people, you just do
    not think there are enough folks out there right now, and we
    are not talking about contract people. I would be interested,
    for example, I think they have five in the Cleveland area, how
    many of the new 700 would go to Cleveland, for example?
        Mr. Bellew. Well, that would----
        Senator Voinovich. You do not have to answer that.
    Basically, what you are saying is, from your perspective and
    the perspective of your members, there just are not enough of
    us out here to get the job done. Is that basically it?
        Mr. Bellew. No, sir. I can give you a prime example in New
    York City today, as a matter of fact. Back in 1995 FPS hired 35
    what they call ``term'' police officers. These officers were
    supposed to augment the permanent police officers in the World
    Trade Center bombing trials, the terrorist trials. Well, their
    term of duty expires on Saturday, in 2 days. What is going to
    happen at that point is approximately 50 percent of the police
    force there in New York City is going to lose their jobs.
        New York has two primary high profile terrorist trials
    coming up, the two trials of the terrorists that bombed the
    embassies in Africa. We have been fighting that cutback for
    weeks now, saying why are you getting rid of 50 percent of your
    Federal police force when you have two huge trials coming up.
    In a 1999 letter from the Attorney General's Office, Janet Reno
    sent a letter to David Barram, the Administrator of General
    Services Administration, requesting that these officers remain
    at their post and continue funding for fiscal year 2000. And
    even though Congress has funded the program, they are diverting
    the funds to different locations for different purposes other
    than to maintain these 35 officers in New York.
        Senator Voinovich. These 35 officers were hired into the
    Federal Protective Service and now they are letting them go
    because they feel that they are not needed, is that it?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. And you are saying that, from everything
    that you know, they should stay there. And that is an example
    of where they responded correctly by adding people, and you
    would argue that there are other places in the country where
    you need more people.
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. And that is where you get the 700
    number?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Are there any other comments that anyone
    would like to make?
        [No response.]
        Senator Voinovich. Obviously, you think the legislation is
    needed. Maybe the last question would be, Major Peck's and the
    Deputy Inspector General's testimony indicates they think this
    thing could be worked out administratively, what is your
    reaction to that?
        Mr. Bellew. My reaction to that is I do not believe it can
    be worked out administratively for the simple fact that law
    enforcement is an inherent government function. Law enforcement
    is something that when you are dealing with police officers you
    need to have police officers in charge. I will give you a prime
    example. PBS consistently ``fences'' our funds so that the
    training that we are supposed to receive or that we have
    applied for never happens. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing
    trial, I instructed a civil disturbance class for police
    officers that were involved with the trial and I was told that
    was the first training they had received in over 7 years. Our
    funds continuously get diverted to other locations. That is why
    we need police officers in charge of other police officers, so
    that we can receive the funds that we are supposed to receive,
    conduct the training that we are supposed to conduct, and
    secure the buildings.
        One item I would like to bring up is that a lot of people
    seem to be concerned with the divesting of security from public
    buildings. Part of the legislation as written mandates that the
    new Commissioner of the Federal Protective Service will
    coordinate all his activities with the Commissioner of the
    Public Buildings Service. It would be nothing more than a new
    policy to mandate that the physical security specialists do
    exactly what they are doing now. Nothing is really going to
    change other than the fact that, instead of issuing guidelines
    and suggestions, we would receive hard core policy that would
    enable us to become the elite law enforcement force that we
    should be.
        Senator Voinovich. In other words, under the current
    system, you do not think the FPS gets the kind of priority that
    it ought to be getting, and that when decisions are being made
    in terms of what do you do with the dollars, so often they flow
    to the administrative side of this thing rather than they do to
    the FPS? You are kind of a stepchild there, and you believe if
    you were separate there would be more advocacy on the part of
    the Federal Protective Service.
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. In terms of advocacy, budget spending,
    and also in terms of control in the local area. Do you think if
    this set up had been in place that the report that came back
    about the unevenness in the hired people per the contracted
    people would be there? Do you think that would have improved if
    this set up that you suggest was in place 5 years ago? Do you
    think that would be a whole lot better today than it is if you
    had had the separate police?
        Mr. Bellew. Mr. Chairman, the police officers that we have
    out there in the field today are well-trained. They go through
    an extensive course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
    Center in Glynco, Georgia. Afterwards, they have periodic
    training, in-service training, they go through a period of
    field training officer orientations to ensure that they know
    their jobs before they are put in the field, they undergo
    rigorous background investigations by the Office of Personnel
    Management, and the security officers do not. As the IG stated
    earlier, there is a big problem with the number of security
    officers. Approximately 10 years ago, we had about 5,000 well-
    trained Federal police officers out on the street to protect
    the buildings. Now, we have approximately 500.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, the fact is what has happened is
    that they have hired more contact employees than they had
    before, correct?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir. And these contract employees do not
    undergo the rigorous background investigations we do, they
    receive hardly any training, their management is lax, as
    evidenced by the IG's report which states that a lot of them
    were not certified, they were not certified properly with their
    weapons. Those are just some of the problems that we have with
    the security force that we have.
        Senator Voinovich. So you think those contract employees
    should be FPS employees? Again, I want to go back to the issue
    of contract employees. Do you think those people ought to be
    Federal Protection people rather than contract employees?
        Mr. Bellew. That would depend on whether they would meet
    the criteria. They are going to have to go through the
    background investigation, which I am sure that some of them
    would probably not pass, and they would have to complete the
    training, which would further weed out people who were not able
    to be police officers, and what you would wind up with is you
    may start with 5,000 people and wind up with 600-700 good
    police officers that you could field.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, the question I have got is do you
    think that the people that the Federal Protection Service
    hires, these contract people that do some of the work, need the
    same kind of background and everything else that you have for
    your people?
        Mr. Bellew. Yes, sir, they should. You would not want a
    felon working as a security officer at your Federal buildings,
    if I understand the question correctly. If they met the same
    type of background investigation we do, then we would be able
    to catch the fact that they were a felon or that they had
    several arrests or whatever and they would not be hired, they
    would not work on the contract.
        Senator Voinovich. OK. I thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        Judge Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak to you.
        Mr. Bellew. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. The record will be open until October 3d
    for anyone to submit information.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
     Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the State of
                                  Connecticut
                   tribute to senator daniel patrick moynihan
        This is a poignant moment for me as I acknowledge the extraordinary
    contributions to American life made by my esteemed friend and
    colleague, Senator Moynihan, and in doing so, bid him goodbye from the
    Senate.
        Throughout four decades in public life, Pat Moynihan has built a
    richly deserved legacy as one of our most prescient and gifted leaders.
    He is both Renaissance man and someone who understands New York City's
    ``mean streets;''--a product of New York's Hell's Kitchen neighborhood
    but also of Tufts, Harvard and the London School of Economics. He has
    served his country as a statesman and a scholar, an author and an
    ambassador, a counselor in four consecutive Presidential
    administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and for 22 years, as
    Senator from the Empire state. Ultimately, he is a man dedicated to
    people, rather than party or politics.
        I consider myself fortunate--and it has been an honor I will
    continue to cherish--to have been given the opportunity to work beside
    Pat and learn from him during the 12 years our tenures in the Senate,
    and on the Environmental and Public Works Committee (EPW), overlapped.
    And while Pat has accomplished so much spanning the realms of foreign
    and domestic policy--I would like to take this time to honor his record
    on this committee, where he has served with distinction since he was
    first elected in 1977.
        More than anyone I know, Senator Moynihan influences the present
    with a profound understanding of the past and a prophetic view of the
    future. Through innovative thinking and firm leadership, he has
    demonstrated an unwavering commitment to preserving the beauty and
    purity of our environment so that the solace our ancestors found in
    nature may also be discovered by our descendants. This, and a skill for
    working across party lines, has allowed him to exert an influence that
    has dramatically improved the quality of American lives.
        In what may be his crowning environmental and public works
    achievement, he was chief author of the landmark Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The genius of this law
    is that, for the first time, it integrated transportation and
    environmental policy, with a eye toward maintaining both the
    infrastructure and nature, to improving both our working and our
    leisure lives.
        The legislation redirected Federal surface transportation policy to
    include not only highway construction but maintenance, and also a broad
    array of new transportation approaches: programs to beautify our
    roadways, to acquire scenic and historic sites, and to establish
    pedestrian and bicycle facilities by utilizing abandoned railway
    corridors. The flexibility of the bill permitted closer coordination
    between transportation and clean-air programs in a deliberate effort to
    avoid past conflicts between the two goals.
        ISTEA also gave states greater flexibility to solve their
    particular transportation needs, recognizing that different parts of
    the country have opposing priorities. In some states new capacity may
    be at the top of the list, while in others greater highway maintenance
    takes precedence. ISTEA permitted each state to use its discretion to
    better manage its transportation demands while making the most of its
    Federal funds. The reforms initiated by the Senator Moynihan in ISTEA
    were so successful they were continued and enhanced in the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, which was
    enacted in the last Congress.
