[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN THE POST SEPTEMBER 11 ERA: HOW CAN
WE FIX AN IMBALANCED COMPENSATION SYSTEM?
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
90-887 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia, Chairwoman
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
ADAH H. PUTNAM, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Columbia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ron Martinson, Staff Director
B. Chad Bungard, Deputy Staff Director and Senior Counsel
Chris Barkley, Clerk
Tony Haywood, Minority Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Nicolas P. Coleman, Professional Staff Member
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
Tony Haywood, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of:
Bonner, T.J., president, National Border Patrol Council...... 232
Filner, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 84
Kelley, Colleen M., president, National Treasury Employees
Union; Ignatius Gentile, president, Department of Homeland
Security Council 117, American Federation of Government
Employees; Nancy Savage, president, Federal Bureau of
Investigation Agents Association; Richard Gallo, former
president, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
and Louis P. Cannon, president, District of Columbia State
Lodge, chairman, Federal Officer's Committee, Fraternal
Order of Police............................................ 165
King, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York................................................ 76
Rogers, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 85
Simms, Joanne, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human
Resources and Administration, Department of Justice; Norman
J. Rabkin, Managing Director, Homeland Security and
Justice, U.S. General Accounting Office; Donald J.
Winstead, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Pay and
Performance Policy, Office of Personnel Management; and Kay
Frances Dolan, Director of Human Relations Policy,
Department of Homeland Security............................ 98
Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 241
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bonner, T.J., president, National Border Patrol Council,
prepared statement of...................................... 234
Cannon, Louis P., president, District of Columbia State
Lodge, chairman, Federal Officer's Committee, Fraternal
Order of Police, prepared statement of..................... 221
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 249
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia:
Memo dated July 22, 2003................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Dolan, Kay Frances, Director of Human Relations Policy,
Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of..... 151
Gallo, Richard, former president, Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association, prepared statement of................ 199
Gentile, Ignatius, president, Department of Homeland Security
Council 117, American Federation of Government Employees,
prepared statement of...................................... 213
Kelley, Colleen M., president, National Treasury Employees
Union, prepared statement of............................... 168
King, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, prepared statement of......................... 78
McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 8
Rabkin, Norman J., Managing Director, Homeland Security and
Justice, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement
of......................................................... 111
Rogers, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 87
Savage, Nancy, president, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Agents Association, prepared statement of.................. 185
Simms, Joanne, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human
Resources and Administration, Department of Justice,
prepared statement of...................................... 101
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 11
Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 243
Winstead, Donald J., Deputy Associate Director, Center for
Pay and Performance Policy, Office of Personnel Management,
prepared statement of...................................... 137
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN THE POST SEPTEMBER 11 ERA: HOW CAN
WE FIX AN IMBALANCED COMPENSATION SYSTEM?
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2003
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil
Service and Agency Organization, joint with the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy
and Human Resources, Committee on Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jo Ann Davis
(chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization) presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Mica, Souder,
Davis of Illinois, Van Hollen and Norton.
Present from the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources: Representatives Souder, McHugh,
Mica, Davis of Virginia, Carter, Cummings, Davis of Illinois
and Norton.
Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard,
deputy staff director and chief counsel; Vaughn Murphy,
legislative counsel; Chris Barkley, legislative assistant/
clerk; Robert White, director of communications; John Landers,
detailee from OPM; Stuart Sims, legal intern; Steven Isbister
and Taylor Copus, interns; Tony Haywood, minority counsel;
Christopher Lu, minority deputy chief counsel; Tania Shand,
minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority
chief clerk; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. The Subcommittee on Civil Service
and Agency Organization and the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources will come to order.
We are going to have a series of votes somewhere around
10:30, so we are going to go ahead and start; and hopefully by
the time I finish my opening statement we will have the rest of
the panelists. If not, we will start with the distinguished
Members that we have.
I want to thank you all for being here, and especially I
want to thank Chairman Mark Souder for agreeing to hold this
joint-hearing. Unfortunately, he is called to the floor, but he
will be here shortly.