        There are many examples of Senator Moynihan's visionary leadership,
    but I will mention just three more. From his first days on the
    Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Moynihan has shown
    an extraordinary gift to perceive problems before they catch the public
    eye. He and his New York colleague, the late Senator Jacob Javits, were
    the first Senators to respond to the Love Canal crisis, calling for a
    swift state and national response to help the families cope with a
    hazard that existed, literally, in their backyards. His empathy for the
    victims of Love Canal and his commitment to protecting others from
    similar tragedies led to his close involvement in the development of
    the Superfund program.
        Senator Moynihan must also be recognized as the originator of acid
    rain legislation. As early as 1979, he foresaw the potential
    consequences of acid rain on our forests and streams and rigorously
    fought to address the problem. While the legislation underwent changes
    in conference, Senator Moynihan's bill eventually emerged as an
    important 10-year research program that ultimately became one of the
    Federal Government's largest scientific studies outside of NASA. His
    work on acid rain became the foundation for strong Clean Air Act
    legislation on this issue. Through the years he has continued to play a
    prominent role in protecting air quality in New York and throughout the
    nation.
        Finally, Senator Moynihan has long held a deep appreciation for the
    beauty, grandeur and historical meaning of public buildings and their
    role in our daily lives. He led the effort to transform Pennsylvania
    Avenue from a neglected slum into a boulevard that rivals any of the
    great capitals of Europe. He played an instrumental role in the
    renovation of the exquisite building that is Union Station in
    Washington D.C., and the incomparable Penn Station in Manhattan, and
    remains an active member of the Smithsonian Institution's Board of
    Reagents. The return to quality architecture in government buildings is
    in significant part testimony to his understanding that public
    buildings must better represent the aims and aspirations of our nation.
    It is safe to say, no other Senator in the last half century has had a
    more enduring impact on preserving our heritage through public
    buildings.
        Senator Moynihan and his life's work, on the Environment and Public
    Works Committee and in all aspects of his illustrious career, have
    touched my life and the lives of all Americans in profound ways. I know
    his departure will be deeply felt, particularly by me for whom he has
    been more than a mentor: a guiding light, a great teacher, and an
    inspiration. I wish him all the best.
                                   __________
    Statement of Hon. James A. Traficant, Jr., U.S. Representative from the
                                 State of Ohio
        I want to thank the Chairman Voinovich and Ranking Senator Max
    Baucus, for holding this hearing on H.R. 809, the ``Federal Protective
    Service Reform Act.'' As the author of this legislation, which has
    received bipartisan support. I hope that the committee will approve the
    bill and move it to the Senate floor as soon as possible.
        I have been working for the past 6 years to improve Federal
    building security. This bill will make a big difference. It will put us
    in a position where we can harness the professionalism of the Federal
    Protective Service and thus reduce the likelihood of another Oklahoma
    City.
        Good security starts and ends with good people. One of the keys to
    dramatically improving building security is having a well-trained
    professional police force led by experienced law enforcement and
    security professionals--not real estate managers. Congress also needs
    to clearly establish, by statute, FPS's mission and jurisdiction.
        H.R. 809 will achieve all of these goals.
        Why is this legislation needed? Because security is best provided
    by police officers--not real estate managers! Low manpower levels, a
    flawed management structure, and the increasing use of unqualified
    contract guards are seriously compromising the ability of FPS to do its
    job.
        For example, FPS is part of GSA's real estate management arm, the
    Public Building Service. As such, the head of FPS does not have command
    and control authority over FPS
        regional directors. Regional FPS directors are required to report
    directly to Public Building Service regional administrators--
    individuals with no law enforcement experience!
        In addition, the majority of FPS regional directors have no law
    enforcement or intelligence experience.
        One example I would like to cite is the proposal to construct a new
    child care center in the Celebrezze Building in Cleveland, Ohio. PBS
    blatantly ignored the recommendations of the Joint Security Task Force
    and proposed placing the center adjacent to the building's loading dock
    FPS objected to this proposal, but the matter is still pending.
        It is clear that an independent FPS could that its security
    recommendations are taken seriously and have equal footing with other
    agencies.
        H.R. 809 embodies the FPS-related recommendations made in a 1995
    Justice Department study conducted in the wake of the April 19, 1995
    bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The study's
    recommendations, which included upgrading the position of FPS within
    GSA, were endorsed by the FBI, Marshals Service, Department of Defense,
    Secret Service, State Department and Administrative Office of the U.S.
    Courts.
        I would also point out that a 1996 review conducted for GSA by
    Arthur Andersen strongly recommended that FPS be made a stand-alone
    service within GSA. Unfortunately, through four separate hearings
    conducted over the past 2 years by the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee, PBS never once mentioned this key study.
        I want to note for the record that House committee staff had
    lengthy discussions with key PBS officials about this legislation. We
    offered to negotiate all provisions in the bill if PBS would agree to
    give full ``command and control'' authority to the head of FPS. The
    answer was a resounding ``no.''
        H.R. 809 has been strongly endorsed by every major law enforcement
    organization in the country, including the National Fraternal Order of
    Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the
    International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
        I want to also note for the record that the House worked closely
    with the Department of Justice and the Secret Service to resolve some
    minor concerns they had over the wording of the original bill. All of
    their concerns were addressed in a manager's amendment approved by the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
        The only issue that has been contentious, as far as the Public
    Building Service is concerned, is whether or not FPS should be a stand-
    alone service within GSA.
        On this issue I side with the law enforcement community.
        The fact is, the entire law enforcement community believes that
    making FPS a stand-alone service within GSA is essential to upgrading
    and improving Federal building security.
        Mr. Chairman, this bill is much needed and long overdue. The sad
    reality is that since Oklahoma City, the terrorist threat to Federal
    buildings--foreign and domestic--has increased dramatically. Right now,
    we are still unprepared to deal with this threat.
        H.R. 809 will give us a fighting chance to effectively combat
    terrorism. I urge its expeditious approval.
                                   __________
       Statement of Hon. Robert A. Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings
                    Service, General Services Administration
        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Bob
    Peck, Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. With me today is
    Clarence Edwards, Assistant Commissioner for the Federal Protective
    Service. Thank you for the opportunity to update you on our progress in
    improving security in GSA-owned and leased buildings and to express our
    concerns regarding H.R. 809.
        It goes almost without saying that we have no more important
    responsibility than providing for the security of the tenants and
    visitors in our buildings. As I've said before, we need to provide that
    security while maintaining friendly, inviting, public buildings. No
    easy task.
        Since the heinous bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in
    Oklahoma City in 1995, we have tripled our annual spending on security
    to over $250 million per year, increased the number of Federal
    Protective Officers to 582 (this includes both our traditional Federal
    police officers (FPO) and our new law enforcement security of ricers
    (LESOs), as of July 31), and doubled the number of contract guards to
    over 6,000.
        We are also improving our security in qualitative ways that go
    beyond numbers. Many in our Federal Protective Service (FPS) are
    embracing the changes; some are not and would like to see FPS divorced
    from PBS and made an independent arm of GSA. We oppose that change.
    First, here's what our changes in FPS are all about. We started by
    defining the FPS mission and objective; they had not been clear before.
    The objective is for FPS to become the best facilities security
    organization in the world. The principal mission is building security,
    by which we mean protecting the affected facility, its tenants,
    visitors and their property from harm. As Assistant Commissioner
    Edwards, a veteran police officer and our top FPS official, says: FPS
    is not a police organization; it is a facility security organization
    with law enforcement authority.
        We are changing training, job definitions and tactics to carry out
    this mission. We have created the new LESO position, which will become
    the core position in FPS. LESOs get both full law enforcement and
    physical security training. LESOs have full arrest authority and carry
    weapons. They wear police uniforms or plain clothes depending on the
    needs of the day. Their job is to be responsible for security in a
    given geographical area: to oversee physical security precautions and
    to deal with emergencies. LESOs are being deployed so as to extend our
    protective services to locations not previously covered.
        We already have about 79 on board, 62 of them former FPS officers
    or Physical Security Specialists (PSS); another 76 LESO positions are
    in the recruitment process. Not coincidentally, the new position starts
    and tops out at GS levels above where the general FPS officer position
    currently starts and tops out.
        We have added a special 2-week FPS orientation course to the 8-week
    basic police training our recruits get at the Federal Law Enforcement
    Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. We have also created a 4-week
    Physical Security Academy that is quickly becoming known
    governmentwide.