Law enforcement compensation is a very important subject;
and there is great interest in today's hearing, as evidenced by
the number of witnesses that we've scheduled. Due to time
constraints, I would remind witnesses that their entire
prepared statements will be entered into the record and ask
them to keep their opening statements to 5 minutes or less if
possible. We're also going to ask that only the chairman and
the ranking members of the subcommittees make oral statements,
and other Members who have statements will be submitted into
the record.
I want to begin by thanking everyone for being here today
and especially again thank Chairman Mark Souder for agreeing to
hold this joint hearing. Our subject today is a vitally
important topic, one that is of great concern to me: How do we
make sure we are paying our Federal law enforcement agents
properly?
On one hand, it is impossible to address adequate
compensation for people who put their lives on the line for the
American public every day. There's no proper monetary reward
for such work. But, at the same time, we must recognize that
members of the FBI, Border Patrol, Customs and Immigration,
Secret Service and all our other Federal law enforcement
agencies do not live and work in a monetary vacuum. There are
thousands of local and State police forces and sheriff's
offices out there, and there is a market for skilled officers,
agents and criminal investigators. In this area, as in so many
others, we must make sure that the Federal Government is not
falling behind in the race for talent.
Several factors complicate the question of pay for Federal
law enforcement officers. First is the question of whether the
current pay scale is meeting the needs of law enforcement
officers in high-cost of living areas such as San Francisco,
southern California, Boston, New York and the Washington, DC,
area. There is strong anecdotal evidence that we are having
difficulty keeping or recruiting talented officers in those
high-cost metropolitan areas. This is very worrisome,
especially given the importance of our big cities in fighting
crime and terrorism.
Second, there is a larger question of who is considered a
law enforcement officer, who is not and who should be. Federal
law enforcement officers [LEOs], receive enhanced pay and
retirement benefits. FBI agents, DEA agents, Customs criminal
investigators, Border Patrol agents and Secret Service criminal
investigators are among those defined as LEOs. Customs
inspectors, Immigration inspectors and Department of Defense
police are among those who are not.
The benefits given to ``law enforcement officers'' began
with FBI agents in 1947 and were quickly expanded to include
any Federal employee whose position primarily deals with the
investigation, apprehension or detention. It now also includes
anyone who comes in frequent and direct contact with Federal
inmates and, in some cases, agents who protect Federal
officials.
The designation of law enforcement officer, however, is
clearly a flawed term. The enhanced benefits were--and are--a
management tool designed to strike a balance between helping
certain agencies maintain a young and vigorous work force while
compensating those agents adequately for being required to
retire early.
But the end result is that many people who are clearly law
enforcement officers by the plain meaning of that term do not
meet the standards of law enforcement officer in terms of
earning these enhanced benefits. That is confusing--if not
insulting--to a Federal agent who carries a gun and who risks
his life everyday but is told that he or she does not deserve
the same benefits that many other officers receive.
Fortunately, the creation of the Homeland Security
Department crystallizes these issues in a way that may lend
itself to reform. To site just one example, the merging
together of Customs inspectors from the former Customs Service,
Immigration inspectors from the former INS and the agriculture
inspectors from APHIS into the new Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement has created situation where coworkers
progress up the GS scale differently and work under different
overtime and availability rules. Homeland Security also has a
large number of those Federal agents who are not considered law
enforcement officers but who do have arrest authority.
DHS is working with the Office of Personnel Management to
determine a solution to these disparities and is scheduled to
come back by the end of the year with some recommendations, a
process that I hope will help us solve some of these complex
problems.
We are joined by the ranking member of Chairman Souder's
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, and I would
like to recognize Elijah Cummings to see if he would like to
give an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.002
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam Chairlady.
Chairwoman Davis and Chairman Souder, the Federal
Government's response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and
the readjustment of agency priorities to address future threats
to our Nation's security have involved major changes for
civilian and Federal employees. Personnel who perform law
enforcement functions have especially been affected.
In hearings before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, we
have heard testimony concerning the massive amounts of overtime
work by Customs and Border Patrol officers manning our Nation's
borders and ports of entry in the months following the attacks.
We know of the migration of law enforcement personnel to the
Transportation Safety Administration as well as the
congressionally mandated transfer of 22 agencies to the
Department of Homeland Security.