        We have adopted the ``community policing'' tactics that have taken
    police officers out of their cars and back on the streets in cities and
    Federal facilities around the country (open on foot, sometimes on
    bicycles, which we are using, too). The idea is to be out and about to
    deter incidents, not to wait for a 911 call after incidents have
    occurred. We call it ``customer oriented policing'' and it means our
    officers, whether LESOs or FPOs, will spend more time in and around the
    buildings we lease and operate. We expect this to yield two additional
    benefits: 1) our customers, who pay security surcharges that partially
    fund FPS (which is also supported by regular rent payments), will
    actually see more of our highly qualified in-house security experts,
    and 2) we'll be able to convert our tenants into more effective eyes
    and ears, alerting us to possible problems, whether malfunctioning
    equipment or workplace situations that pose a threat.
        We have deployed a terrific new software package for use by our
    Physical Security Specialists and LESOs in identifying the threats
    against each of our locations and evaluating how to respond to those
    threats. It may have been the quickest and most successful single
    rollout of a software application I've seen in PBS.
        All the experts say that intelligence is the most important weapon
    against those who plan violent acts. Our Criminal Investigators (CI's)
    have all received intelligence analysis training and are involved with
    highly effective liaison efforts with the Federal intelligence-
    gathering agencies, like the FBI. We have upgraded our secure
    communications equipment, too. Additionally, the CI's are being trained
    in the new Regional Threat Assessment Methodology.
        Finally, we have upgraded requirements in our contract guard
    contracts and put FPS officers in charge of monitoring training
    quality. Security guards are now required to have 100 hours of
    training, higher academic standard, and consistent firearms training.
        In all of this training and job redefinition, we are acknowledging
    that our security personnel are like their other PBS colleagues: there
    will never be enough of us to do all of the hands-on work that needs to
    get done; rather, PBS employees do the work that is inherently
    governmental and manage contractors and use technology to multiply our
    capacity.
        Now, why do we oppose making FPS a separate arm of GSA? Principally
    because it would divorce security from other Federal building functions
    when the opposite needs to be the case: security needs to be tightly
    integrated into decisions about the location, design and operation of
    Federal buildings. Divorcing FPS would create an organizational barrier
    between protection experts and the PBS asset managers, planners,
    project managers and building managers who set PBS budgets and policies
    for our inventory as a whole and who oversee the day-to-day operations
    in our buildings.
        The security we provide is financed out of rent revenues collected
    by the Public Buildings Service from our building tenants. Those
    tenants understandably look directly to PBS for responses to their
    security questions and needs. A separate GSA security service would be
    confusing to them and would lead to confusion about who is responsible
    for what in GSA's security efforts. It is also contrary to other agency
    efforts to present our customers with a seamless GSA, which is capable
    of offering more integrated housing solutions.
        The relationship between FPS and PBS is like that of the U.S. Park
    Police and the National Park Service. The Park Police are a component
    of the National Park Service and not a separate bureau of the
    Department of the Interior. The Park Police patrol and protect
    properties that fall under the auspices of the Park Service, just as
    FPS patrols and protects properties under the auspices of the Public
    Buildings Service. The Department of the Interior has found, just as
    GSA has, that the protection function needs to be fully integrated with
    the other aspects of property preservation, operation and management.
        In closing, I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to
    discuss security at GSA-controlled facilities. We are pleased that both
    the GAO and the IG recognize the significant progress we've made in
    improving the security of Federal buildings. we look forward to working
    with the subcommittee on this issue.
        This concludes my prepared statement. We would be pleased to answer
    any questions you may have.
                                     ______

     General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service,
                                                      October 10, 2000.
    The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    Committee on Environment and Public Works,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Mr. Chairman: During the hearing before your Subcommittee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure on September 28, 2000, you raised
    concerns about the security of the new child care center planned for
    the A. J. Celebrezze Federal Building, Cleveland, OH. Specifically, you
    stated it was unclear to you whether GSA might, due to financial
    constraints, proceed with placing the new child care center in a
    location deemed unsafe. I would like to set the record straight on the
    status of this project and our position on placement of the new center.
        The safety and security of the children in our Federal buildings is
    a responsibility we take very seriously. Although the existing child
    care center in the Celebrezze building does not meet all current GSA
    child care center guidelines, a new center is presently in the design
    phase. The approved design, including the site selection, will be
    consistent with current security criteria. No final decision on exact
    location for the center has been made at this point. A site security
    survey has been completed, and we are using appropriate security risk
    factors in evaluating design options. If the approved design option
    includes prospectus level construction, we certainly will seek
    appropriate congressional authority for the project before proceeding
    further.
        I hope this addresses any concerns you may have with this project.
    It might be helpful for your Cleveland staff to have a tour of the
    Celebrezze building and potential child care sites to get a better
    understanding of the design options. Mr. James Whitlock, our Assistant
    Regional Administrator, Public Buildings Service, Great Lakes Region,
    can arrange a tour. He can be reached at (312) 353-5572.
        If you need additional information, please have a member of your
    staff contact Mr. Paul Chistolini, Deputy Commissioner, Public
    Buildings Service, at (202) 501-1100.
                Sincerely,
                                  Robert A. Peck, Commissioner.
                                   __________
       Statement of Joel S. Gallay, Deputy Inspector General, Office of
            Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We appreciate the
    opportunity to come before this subcommittee to discuss the views of
    this Office on H.R. 809, the Federal Protective Service Reform Act.
    This bill would generally restructure the Federal Protective Service
    within the General Services Administration (GSA), grant expanded law
    enforcement authority to Federal Protective Service officers and
    investigators and make changes regarding pay structure, contract guard
    training and number of police officers.
        Our Office has done a significant amount of work in recent years
    relating to Federal building security in general and to Federal
    Protective Service operations in particular. Much of this work was
    spurred by Federal initiatives to upgrade Federal building security
    after the bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
    City. We have reviewed GSA's installation of security equipment, the
    adequacy of data base documentation of security upgrades, and the
    proper usage of security enhancement funds. In the past few years, we
    have also reviewed the functions and operations of both the Federal
    Protective Service criminal investigator and contract guard programs.
        The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for protecting
    Federal employees and property in Federal buildings owned or leased by
    GSA. To meet this responsibility, FPS performs both law enforcement and
    physical security functions. The FPS work force includes uniformed
    police officers and nonuniformed officers, including criminal
    investigators and physical security specialists. FPS currently
    supervises over 6,000 contract guards. The FPS function of guarding and
    securing Federal buildings has been a part of GSA's Public Buildings
    Service (PBS) since 1949.
    FPS Reorganization
        The centerpiece of the bill under your consideration today is the
    proposal to remove FPS from PBS and establish it as a separate
    operating service of GSA. This new service would be headed by a
    Commissioner who would be appointed by and report directly to the GSA
    Administrator. The Commissioner of FPS would be required to have at
    least 5 years of law enforcement experience in a command or supervisory
    position. That Commissioner, in turn, would appoint the Regional
    Directors and Assistant Commissioners for FPS. These Directors or
    Assistant Commissioners would be required to have 5 years direct law
    enforcement experience, including at least 2 years in a supervisory
    position.
        We agree that improvements are needed in the existing FPS
    structure. We strongly believe there needs to be a direct chain of
    command and line of authority between the FPS headquarters in
    Washington, D.C. and FPS field personnel. We also support the
    requirements in the bill for the FPS head,
        Assistant Commissioners and Regional Directors to have law
    enforcement experience. We believe these provisions are particularly
    critical insofar as FPS performs a law enforcement function. Law
    enforcement agencies, including those (like Offices Inspectors General)
    which operate within larger non-law enforcement agencies, are
    traditionally staffed by professional law enforcement personnel with a
    direct chain of command from the headquarters level to the field level.
    This structure assures more effective oversight of the use of law
    enforcement authorities, the development and implementation of training
    requirements, and consistent application of policies and procedures--
    particularly important with respect to matters such as jurisdiction and
    use of deadly force.
        We think that most outsiders would be surprised to learn that,
    while the FPS Assistant Commissioner here in Washington is the nominal
    ``head'' of the FPS, he can only issue policy guidance; he does not
    have command and control over the FPS Directors in the 11 GSA regions.
    These directors, only 2 of whom currently have law enforcement
    experience, report to Assistant Regional Administrators for PBS in the
    regions and not to FPS headquarters.
        Two of our audits serve to illustrate some of the problems inherent
    in this organizational structure. In our examination several years ago
    of the criminal investigator program within FPS, we found that criminal
    investigator activities in the field were generally operating
    autonomously, with no program accountability or measurable performance
    standards. We reported that the criminal investigators resided in a
    fragmented organization, with unbalanced staffing resources, disparate
    lines of authority and inconsistent approaches to implementing
    investigative guidelines from region to region. We also found the
    criminal investigator program lacked a useful management information
    system as well as a centralized system for identifying and developing
    specialized training needs. In addition, we noted the following
    problems:
          Investigator staffing varied widely between regions--from
    one criminal investigator per 641 buildings in one region to one
    criminal investigator per 42 buildings in another.
          Investigators in some regions reported to experienced
    lead investigators or Special Agents in Charge; others reported to
    various non-investigatory personnel.