Not all of these employees receive the same compensation
and benefits. For example, there are stark differences in pay
among the 13 uniformed Federal police agencies examined in the
testimony we will hear from GAO on this subject.
Of particular interest to the committee is the disparity in
the retirement benefits among different classes of Federal
employees who perform similar functions. In order to provide
for a young, vigorous personnel pool for Federal law
enforcement agencies, Congress enacted--required early
retirement for positions defined as, ``law enforcement
officers.'' As compensation for having to retire earlier than
other Federal employees, LEOs accrue benefits at a faster rate
than other Federal employees. Once retired, they receive annual
cost of living adjustments, regardless of age. By contrast,
other Federal employees do not receive COLA's under the Federal
employee's retirement system until age 62.
For purposes of determining retirement benefits, the U.S.
Code defines a law enforcement officer as an employee the
duties of whose position are primarily the investigation,
apprehension or detention of individuals suspected or convicted
of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States of
America. Some employees who have the power of arrest, the
authority to carry firearms and duties to enforce laws are not
authorized or required to investigate, apprehend or detain
individuals. The employees are not classified as law
enforcement officers and do not receive enhanced law
enforcement retirement benefits.
Even before the September 11 attacks, inequities in our
Federal employees benefit system existed. Meeting the
challenges of homeland security has brought into sharper focus
the importance of recruitment and retention with regard to
certain agencies.
There have been a number of proposals introduced in the
House and Senate to remedy the problem agencies face in the
area of recruitment and retention. We will hear from the
sponsors of several of those bills today. These are not simple
issues to resolve, and no legislation will provide us a silver
bullet.
Today's hearing also offers us a valuable opportunity to
hear about ongoing efforts within agencies to tackle the post-
September 11 challenges of recruiting and retaining highly
competent and motivated work force personnel and the extent to
which they are using the tools already at their disposal. In
many cases, the employees are talking about help to form our
first line of defense on the war against terror. Our Nation's
security will depend in part upon our ability to recruit and
retain employees to perform vital homeland security functions.
With that, Madam Chairlady, I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today; and I thank you.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
I would like to recognize Mr. McHugh from New York for an
opening statement.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I do have a
prepared statement, Madam Chairwoman, that I ask be submitted
in its entirety for the record without objection.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Without objection.
Mr. McHugh. I will make a few brief comments.
First of all, I want to add my words of appreciation and
compliments to you, Madam Chairwoman, and Chairman Souder for
recognizing the very important nature of this challenge.
I am hopeful, as I know you are, that the testimony we'll
hear today from our esteemed colleagues, my good friend and
kind of neighbor from the great ``island of long,'' as in Long
Island, Mr. King; Mr. Filner, who has been working on this
issue for quite some time; and I have been honored to work with
his permission this year on H.R. 2442, the Law Enforcement
Officers Equity Act, which tries to respond, I think, in a very
effective way to these problems. He's a leader. And Mr. Rogers,
a good friend and someone who obviously is deeply concerned
with this issue, as we all are.
I have the distinct pleasure of representing a district
that borders both the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec,
and I have four designated border crossings and literally
hundreds of miles of undesignated crossings across the waters
of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Part of that
distinct pleasure is the opportunity and honor to represent
many of these fine, dedicated, hard-working Federal officials
that thankfully are the topic of this hearing here today.
Whether they be in Customs or border protection or Bureau of
Immigration enforcement inspectors again and Customs, these are
folks who put their lives on the line for us.
As the hearing title suggests, September 11 has certainly
caused us to take a new focus on that reality that I agree with
Mr. Cummings that in fact existed before September 11. But if
we can take that devastating day and at least begin to correct
some oversights with respect to these fine officers that has
gone on too long, at least we will have learned a very valuable
lesson.
I look forward to the testimony of our colleagues, Madam
Chairwoman; and again I thank you for your leadership and look
forward to the testimony.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John M. McHugh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.003
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I would like to again say thank you
to Chairman Souder for agreeing to hold this joint hearing, and
I would like to recognize Chairman Souder for an opening
statement.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Chairman Davis.