          Inconsistent interpretations of law enforcement
    authorities and application of policies raised concerns of whether the
    safety of Federal employees was being compromised. Although we
    performed this review 3 years ago, our information is that the
    conditions reported in this audit are similar now and, in some cases,
    have deteriorated.
        Similar problems were noted in another audit we issued in March of
    this year, in which we examined FPS management of the contract guard
    program. As you are aware, GSA contracts with private security firms
    for both armed and unarmed guards at Federal facilities. As noted,
    there are currently over 6,000 contract security guards nationwide. FPS
    central office has been trying to create a national program with
    standards to be applied to all GSA guard contracts. FPS central office
    determined that five program areas should be standardized in all
    regional guard contracts. These included guard training, weapons and
    ammunition, guard eligibility, a basic written examination, and
    suitability and certification requirements. Our review of this program
    concluded that an absence of programmatic controls and oversight has
    led to operational breakdowns and questionable practices at the
    regional levels. Specifically we noted:
          Hundreds of guards were on post without valid suitability
    determinations. Guards lacked necessary to perform their duties.
          Armed guards were on post without any firearms training
    or they were overdue for firearms qualifications. Contract enforcement
    and oversight was not consistent. There was no consistent policy on
    post orders.
          Guard services were being procured by purchase orders and
    were not then subjected to critical program requirements.
        In addition to formal audits, we have addressed a number of
    situations over the last few years in which regional FPS employees have
    acted in violation of or contrary to established national policy. Those
    situations have included the following:
          Several instances of FPS officers carrying firearms off-
    duty; one instance of an FPS officer firing a warning shot while off-
    duty;
          A number of instances of FPS officers carrying firearms
    without having been properly qualified;
          FPS in one region issuing badges and credentials to non-
    law enforcement personnel and issuing badges and credentials bearing
    unauthorized titles and endorsement signatures; and
          A FPS supervisor in a region authorizing the issuance of
    shotguns, which FPS officers are neither qualified nor authorized to
    carry.
        The clear message in these audits and other reviews is that FPS
    would greatly benefit from an organizational overhaul to improve its
    ability to effect implementation of consistent policies and procedures
    and to better handle disciplinary issues. By requiring law enforcement
    experience at both the central office at the supervisory level in the
    regions and by providing that the FPS head would appoint the Regional
    Directors in the field, H.R. 809 takes several steps toward this
    organizational overhaul. In one regard, though, we believe that this
    part of the bill could be strengthened. Currently, the bill provides
    only that the FPS head ``appoint'' Assistant Commissioners and Regional
    Directors. In order to ensure direct lines of authority between central
    office and the GSA regions, we suggest that the bill also provide that
    the Regional Directors (and Assistant Commissioners) Report to'' the
    FPS head and not the various senior regional officials..
        We do not believe, however, that FPS necessarily needs to be
    removed from PBS in order to effectuate the changes in chain of command
    for purposes of strengthening FPS's law enforcement functions. In our
    view, these changes can be made within PBS. This would achieve the
    much-needed improvements in command and control over law enforcement
    functions, while meeting the coordination and other concerns PBS has
    with the proposal to remove FPS entirely.
        Under H.R. 809, the new FPS Commissioner would serve as the ``law
    enforcement officer and security official of the United States with
    respect to the protection of Federal officers and employees in
    buildings and areas that are owned or occupied by the United States and
    under the charge and control of the Administrator.'' We believe that
    this broad designation of the new Commissioner as the ``security
    official of the United States'' for the protection of Federal buildings
    is generally unworkable and adds confusion to what are in fact
    legitimate and important security functions that are exercised by PBS.
    Security is a multi-faceted area, and involves aspects of building
    location, design, planning, and operations. Building location, design
    and planning would clearly seem generally the province of PBS. On an
    individual building operations level, building security and safety is
    the responsibility of FPS and the Building Security Committee (BSC) for
    that building, with support of the building manager and other building
    personnel.
        This bill's proposed removal of FPS from PBS and its designation of
    the FPS head as the ``security official for the United States'' leave
    unanswered several critical questions: What security functions would
    remain in PBS and what security functions would be transferred to FPS?
    Clearly building security design functions should remain the
    responsibility of PBS, while police activities and supervising guard
    forces should be the responsibility of FPS. In between, however, lies a
    gray area where the decisions on division of responsibility and
    transfer of functions are not very easy. Who would decide on the
    location of guard posts and whether they are armed posts? Who would
    decide on locations of security equipment? Currently, the BSC for each
    Federal building, which is made up of tenant representatives and a FPS
    security specialist, and is supported by the building manager, make
    many of these decisions. How would removing FPS from PBS change this
    process? Would it help or hinder the process?
        We believe that, even under the current organization, better
    coordination of the building security function is needed. We have
    concerns FPS a stand-alone service in GSA may not be an immediate cure
    for, and may even exacerbate, some of the problems we have seen in
    recent years, such as in GSA's efforts to upgrade security equipment at
    Federal facilities. There, we issued a series of alert reports in which
    we reported on repeated instances of missing, uninstalled and non-
    operational security equipment and many inaccuracies in the data bases
    on the status of this equipment. Based on conditions we discussed in
    these reports, PBS reported a material weakness for purposes of the
    Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. Ultimately, the problems
    there were a failure of coordination, between and among central office
    and the region, FPS security personnel and customer agency officials,
    and FPS and the building managers. Whatever organization may result
    from this legislation or GSA's own efforts, a strong linkage between
    FPS and PBS needs to be developed and maintained in the area of
    building security.
    Law Enforcement Authority
        H.R. 809 would give FPS special police--renamed ``police
    officers''--general law enforcement authority, including the authority
    to carry firearms, seek and execute arrest and search warrants, and
    make warrantless arrests under specified circumstances. We support this
    provision. It is a much-needed clarification of the uniformed officer's
    law enforcement authorities, which, under current law, have to be
    somewhat assumed or implied. We also agree with the changes made in the
    bill from earlier versions to limit these authorities to use while on
    duty and subject to regulations approved by the Attorney General.
        The bill would make a minor change to the law enforcement
    authorities exercised by the nonuniformed offficers of FPS--renamed by
    the bill ``criminal investigators''--but appears to leave those
    authorities mostly the same as they exist currently. This leads,
    however, to an unfortunate, and likely unintended anomaly--the criminal
    investigators would exercise different, and mostly lesser, law
    enforcement authorities than the new police officers. For example,
    nonuniformed officers (or special agents) could arrest without a
    warrant only for felonies; the new police officers could arrest for
    misdemeanors and felonies. In addition, nonuniformed officers do not
    have express authority to seek and execute search warrants; the new
    police officers would. We know of no operational imperatives that would
    favor such a result. We would advocate changing the bill to give the
    new special agents the same law enforcement authorities as the new
    police officers. We would also suggest making those authorities subject
    to regulatory supervision of the Attorney General.
    Contract Guard Program
        Finally, we would like to briefly mention the provision of the FPS
    bill which would require the new Commissioner of FPS to prescribe
    minimum standards of suitability for employment to be applied in the
    contracting of security personnel. In the last few years, FPS has taken
    significant steps toward creating a national program for the contract
    guards. The program devised by FPS included the development of minimum
    training standards for all guards and the creation and implementation
    of national certification guidelines and other procedures to be
    followed in all guard contracts. However, our March 2000 audit of the
    contract guard program, which we discussed earlier, shows, however,
    that many of these efforts have fallen short. As we already noted, we
    identified literally hundreds of instances where guards were on post at
    GSA-controlled facilities without the initial suitability check and, in
    some instances, despite unfavorable adjudication determinations. In
    addition, over 100 guards were overdue for required re-certifications
    and numerous background checks were in pending status for more than 1
    year.
        The critical problem here, though, is not necessarily one of a lack
    of standards--FPS has already devised minimum standards for training
    and suitability. Rather, our review indicates it is a lack of
    consistent implementation in the regions, coupled with inadequate
    resources to provide effective oversight of the guard contracts. The
    problem to be addressed, therefore, whether through this legislation or
    by the agency itself, is ensuring that policy and procedures issued by
    FPS headquarters are effectively enforced in the regions.
        In the end, regardless of how the issues regarding FPS may be
    resolved, for something as important as security of Federal employees
    and property, any restructuring must take into account the need for
    clearer lines of responsibility and accountability.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee members might have.
                                   __________
     Statement of Judge Jane R. Roth, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
                                    Circuit
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Jane Roth.
    I serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
    Circuit and as Chairman of the Judicial Conference's Committee on
    Security and Facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today to discuss H.R. 809, the ``Federal Protective Service Reform
    Act of 2000.''