Today's hearing addresses one of the most significant
issues facing the Federal Government: how to bring the law
enforcement pay system into balance. Resolving this problem is
not simply a matter of ensuring fairness to the thousands of
Federal law enforcement agents who labor to protect us everyday
is absolutely imperative to our national security. I therefore
commend the distinguished chairwoman of the Civil Service and
Agency Organization Subcommittee, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis, for
joining me in convening this hearing.
I want to add a personal note that last year and the year
before, particularly last year, we tried to work with Chairman
Wolf on the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill to
address this matter and worked closely with Chairman Weldon to
try to get a waiver. We decided to forego this process and
focus on it. And when Congresswoman Davis took over the
subcommittee she has been focused in trying to address the
question. We saw this particularly under on-border patrol where
we were losing agents faster than we could add them. When
Congress was mandating that we add border control, here we were
losing more than we could add because of some of these
inequities, which is what Chairman Wolf focused on, this
committee focused on and the gentleman before us focused on
this issue.
I don't think I exaggerate when I say the present-day law
enforcement pay system is a hopelessly confusing labyrinth of
outdated and often irrational rules and regulations. Indeed, it
is probably misleading to call it a system. It is really just
the result of decades of haphazard and uncoordinated
rulemaking. The rapid growth of the Federal law enforcement
work force over the second half of the 20th century was not
matched by a careful development and reformulation of civil
service pay scales and rules. Instead, both Congress and the
executive branch applied old rules or drafted new ones on an ad
hoc basis to deal with new or expanded law enforcement
agencies.
This became abundantly clear to my subcommittee, the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, during the last Congress when we held a series of
hearings on Federal law enforcement and border security. Our
study revealed these three key issues that must be addressed:
First, we must come up with a principled set of rules for
disparities in retirement pay. At present, the so-called law
enforcement retirement pay system created decades ago applies
to some law enforcement officials but not to others, often with
little or no justification. Fairness to our law enforcement
agents demands that the Congress and the administration develop
a rational, uniform retirement pay system.
Second, it is clear that the locality pay adjustment
system, which was intended to ensure that agents living in
areas with high costs of living be sufficiently compensated,
must be updated. At present, the system simply fails to take
into account the rapid rise in housing and related costs in
many key areas. For example, the cost of living in California,
our most populous State, is driving many agents either to seek
a transfer to another location or to leave Federal employment
altogether. Many of the places which most need Federal law
enforcement protection--major population centers, busy port
cities and border regions--are often the most expensive to
live. The Federal Government must find a way to ensure that
local costs do not leave vital areas unprotected.
Finally, we must ensure that individual Federal agencies,
in their eagerness to hire and expand their ranks, do not
simply poach on other Federal and even State and local law
enforcement agencies. As we saw in the months after September
11, 2001, the Federal sky marshals program expanded quite
rapidly but at the expense of the Border Patrol, the Customs
Service and numerous other agencies. The higher pay and
benefits offered by the sky marshals program simply could not
be matched by these other agencies, leaving many of them
seriously depleted at a time when they and the American people
they protect could least afford it. Congress and the
administration must ensure that we don't end up playing another
game of agency musical chairs. Rather, we must seek ways to
expand the entire pool of law enforcement agents.
This hearing will allow us to address these and other
related issues, and I again thank Chairwoman Davis for her
leadership for convening it. I commend the various Members of
the House and Senate here to testify today, all of whom have
introduced legislation that could help resolve some of these
problems. I further thank the members of the executive branch
and the organizations representing our Federal law enforcement
agents for taking the time to join us, and I look forward to
your testimony.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Chairman Souder.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.006
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions for the hearing record and that any answers to
written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and
other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be
included in the hearing record and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
memorandum that was sent to members of the Subcommittee on
Civil Service and Agency Organization regarding law enforcement
compensation and retirement issues. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.067
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Finally, I ask unanimous consent
that a memorandum prepared by my staff be entered into the
record within 14 days of this hearing. The memorandum will
detail the lessons learned from the trip that my subcommittee
staff took to California last month to speak with Federal law
enforcement officials. The minority staff will have 14
additional days to submit its views. Without objection, so
ordered.
I would like to thank our very distinguished first panel
consisting of Members of Congress and to say that we may be
joined by a couple of gentlemen from the other side of the
Capitol, Senator Dodd and Senator Schumer. It is clear that
this issue is quite important to a large number of people by
the number of folks that called and wanted to be witnesses.
Since we have three large panels, I will urge everyone to
please wrap up in 5 minutes or less so we can have plenty of
time for everyone.
The subcommittee is fortunate to have four Members of the
House: Representative Peter King from New York, Representative
Bob Filner from California, Representative Mike Rogers from
Michigan and the fourth Member, who should be joining us
shortly, Representative Chris Van Hollen, who is also a member
of the subcommittee, from Maryland.
I would like to thank you first, Representative King, for
coming; and we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. King. Thank you very much, Madam Chairlady, Chairman
Souder, Mr. Cummings, Mr. McHugh. I will take your admonition,
and I will submit my statement in the record and make some very
brief remarks on an issue which is extremely important to me.
I want to identify myself with all of the comments that
were made by the members on the panel, especially Chairman
Souder when he was talking about the problems resulting from
the pay differentials. I certainly see it in New York. And, as
Chairman Souder said, the areas of the country that most
require cooperation between Federal law enforcement officials
and local law enforcement officials are often the most
expensive and the highest cost-of-living.
My father was a New York City police officer for over 30
years so I have a some idea how tough the job is, both at the
Federal and at the local level. I also realize how important
morale is. I also realize that since September 11 how local
police departments all over the country are actively recruiting
to get the very best they can. Their pay scales often are much
higher than what is being paid at the Federal level, and yet
there is extraordinary pressure being put on our Federal law
enforcement.
As Congressman McHugh was pointing out, the whole idea of
border patrols, the FBI, Secret Service, all of the Federal law
enforcement officials whose job was tough enough on September
10, 2001, has increased exponentially since September 11. If we
are going to have the quality Federal law enforcement we need,
if we are going to maintain the morale that's needed to have
effective Federal law enforcement and if we are not going to be
losing people by attrition or going to other agencies, I
believe it is absolutely essential we update the locality pay
adjustments.
As Chairman Souder said, we have gone more than a decade
where really nothing of consequence has been done. Instead, we
have this hodgepodge of different regulations, different rules.
Certainly from Federal law enforcement officials I have
spoken to there is a definite decline in morale. I know of
cases in the New York area where Federal law enforcement
officials have left to join local police departments. I can
certainly understand it, but it is something we can ill afford
at the Federal level, to be losing this type of talent and this
type of ability.
We see it here in our own Capitol Police. You saw the hours
they were putting in after September 11. So I would ask you
certainly to give my legislation consideration.
Obviously, there is other legislation that's needed.
Something has to be done. The issue of locality pay adjustments
just has to be confronted and has to be met. I am proud there
are 225 cosponsors of my legislation and, I think, 33 members
of the Government Reform Committee. It does not have to be one
particular bill or one particular piece of legislation. The
important thing is we move forward.
My colleagues have important things to say. There are other
Members who feel strongly about this issue, and I know Senator
Dodd has introduced a companion bill to mine in the Senate. He
certainly feels strongly about this.
Again, this is a bipartisan issue. It is an issue that
affects our entire country. So I would just ask that this
legislation be considered.
I thank you for chairing this hearing, Chairman Souder for
his work, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Representative King.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Peter King follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.073
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Representative Filner, you will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your
commitment to our law enforcement community throughout the
Nation.
I especially appreciate your opening remarks, Madam
Chairwoman; and I would underline them with a tragic irony.
That is, when Customs inspectors or INS inspectors--at least
that is what they used to call them before the new agencies--
are killed in the line of duty, their names are inscribed here
in Washington on the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial, which I know you have all been to. It is a very
moving memorial. Their names are inscribed as law enforcement
officers when they die.
When they are alive, we don't call them law enforcement
officers; and that is a tragic irony I think we should correct.
My bill, introduced jointly with Mr. McHugh of New York, which
I greatly appreciate, is simply stated: Give law enforcement
status to law enforcement officers.