        In March 2000 the Judicial Conference of the United States resolved
    that H.R; 809 be amended to make clear that, should this bill be
    enacted into law, it would not diminish or interfere with the statutory
    authority of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) to provide
    security for the Federal judiciary. The USMS authority to provide
    security for the judges, judicial employees, witnesses, and jurors
    derives from 28 U.S.C. Sec. 566. The Judicial Conference recommends
    that the following amendment be added to H.R. 809 as a new Section 11:
        None of the provisions of this Act shall be construed to interfere
    with, supersede, or otherwise affect the authority of the United States
    Marshals Service to provide security for the Federal judiciary pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 566.
        Prior to 1982 the General Services Administration (GSA) and the
    USMS shared responsibility for security inside Federal courthouses.
    Under this shared responsibility, security in courthouses was
    inadequate. In 1982 Chief Justice Warren Burger and Attorney General
    William French Smith, in cooperation with GSA, agreed that the USMS
    should assume primary responsibility and authority to provide security
    and protective services in Federal buildings housing court operations.
    In order to assist with implementation of this agreement, the USMS
    received delegated authority from the GSA Administrator to contract for
    guards in court-occupied space. In 1983, as part of a joint judicial
    and executive branch initiative, the USMS established the Judicial
    Facility Security Program. As a result of this agreement and its
    subsequent implementation, the USMS assumed responsibility for all
    security inside courthouses and GSA retained responsibility for
    security outside courthouses.
        The judiciary believes the Judicial Facility Security Program has
    proven to be efficient and effective and that it should be continued.
        We are concerned that Section 6 of H.R. 809 could be read to
    infringe upon the role of the USMS to provide security in court-
    occupied space because it gives authority to the newly created position
    of Federal Protective Service Commissioner to serve as the government's
    law enforcement of fleer in buildings under control of the GSA
    Administrator. In addition, Section 9 of the bill could be read to
    change the responsibility for contract guard employment standards.
    Currently, the USMS uses standards of suitability which it has
    developed for employment of contract guards. The judiciary wants to
    ensure that enactment of this proposed legislation will not lead to a
    change in this arrangement.
        We believe the amendment proposed by the Judicial Conference would
    only clarify the intent of H.R. 809. The report of the House Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure (H. Rept. 106-676) which
    accompanied the bill to the House floor states:
        This legislation enhances the FPS, and has no impact on the
    facilities secured by the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of
    Investigation and United States Marshals Service. Because report
    language is non-binding, the judiciary believes that language in the
    proposed bill itself is necessary.
        We also believe that the USMS and GSA do not support any
    interference with the authority of the USMS as found in 28 U.S.C.
    Sec. 566, and affirmatively support continuance of the Judicial
    Facility Security Program.
        I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and,
    once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

     Responses by Judge Roth to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
        Question 1. Notwithstanding the U.S. Marshals Service issue you
    discuss in your testimony, do you have any other concerns about H.R.
    809?
        Response. In our experience, the current management structure in
    which FPS reports to the PBS has worked well. Because the design and
    construction of buildings and security are so interrelated, this
    organizational structure has allowed us to address building security
    issues in a global rather than piecemeal way. We are concerned that
    H.R. 809, because it changes the organizational structure, may make it
    more difficult to coordinate security issues.

        Question 2. How is the current relationship between the U.S.
    Marshals Service and the FPS working?
        Response. We believe that, as a general rule, security
    responsibility and authority should not be bifurcated. The USMS has
    expressed agreement with this position. The USMS currently has most of
    the responsibility for interior security in buildings in which the
    judiciary is the main tenant, and FPS has responsibility for exterior
    security. The judiciary has requested that the USMS extend its
    responsibility to the exterior of these buildings, using judiciary-
    funded court security officers managed by the USMS. We are of the
    opinion that such an extension will enhance security by lessening the
    problems associated with coordination, authority, and accountability
    between the two agencies. We would prefer to put responsibility for
    such an interior/exterior security coordination in the hands of the
    USMS because of the statutory designation of the USMS as the provider
    of security to the courts. To date, neither we nor the USMS have been
    able to resolve with GSA or FPS this problem of bifurcated security.

        Question 3. Are there additional issues concerning the U.S.
    Marshals Service outside the jurisdiction of this committee that you
    would like to address?
        Response. We are very concerned about the diminishing number of
    deputy marshals authorized for the Marshals Service. We have been
    advised that the marshals are currently 600 positions below what they
    were previously authorized (about 300 positions are deputy marshals).
    The loss of deputy positions compels the USMS to hire off-duty police
    officers to handle prisoners and provide courtroom security. In
    addition, the USMS has too many competing duties, such as fugitive
    apprehensions, which further distract their deputies from their
    security responsibilities. We are very concerned that the marshals have
    a sufficient number of deputies to provide the judiciary with a quality
    security program.
         In addition, we would like to see more stability in USMS
    leadership. We have seen some shifting of priorities in the USMS which
    may be attributable to the frequent changes in their leadership. We do
    not think this has served judicial security well. We think
    consideration should be given to selecting as director of the USMS
    individuals with high-level security and Federal law enforcement
    experience to serve a fixed-term political appointment, similar to the
    statutory process used to appoint the Director of the FBI. We strongly
    feel that judicial security requires a USMS that is professional,
    stable, fully staffed, well managed, and focused on its primary
    statutory mission to protect the judiciary.
                                   __________
     Statement of Steven Bellew, Vice Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police
                   Federal Protective Service Labor Committee
        Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Baucus, and members of
    the subcommittee; and thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear
    before you today.
        My name is Steven Bellew, and I am a Federal Protective Service
    Police Officer from Dallas, Texas, and Vice Chairman of the Fraternal
    Order of Police-FPS Labor Committee. 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 importance of enacting into law
    H.R. 809, the ``Federal Protective Service Reform Act.''
        As you know, there is a pressing need to enhance Federal building
    security. This is an issue of the utmost importance to members of this
    committee, FPS of ricers, Federal employees, and the millions of
    Americans who visit Federal buildings every day. In the wake of the
    Oklahoma City bombing and the deaths of 168 innocent people in 1995,
    many in the Congress and the Federal Protective Service sought ways to
    ensure that such a senseless loss of life would never happen again.
    This cowardly attack served as a startling reminder that the United
    States is not immune to acts of terrorism, and underscored the need for
    increased protection at America's Federal buildings provided by a
    highly skilled and qualified organization of law enforcement
    professionals. We believe this need is answered by the ``Federal
    Protective Service Reform Act.''
        In the 5-years since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
    Building, much has been done to enhance Federal building security and
    public safety. However, the General Services Administration and the
    Public Building Service have proven themselves unwilling or unable to
    implement those reforms which are most necessary to address several
    current problems within the Federal Protective Service. First and
    foremost, is the internal dismantling and weakening of the FPS, and the
    duties they are asked to perform on a daily basis. Over the last
    several years, The Public Building Service has moved FPS away from its
    traditional focus on patrol and response activities to placing a
    greater reliance on State and local law enforcement to act as first
    responders to critical incidents in major U.S. cities. One example of
    this, Mr. Chairman, is the current situation in New York City. In 1994,
    GSA hired approximately 35 ``term'' police officers to supplement the
    existing force and provide enhanced security during the World Trade
    Center bombing Dials. These are fully sworn and trained law enforcement
    officers who have completed the 10 week police training course at the
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.
    They are currently responsible for providing law enforcement services
    at the Federal Civic Center; consisting of 26 Federal Plaza, 290
    Broadway, 40 Foley Square, the U.S. Court of International Trade, 1 St.
    Andrews Plaza, the U.S. District Court, 500 Pearl Street, the Bureau of
    Prisons facility at the Manhattan Correctional Center, and Federal
    facilities in Newark, New Jersey.
        Last year, the General Services Administration planned to reduce
    the level of FPS officers in that region at the end of Fiscal Year
    1999, effective October 1. This prompted a letter from Attorney General
    Janet Reno to Mr. David Barram requesting that GSA continue to provide
    the same level of protective services in the region in Fiscal Year
    2000, at the previously authorized level. It is now 1 year later, and
    GSA is again attempting to cut the Federal Protective Service force in
    the region by roughly 50 percent While it is true that the World Trade
    Center bombing trials have concluded, there is a potentially greater
    threat posed by the commencement of the African Embassy bombing trials
    of individuals associated with the terrorist network of Osama bin
    Laden. This shortsighted move has again raised questions, including
    those from U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney, whose constituents face
    the greatest danger from weakened security at Federal facilities in New
    York City.
        The second pressing problem is the lack of law enforcement
    experience in front line management. Under the current structure,
    Federal Protective Service officers in the various regions are overseen
    by the regional administrators of the Public Building Service. In
    addition, at least five of the Regional FPS Directors, who report to
    Assistant Regional Administrators in the 11 regions, do not have law
    enforcement backgrounds. The Assistant Commissioner of FPS, Mr.