Many Federal officials, as you outlined in your opening
remarks, all of you, are classified as law enforcement officers
[LEOs], with certain salary and retirement benefits, but there
are other officers who are trained to carry weapons, who wear
body armor, who face the same daily risk as law enforcement
officers who are just not so classified. These officers may be
in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and Bureau of
Immigration Customs Enforcement inspectors at the Department of
Homeland Security. There are U.S. Mint police officers, U.S.
Internal Revenue Service officers in two dozen other agencies.
They are not eligible, as you know, for early retirement and
other benefits designed to maintain a young and vigorous law
enforcement work force. We need to combat those who pose risks
to our society.
As Mr. McHugh represents the New York-Canadian border, my
district encompasses the entire California-Mexico border and is
home to two of the busiest crossings in the world. So both of
us are very aware of the work that Border and Customs
inspectors do at our borders. They wear bulletproof vests, they
carry firearms, and they have to use them. They are subject to
the same risk as other officers with whom they serve by side by
side and who do have the benefits of that law enforcement
status.
I know you have probably had the same experience. I have
met with severely injured inspectors who had to face border
shoot-outs or border drive-throughs, masked attempt to cross
the border in armed vehicles. I have met with families of
inspectors who were killed in the line of duty.
This is something, I think, we have to correct; and H.R.
2442 I think makes important strides to do that. Any cost that
is created by this act--and this is very important--is offset
by the savings and training costs and increased revenue
collection.
I know that you have mentioned that also, that if we have
good morale, if we have good benefits, if we have good salary,
if we have a good workplace environment, we do not have to go
through the same training costs as we would--as this group may
move on to better jobs. So a 20-year retirement for those
employees will reduce that turnover, increase the yield,
decrease recruitment, enhance the retention of a well-trained
and experienced work force.
Madam Chairwoman, when this bill was introduced last year,
we had 212 cosponsors, a bipartisan group, including yourself,
Madam Chairwoman. I hope we can end the tragic irony that I
started off with. Let us make sure that those who do law
enforcement work have that classification.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Representative Filner.
Representative Rogers, you will be recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for your
leadership on this issue, in bringing this to the forefront.
Very important. Thanks to my fellow panel members as well and
all the members on the committee. Thank you for your concern.
I had the great fortune and privilege to serve as a Special
Agent with the FBI for over 5 years. I know these people as
friends and as colleagues, and now they are spread--all the
people I worked with are all over the country--New York, Los
Angeles and friends here today in Washington, DC. And one of
the things like the FBI and Federal law enforcement agencies,
there is a very strong lure. I mean, you get to go in and
defend America, you get to put bad folks in jail, and that is a
strong lure for recruiting.
When you are going after the best and the brightest, that
is what they sell. They tell you are going to be a special
breed of a Federal law enforcement officer, to do great things
for your country. Pretty powerful stuff.
Well, that strong lure is often hit with a brick wall when
you get that first assignment. By the way, before you get in,
you think you'll get through anything. You can get through the
training school and you can finally get those credentials, you
will get through anything. But what these agents soon find is
that the financial realities of this are pretty stark.
What I wanted to do is talk just a minute and actually read
some actual comments from agents all around the country and the
things that they are suffering; and these are dedicated people
who want to continue in the FBI, Customs and other agencies.
They are just hit with the very harsh reality of the pay
disparity that they are facing in many of these areas.
One is a GS-10, step 2. He is assigned to the San Francisco
division: ``I am seriously leaving the Bureau, but I am waiting
until I go off probation. I will try to get out of this
division any way I can--a specialty, a hardship, headquarters--
any way that I possibly can. My decision is strongly reflected
by my inability to purchase or invest in property or my future
savings in retirement. I pack my lunch every day. Eating in a
restaurant is absolutely nonexistent.''
Unfortunately, that is the case for many of those agents
who are just scraping by, want to do what they are doing, they
love the work, they're very patriotic, but it's a bit
embarrassing to go home and find no extra cash.
``I am a GS-13, step 10, assigned to the San Francisco
division. Speaking from experience, it does not matter how
important or what the quality of work you are doing is if you
are worried about how you are going to pay your bills.''
GS-14, assigned to Newark, ``happy with the job, but really
tired of the long days and the long commutes to the office.
Most embarrassing, after 16 years in the Bureau, having to
borrow $20,000 from close relatives just to be able to purchase
a house in commuting distance within the Newark office
division.''
``I am a GS-14 assigned to Quantico. I joined the Bureau
for the challenge and because it was the best law enforcement
agency in the world. My morale is not good because of the cost
of college that I have to try to save for. I am barely able to
afford a new refrigerator. Mine is 20 years old. Low pay is a
high reflection of my low morale. I have not been able to
contribute to my savings account since I have been in the
Washington, DC, area. I am certainly not desperate, but I
certainly am not in the upper class when it comes to income, as
statistics show.''
``I am a GS-10 assigned to the Boston division. As it is,
we absolutely have no money left at the end of each 2-week
period and have had to ask our mortgage company to put our
payments on hold until we can sell our house from the city I
processed out of. Our family, including our children, are now
living with my in-laws. It is mortifying to have to sponge off
our relatives when you are our age.''
Many of these agencies are attempting to recruit older
agents with experience and a certain level of skill set, and we
are putting a lot of pressure on these folks to come into the
Bureau and other Federal law enforcement agencies because we
need their talent. The country needs them at this hour.
When that agent, who is asking the mortgage company to hold
off on his payments, is working long hours, his wife is at home
trying to get the house in order and he is not coming home, I
guarantee it, he is working weekends trying to defend America,
it is only right we step up to the plate and say we understand
that you will not be wealthy but we have the obligation to make
sure that they do not run into these life problems as defenders
of the United States of America.
I appreciate your leadership and hope we can have some
quick action on this matter.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Representative Rogers.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.083
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. And I want to thank you,
Representative Filner, for your work on this issue.
We have a series of three votes, so we will recess--we
generally don't ask questions of the Members, but if a Member
wouldn't mind, the chairman has a question.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Rogers, I wonder if you have additional
letters and things that would be helpful for the record. I
would appreciate if you could insert them. I think it helps
build a case. Also, anything that would relate to instances--I
know in your written testimony and you referred in the past to
this overtime pay question, anything that might be directly
related to that, of what, at the practical level, to an agent.
As somebody who has done this yourself you may be less
constrained in the ability to say, oh, well, we had to back off
of this, or I had turn this case over, or I have heard this. So
if we could have that for the record on the overtime pay,
because it is very difficult. Nobody wants to acknowledge that
this may actually affect cases, but I am interested as to how
does it cutoff.
Mr. Rogers. I'll be happy to do that.
You have to remember the pressure. The agent comes home at
the end of the day, and his wife is not all that amused or visa
versa and puts a lot of pressure on these folks who we are
asking a lot of, and that is just not a fair situation they
find themselves in.
Mr. Souder. One of the things I would like to know, in your
opinion are people actually, if the overtime pay runs out and
they are not paid, are they actually working, which they are
not supposed to do, but are they doing it because they don't
want to lose their cases?
Mr. Rogers. I can tell you that those agents are working.
These are very dedicated individuals. We did it in our office.
I see an agent over here I worked with in Chicago. I saw him do
it. We did it. Most agents, 99 percent of them will continue
working. Again, they are dedicated to their purpose. We just
need to step up and give them a little relief, I think.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. We actually only have one vote, and
we are going to go ahead and continue with the hearing.
Thank you, Representative Rogers.
I now would like to invite the second panel of witnesses to
please come forward on this panel.
We have Joanne Simms from the Department of Justice, Norman
Rabkin from the General Accounting Office, Donald Winstead from
the Office of Personnel Management, and Kay Frances Dolan from
the Department of Homeland Security.
I'd also like to ask Chris Mihm, Director of Strategic
Issues at the General Accounting Office, if he would stand and
also be sworn in, in case there are questions for you.
If the panel would remain standing, I will administer the
oath. It is the subcommittee's standard practice to ask
witnesses to testify under oath. So if you would please raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative, and you may be
seated.
The panel will now be recognized for an opening statement,
and we will ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
Any more complete statement you may wish to make will be
included in the record.