    Clarence Edwards, exercises no direct control and has been relegated
    largely to an advisory and policymaking role, despite having over 20
    years of command level law enforcement experience. Thus the
    effectiveness of the FPS as a law enforcement agency is severely
    crippled by the fact that the Commissioner does not have direct command
    and control authority over his officers across the nation, nor over
    such vital issues as funding and personnel.
        This view has also been expressed by other Federal law enforcement
    agencies. In the Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities,
    conducted primarily by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals
    Service after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, several
    recommendations were made to upgrade the capabilities of FPS.
    Specifically, the Report noted that ``the placement of FPS within the
    organizational structure of GSA [under the Public Building Service] may
    have limited the ability of FPS to obtain the resources to assure
    appropriate security in large, multi-tenant facilities, even when the
    security needs have been well-defined.'' The Report went on to
    recommend that FPS, and not the Public Buildings Service, should be
    responsible for providing security services for GSA-controlled
    facilities, improving the standards for contract guards, and be
    responsible for the implementation and maintenance of a centralized
    physical security data base of all Federal of flee buildings. Finally,
    the heavy reliance of the General Services Administration on the use of
    contract security guards to provide the bulk of protective services in
    America's Federal buildings presents serious security concerns. As a
    whole, private contract security guards do not receive the same level
    or quality of training as do FPS police of ricers, who are required to
    attend the 10-week police training course at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia,
    followed by various in-service training programs. While the use of
    contract guards by GSA has been steadily increasing over the years, the
    number of full-time police officers has declined. This decline was
    appropriately noted in the House Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee report on H.R. 809 (H. Rpt. 106-676, pg. 5):
        ``Since 1971, the work force of both PBS and FPS has steadily
    shrunk. In 1971, total employment of Federal Protective Officers
    (FPO's) exceeded 4,500. By 1995, the FPO force had been reduced to less
    than 500. At the same time, [the] contract guard work force had grown
    from 700, to over 2,500. The total protective force stood at 3,000,
    while the PBS inventory had grown by 70 million square feet of space,
    from 230 million square feet of space in the 1970's to over 300 million
    in 1995. The extent of protective personnel coverage had shrunk
    dramatically.'' The committee also noted that by 1995, guard functions
    in Oklahoma City had been so reduced, that a single contract guard, who
    also provided protection for two other Federal buildings, was
    responsible for patrolling the Murrah Building.
        How does this legislation address the problems which have been
    outlined above? The primary goal of H.R. 809 is simple: to reestablish
    the Federal Protective Service as an elite Federal law enforcement
    agency with a well-trained, professionally led, and highly motivated
    cadre of officers. This legislation correctly addresses the current
    problems within FPS; namely the status of the agency within the General
    Services Administration, the need for additional fully sworn and
    qualified police officers, unclear lines of authority and jurisdiction,
    and non-competitive salary and benefits for its of ricers.
        H.R. 809 will enhance the safety of America's Federal buildings in
    a number of important ways. First, the legislation provides for the
    separation of FPS from the Public Building Service--the Federal
    Government's real estate management agency--and elevates the agency
    within GSA. By placing the Federal Protective Service outside of the
    Public Buildings Service, the legislation will ensure that law
    enforcement is given the same level of consideration as property
    management, and not as a secondary concern of PBS. There are several
    benefits to this approach, many of which were outlined in a 1996 GSA-
    requested Arthur Andersen study, entitled Federal Operations Review
    Model (FORM. Federal Protective Service. Conducted by a review team
    which included several GSA employees, the study concluded that of the
    recommendations for FPS contained in the 1995 Vulnerability Assessment,
    ``elevation is most advantageous to the government as it will provide
    for costs savings as well as enable FPS to be self-financing.'' Having
    recommended that FPS be elevated to a Service Line organization
    reporting directly to the Administrator of GSA, the study further
    concluded that this would recognize the priority of security in the
    Federal environment, ensure a direct funding mechanism for Federal
    security, provide savings on overhead costs, and streamline the
    management and reporting structure.
        The Fraternal Order of Police continues to believe that separation
    and elevation of the Federal Protective Service is the only sure way of
    improving the effectiveness and capabilities of the agency. Not only
    would this move establish direct command and with a definitive
    explanation for the agency's refusal to implement this provision, the
    OIG concluded that:
          GSA management did not support the requirement for a
    larger uniformed protective unit, evidenced by the fact that whenever
    funding and FTE positions became available, these additional resources
    were directed into an alternative protection program even after P.L.
    100-440 was enacted;
          While agency management did not seek to increase its
    uniformed police force, GSA made no effort to inform or attempt to work
    with Congress to get the law changed until 1995;
          Despite the fact that Senate Report 100-387 (June 17,
    1988) directed GSA to fund the hiring of additional Federal Protective
    Of ricers (FPO) using funds appropriated for real property operations,
    GSA used available funds to hire Physical Security Specialists and
    increase contract guard services;
          In Fiscal Year 1990, the evidence indicated that the
    agency's internal budget directives did not provide for an increase in
    regional FPO positions. Not only were the FPO ranks not increased, but
    GSA also permitted the number of officers to decline significantly; and
          ``The fact that responsible agency managers knew of the
    law and neither took action to comply with it nor reported non-
    compliance during past years' Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
    (FMFIA) processes was in itself a breach of the FMFIA and a reportable
    condition. Moreover, the fact that such a large circle of management
    was aware of the non-compliance issue and did little to address it
    calls into question the general state of the management environment
    which permitted this to happen.''
        In addition to establishing FPS as a premiere Federal law
    enforcement agency and ensuring an increased number of officers to
    complete the agency's important mission, H.R. 809 has several other
    provisions vital to the future of the Service. It will clarify and
    enhance the authority of FPS of ricers, to include the carrying of
    firearms, petitioning Federal courts for arrest warrants, and executing
    those warrants; and it will require that the Commissioner of FPS
    establish minimum standards and training requirements in contracting
    for security guards.
        In the end Mr. Chairman, this is not a pay raise bill and I do not
    know of any direct benefits which will accrue to FPS officers by its
    passage. H.R. 809 is an officer safety issue, supported by law
    enforcement professionals who take a great deal of pride in the work
    they do and the agency they work for. We want a strong Federal
    Protective Service. While we would agree that how you incorporate
    facility protection and public safety into the design of Federal
    buildings is a joint real estate--law enforcement function; the actual
    delivery of the law enforcement service is an inherently governmental
    function which requires direct oversight from law enforcement
    professionals. Those of us who put our lives on the line every day to
    ensure the safety and protection of Federal employees and facilities
    believe that H.R. 809 is an important step toward improving the
    capabilities of the Federal Protective Service to meet the security
    challenges of the 21st Century. Passage of this legislation is a top
    priority of the Fraternal Order of Police, and we hope to work with
    members of this subcommittee to ensure its enactment before the end of
    the 106th Congress.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to
    address you this morning. I would be happy to answer any questions
    which you may have.
                                     ______

         Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Protective Service,
                                        New York, NY, October 11, 2000.

    Gilbert G. Gallegos,
    National President,
    Fraternal Order of Police,
    309 Massachusetts Avenue NE,
    Washington, DC 20002.
    Dear President Gallegos: In response to a request from Senator
    Voinovich for more information on the Federal Protective Service Law
    Enforcement Security Officer (LESO) program, I have compiled the
    following information for your review.
        The LESO position was create by the Public Building Service to
    allow FPS officers the opportunity to be elevated to a position with
    higher pay. Even though this was the stance of PBS, many Regions failed
    to recruit FPS officers for the LESO positions and went directly to
    college campuses and recruited people with no police experience.
        PBS established the LESO position with the intent to incorporate
    law enforcement and physical security. The result has been most LESO
    positions are announced as Physical Security Specialist (LESO). LESO
    personnel, despite guidelines from the Assistant Commissioner of FPS to
    wear their uniforms while on duty, still report to work and perform
    their duties in civilian attire.
        PBS mandated that LESO's perform 51 percent law enforcement duties
    and 49 percent physical security duties. The reality is that LESO's
    rarely perform law enforcement duties and spend most of their time
    conducting physical security surveys. Also, the LESO position was
    supposed to augment the FPS uniform force of police officers. The fact
    is that as LESO's are hired and sent to their duty stations, the FTE's
    are not replaced, causing a reduction in uniformed personnel in major
    metropolitan areas.
        One disturbing factor with the LESO program is that the LESO's, who
    are supposed to be primarily law enforcement officers, do not report to
    a law enforcement chain of command. Instead they report to a
    supervisory physical security manager, thus further weakening any ties
    between security and law enforcement. Another related, but sad fact is
    that in many PBS Regions, the Regional FPS Directors are attempting to
    have uniformed officers report to physical security specialists instead
    of uniformed police supervisors.
        LESO's were supposed to be deployed to areas that have a large
    concentration of Federal employees and buildings, but out of the major
    (core) metropolitan cities. The fact is that a majority of the LESO's
    are being stationed in major metropolitan cities.
        Finally, one of the questions that was asked at the Senate
    Subcommittee hearing, was why more officers were not interested in the
    LESO position. The answer to that question is that most of the police
    officers believe that, since PBS has lied to them on a continuous and
    recurring basis, they have lost the moral support of the officer rank
    and file. This is one of the many reasons why we believe it is
    necessary to separate FPS from PBS.
                Sincerely,
                               Steven S. Bellew, Vice-Chairman,
                                             Fraternal Order of Police,
                                            Federal Protective Service,
                                                  DC-1 Labor Committee.
                                   __________
    Statement of Kenneth T. Lyons, President, International Brotherhood of
                                Police Officers
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Kenneth T.
    Lyons, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
    The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) is the largest
    police union in the AFL-CIO. On behalf of the entire membership of the
    IBPO, I wish to thank you for allowing me to submit for the record a
    statement regarding H.R. 809, the Federal Protective Service Reform
    Act. My first point will be to reaffirm our commitment to provide
    quality police and security service to the Federal community and the
    general public. I only wish that I could be standing before you 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 all
    that we must work together to ensure that the tragedy of Oklahoma and
    the ones since, are not repeated.
        The IBPO is proud of its members who work for the Federal
    Protective Service (FPS). In addition to providing protection to
    hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, these dedicated law
    enforcement officials are literally on the front line when it comes to
    safeguarding the more than 8,000 GSA-operated buildings. As you know
    Federal Protective Service officers were the first to respond to the
    World Trade Center bombing in New York City and were also active in the
    investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing along with the Olympic
    Centennial Park explosion. Mr. Chairman, terrorist threats toward the
    Federal Government are real, and increasing. Our vocation has become
    increasingly more violent and dangerous. We can only expect more
    attempts of terrorism in Federal buildings that service the general
    public.
        The IBPO wishes to thank Congressman Traficant for introducing H.R.
    809. This legislation will finally recognize the Federal Protective
    Officer (FPO) as a legitimate law enforcement professional. As
    president of the IBPO, I can say without exception that an officer who
    is highly motivated, properly trained and adequately compensated, must
    be the first line of defense against crime and terrorism. It is the
    police officer who has to approach the irate visitor or the upset and
    often violent client, and it is the police officer whose life will
    ultimately be on the line. 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.
        Congressman Traficant's legislation will address the many issues
    facing security at our Federal buildings. H.R. 809 will increase the
    number of full-time FPS officers from 673 to 730. While this number is
    below what Congress mandated in 1998, which was repealed a few years
    later, the increase will demonstrate to the public that threats to
    Federal property and personnel are real. Regarding contracting out of
    FPS officers, it should not surprise anyone on this subcommittee that
    our organization has long opposed wasteful, costly and inappropriate
    contracting out of inherently governmental functions. We once again
    reiterate that the explosion in contracting out of services has cost
    the American taxpayer millions of dollars, diminished government's
    expertise in key areas, and reduces its ability to address the problems
    of the future. Ill-trained, non-citizen contract guards with guns
    should not be in a position of protecting government buildings.
        GSA has pushed this concept too far, a reasonable amount of
    civilian contract guards may be necessary, but to outnumber FPS police
    officers by almost 20 to 1 is irrational as well as dangerous. If the
    government continues the practice of contracting out of police officers
    then these individuals should go through the same procedures and
    standards that FPS officers go through. All of us know that security
    guards are subject to the laws and regulations of the States in which
    they are employed. Many States don't even require training for guards
    equipped with weapons. Some State background checks are suspect at
    best. To upgrade these private security guards, we support the
    provision of H.R. 809 that prescribes standards for the contracting of
    security personnel for buildings and areas that are owned or occupied
    by the U.S. Government.
        These standards shall ensure that contract employees receive
    adequate training along with being subject to the same background check
    requirements as Federal Protective Service officers. These individuals
    are responsible for the safety and well-being of thousands of Americans
    who work and do business in GSA-operated buildings across the country.
    We owe it to our fellow citizens that professionals protect their
    workplace.
        What concerns the IBPO is that the GSA never wanted a police force
    and will go to great lengths to desolve the FPS. They are happy with
    the ``counterfeit cops'' namely, civilian contract guards, who hoodwink
    the general public, and government employees.
        The IBPO believes that the GSA hasn't the desire, nor the will to
    maintain a viable police force. While we strongly support the provision
    of H.R. 809 that would allow Federal Protective Service to be a free-
    standing service within the General Service Administration, we urge
    Congress to contemplate transferring our officers to another agency
    that has the know-how and savvy to administer police.
        The IBPo also supports increasing pay for the Federal Protective
    Service officer. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has
    determined that FPS officers are police officers but they are not
    considered ``law enforcement.'' With law enforcement status comes
    better pay and retirement entitlements. Yet our officers are being
    denied the same benefits that other uniformed Federal law enforcement
    officers have. We face the same inherent dangers that other Federal law
    enforcement do but are not recognized for our work and commitment to
    the safety of our fellow citizens.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to submit a
    written statement on H.R. 809. The IBPO looks forward to working with
    this subcommittee on the many issues facing FPS police officers. This
    concludes my written statement.
                                   __________
         Statement of Alfred Maldonado, Representative of the National
                        Federation of Federal Employees
        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this statement
    on behalf of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) in
    support of H.R. 809, the Federal Protective Service Reform Act. This
    bill, once signed into law, would drastically improve the Federal
    Protective Service (FPS) by removing it as a division within the Public
    Building Service (PBS) and making it a separate service of the General
    Services Administration (GSA). In doing so, this legislation will
    ensure that FPS is managed by law enforcement professionals and not PBS
    administrators, who are untrained and inexperienced in the fields of
    Law Enforcement and Physical Security. This legislation would also
    expand the manpower and law enforcement authority of the FPS by
    allowing FPS Police Officers the ability to investigate crimes against
    GSA facilities and the people who frequent those facilities.
    Additionally, H.R. 809 would improve the quality of contract security
    guards who serve as the eyes and ears of the FPS by mandating training
    requirements of these guards across the Nation.
        As you are well aware, and in these proceedings are often reminded,
    168 men; women, and children lost their lives on April 19, 1995 in the
    Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Indeed because of mismanagement; FPS
    left this building a very soft target for domestic terrorists Timothy
    McVeigh and Terry Nichols by significantly reducing it's FPO force and
    by assigning only one contract security guard to patrol the three
    buildings in that area. We cannot allow such a tragedy to occur again.
    H.R. 809 is a heroic piece of legislation, aimed at stopping domestic
    terrorism from touching our Federal facilities and the men, women, and
    children who frequent them.
        NFFE's position on this bill can best be illustrated by first
    pointing out the problems in the current way PBS and FPS operates. I
    will use the San Diego area, which happens to be my area of
    responsibility; as an example. Please allow me to begin by telling you
    a little about what I do for a living.
        The San Diego FPS Office serves all of San Diego, Imperial and Yuma
    Counties, and parts of Riverside County. There are three Federal
    Protective Officers (FPS Police Officers) who patrol from San Diego,
    California to Yuma, Arizona; and up to Palm Springs, California; over
    17,000 square miles. Unfortunately, due to the lack of manpower we are
    just unable to serve the Arizona area, except in rare situations. Of
    the facilities we patrol, six of them are U.S. Border Stations. One of
    those, the San Ysidro Border Station, which separates Tijuana, Mexico
    from San Diego, California, is considered the busiest land port of
    entry in the world. It is estimated that 43,000 automobiles and 73,000
    pedestrians pass through the port on an average day. Though the FPS
    maintains a contract guard force on the site, it does little to curb
    the number of criminal incidents in and around this large GSA facility.
    The San Diego Police Department has adopted a general ``hands-off''
    policy at this facility, due to the jurisdiction and physical control
    issues, insisting that the U.S. Government police it's own property.
    Thus, FPS is primarily responsible for policing this facility.
        On any given Friday and Saturday night, 9,000 to 10,000 pedestrians
    across the border into Tijuana to drink and engage in the Tijuana
    night-life. Most, if not all of them are not legally able to drink in
    the United States. Usually about 6,000 to 8,000 of them return under
    the influence of alcohol or drugs, or extremely intoxicated. Many of
    the people are in violation of Federal and State public intoxication
    statutes: Assaults, robberies and sex offenses in and around this GSA
    facility are very common. Shootings and stabbings are not uncommon.
    Often, U.S. Government employees such as INS and U.S. Customs
    personnel-are assaulted or have threats made against their lives.
    Generally, I work the weekend nights alone or with another officer. I
    spend the remainder of my week catching up an the vast stacks of
    paperwork from my weekend nights.
        As you can imagine, of an international border crossing of this
    size, in such close proximity to major cities, there are a large number
    of fugitives crossing to and from Mexico on a regular basis. Due to the
    hard work and extra effort of both FPS Police Officers and Immigration
    and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors at the San Ysidro port of
    entry we have apprehended over 500 felony fugitives. These fugitives
    have been wanted by Federal and State law enforcement agencies from
    across the country for crimes such as murder, arson, child molesting,
    robbery and drug trafficking. We have arrested members and associates
    of the Mexican and Russian Mafias, and international drug cartels.
    Until 3 years ago FPS presence was vacant from the San Diego area for
    approximately 13 years due to budget cutbacks and poor staffing
    decisions within PBS. Sadly enough, before the re-establishment of FPS
    Police Officers in the San Diego area, many of these dangerous
    fugitives were just set free from INS or Customs custody because they
    were either not identified as fugitives or San Diego Police officers
    were not available to respond. Although this fugitive apprehension
    effort takes up a large portion of our time and resources, we consider
    it one of our primary responsibilities. In turn, we have the
    satisfaction of knowing that many dangerous felons have been taken off
    the streets and the citizens of the United States are much safer
    because of our efforts. It is also important to remember that we are
    doing this with only three FPS Police Officers. If we had more officers
    and resources, this program could be expanded and undoubtedly net many
    more criminals.
        Overall, we are responsible for roughly 160 separate facilities. We
    do our best to locate new GSA buildings or document vacant GSA
    buildings as we patrol this large area. However, it's not uncommon for
    us to receive a call for service for a facility that we have never been
    to, and didn't know existed. This problem of identifying our properties
    exists because PBS does not communicate adequately with FPS. Keep in
    mind that the Government Agencies in these buildings pay for FPS
    service by the square foot regardless of whether they are receiving it
    or not. So why are GSA facilities receiving little to no FPS service?
    There are two simple answers to that question: (1) Because there is
    very little communication between PBS and FPS, and (2) there is no
    accountability for PBS and FPS management officials to do so in the
    first place. In other words, even if PBS were asked to work with FPS,
    there are no centralized mechanisms in place to ensure this will
    happen. So where is my proof that this is happening? I work that proof
    daily in the San Diego area with two other brave souls, who literally
    put their lives on the line in what is considered the toughest
    assignment in FPS. In the San Diego office we make mare arrests and
    have more violent crimes and thefts occurring than any other region
    within FPS. Unfortunately, because PBS and FPS does not communicate
    properly or because both lack any sense of accountability, there are
    still only three FPS Police Officers working in the San Diego region.
    PBS and FPS have been aware of this problem for several years now,
    despite the fact persons on GSA property in the San Diego area have
    been violently attacked and robbed, despite the fact that marry
    Government employees and persons who visit GSA facilities in San Diego
    have been viciously assaulted, despite the fact that an FPS Police
    Officer was almost killed in the line of duty.
        These are not just manpower issues These are examples of inadequate
    or incompetent management decisions within FPS or the inability of the
    PBS to efficiently manage FPS. Currently, there are no requirements for
    FPS supervisors or administrators to have any security or law
    enforcement experience in order to be appointed. In some regions, FPS
    administrators have been appointed without training or experience in
    security or law enforcement. Thus, FPS has been weakened. because of
    such poor appointment practices.
        H.R. 809 would change this. and require that all FPS Administrators
    be qualified to oversee such an important mission as the safety and
    security of GSA buildings and the people they house. It would require
    that the administrators have a minimum of 5 years of experience in a
    law enforcement command position. This would ensure that FPS operates,
    as it should, as a professional Federal law enforcement and security
    agency. H.R. 809 would require that the FPS maintain a minimum of 730
    FPS Police Officers nationwide. Though this number is still far too few
    to adequately patrol and protect the vast number of GSA buildings in
    the United States, it is significantly more than the 500 FPS Police
    Officers left in the FPS in 1995.
        Since the tragic bombing in 1995, the FPS has done much to upgrade
    physical security procedures, but little to upgrade its law enforcement
    capacity. In fact, FPS law enforcement abilities are currently
    inadequate. Recently, the role of the FPS Criminal Investigator changed
    from that of criminal investigation to one primarily of criminal
    intelligence gathering. Though this indeed is an important function,
    PBS and FPS administrators have done nothing to fill the gap in
    criminal investigations left by this change.
        Currently only FPS Criminal Investigations are authorized to follow
    investigations off GSA-controlled property. FPS Police Officers are
    only authorized to enforce laws and investigate crimes on GSA
    facilities. This means that when an investigation leads an FPS Police
    Officer off GSA property, the investigation ends there. Because of the
    new role of the criminal investigator, they often do not have time to
    carry these investigations further. Additionally, PBS has stressed for
    FPS to rely heavily on local law enforcement agencies to police these
    facilities. Neither PBS nor FPS are willing compensate these local law
    enforcement agencies to do this. Oftentimes, local law enforcement is
    already taxed with a heavy burden outside of GSA facilities. These
    often overworked local agencies have expressed reluctance to provide
    service to Federal facilities which are supposed to be policed by the
    FPS.
        For example, earlier year, an employee of the Veterans
    Administration had her purse stolen at a GSA-controlled VA Outpatient
    Clinic in San Diego. An FPS Police officer responded to her call
    promptly, and conducted his investigation but was unable to catch the
    culprit. The necessary reports were processed and the officer did as
    much as he could legally do. Several months later, the theft victim
    contacted the FPS again with a frantic plea for help. It turned out
    that she had not canceled the checks stolen with her purse, and they
    were being forged and used in various businesses in the San Diego area
    for thousands of dollars, She contacted the San Diego and El Cajon
    Police Departments, but found they were not concerned about the
    incident as it stemmed from a theft which occurred in a Federal
    facility, and which was investigated by the FPS. Unfortunately, the FPS
    Police were not authorized, nor empowered to continue the
    investigation, as the subsequent crimes occurred off of GSA property,
    although the string of forged cheeks would have bean a tremendous help
    to identify the purse thief. What began as a petty $150 theft evolved
    into a $3,000 felony, and it went partially investigated and unsolved.
    Essentially, this U.S. Government employee, a victim of a crime, was
    left unassisted as she pleaded with her bank to forgo the debts
    incurred by the thief.
        H.R. 809 would increase the authority of FPS Police Officers,
    allowing them to continue such investigations leading off GSA property,
    to investigate these crimes fully, and pursue these criminal predators
    until they are caught.
        The recent introduction of the law Enforcement Security Officer
    position by the Public Building Service into the Federal Protective
    Service has been billed by Mr. Peck and Mr. Edwards as the new ``core''
    position in FPS. The ``LESO'' is supposed to be a ``jack of all
    trades'' in physical security and law enforcement. The target pay grade
    of the FPS Police Officer is GS-07. The target pay grade of the LESO is
    GS-11, as is the target pay grade of the Physical Security Specialist.
    Law Enforcement Security Officers carry guns and have arrest authority,
    as do properly trained Physical Security Specialists. At the target
    level the Law Enforcement Security Officers' duties will lean more
    toward physical security in plain cloths than uniformed law
    enforcement. The LESO series is a GS-080, which is the same as the
    Physical Security Specialist. Do we see a trend here? It seems as if
    PBS has essentially tempted FPS Police Officers with little more than
    money to desert the law enforcement field to become Physical Security
    Specialists. Ideally, PBS would like the entire FPS to be comprised
    entirely of these Law Enforcement Security Officers, all of whom could
    be contracted out, as the functions of a GS-080 physical security
    specialist are not inherently governmental. The NFFE strongly opposes
    this program, and this practice. This program is a ploy to get the PBS
    real estate managers out of the practice of managing law enforcement,
    because they know they are not qualified to do so.
        Recently, FPS has adopted a ``new'' philosophy they term ``customer
    oriented policing.'' The ideal goal of this philosophy is that it gets
    FPS Police Officers more in touch with the tenants in the buildings, to
    deter crime rather than to be strictly reactive. There are 582 FPS
    Police Officers and Law Enforcement Security Specialists nationwide. If
    we average that by State, that would be less than 11 per State, but
    that wouldn't be accurate at all, because almost half of those officers
    are stationed in Washington DC. This might leave an average closer to
    6, or maybe 5 per State. Some fairly large States such as Nevada, New
    Mexico and Arizona have no FPS Police Officers or Law Enforcement
    Security Officers stationed anywhere in the State, but tenant Agencies
    in GSA buildings in these States pay for FPS service by the square
    foot. How how does it seem realistic that FPS Police Officers can deter
    crime by proactively patrolling GSA facilities? It is not possible.
    This-program is little more than a farce, or even a lie by the PBS to
    create the illusion of proactive law enforcement concerns.
        H.R. 809 is a good piece of legislation. It is a heroic piece of
    legislation. It will serve only to strengthen the Federal Protective
    Service whose primary responsibility is the safety and protection of
    Federal facilities and the people who work in and visit them.

                                       -