I would like to welcome Joanne Simms, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Human Resources and Administration at the
Department of Justice. Thank you for being with us today, Ms.
Simms; and you are recognized first for the first 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JOANNE SIMMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
NORMAN J. RABKIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; DONALD J. WINSTEAD,
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PAY AND PERFORMANCE
POLICY, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND KAY FRANCES DOLAN,
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RELATIONS POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Simms. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Chairman
Souder. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee as you examine issues affecting the law
enforcement community. We appreciate your interest in these
critical issues. I look forward to working with you and our
fellow law enforcement agencies as we go forward.
The Department of Justice employs close to 50,000 law
enforcement employees, of which the primary occupational groups
include criminal investigators and correctional officers. Our
core enforcement components include the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the U.S. Marshals
Service and the Bureau of Prisons.
The average age of our law enforcement employee is close to
39 years; and, on average, the majority are college educated.
Many of our employees have families, and most will generally
experience several moves during the course of their careers.
Our law enforcement work force is assigned to offices in all 50
States, territories and all over the world. Their working
conditions run from the typical white collar office environment
to a makeshift desk or laptop in the middle of a jungle in
South America, to prisons and correctional facilities,
courthouses, airplanes and everything in between.
As a general rule, I think we can all agree that a
consistent policy approach should be taken to managing law
enforcement pay and benefits, as well as other work-related
aspects across the Federal Government. Comparable pay for
comparable work should be one of our guiding principles. Cross-
cutting missions and activities, particularly in the post-
September 11 environment, increase the opportunities for law
enforcement agencies and personnel to become aware of
disparities in pay and benefits between segments of the law
enforcement community. As an example, one need only look at the
well-publicized startup operation at the Transportation
Security Administration that we have already talked about this
morning which resulted in considerable attrition within several
law enforcement agencies. It appears the situation is righting
itself, as TSA is now an operating entity and no longer needs
to draw its work force from other trained Federal law
enforcement organizations.
This experience has been instructive, however, and has
reinforced our view, as well as others, that fair and
consistent treatment of Federal law enforcement officers is
essential in maintaining a stable and satisfied work force.
There are a few areas related to law enforcement compensation
that merit attention.
Pay, of course. Law enforcement work is, by necessity,
difficult and dangerous. The specific aspects of mission vary
among agencies. Some may focus on investigating terrorism,
tracking dangerous fugitives or enforcing the drug laws. Other
enforce laws pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and
explosives; and still others manage prisoners in a variety of
correctional settings. All of our law enforcement personnel,
however, may find themselves in situations where their personal
safety and security is put at risk. A fair compensation
approach using equal pay for the same type of law enforcement
work as one of the guiding principles is essential. We must
have the ability to tie pay more closely to performance.
Mobility. Law enforcement officers are generally required
to be mobile in the performance of their work, including facing
repeated relocations throughout the course of their career. For
example, one component of the Department has a policy to
relocate its new agents after training so each can begin his or
her career with a fresh start in a locale that is not the one
in which they grew up. In other cases, mobility is needed to
respond to critical crime situations such as the sniper attacks
last fall when 125 ATF agents and numerous FBI agents were
brought to the metropolitan D.C. community to deal with this
difficult and terrifying situation.
Also, the career development process for managers and
supervisors in law enforcement agencies requires them to have a
wide variety of enforcement experiences at the front line as
well as in headquarters and necessitates a number of moves to
achieve this level of experience. The amount of required
mobility becomes a particular concern for law enforcement
officers who may have to uproot their families to go from low-
cost to high-cost areas or must move from locales which provide
a wide range of services for families to locations where public
services may be very limited or less desirable. School system
differences, services for special needs children, elder care,
by example.
Additionally, addressing affordable housing in high-cost
areas and addressing reassignments to undesirable overseas
locations are some of the issues that challenge our law
enforcement officers.
We have addressed some of these compensation issues through
Public Law 107-273, which was enacted in November 2002, which
allows for the offer of an extended assignment bonus to law
enforcement officers who remain beyond their original tour of
duty in U.S. territories or possessions.
The Department has had longstanding quality-of-life issues
for law enforcement personnel assigned to U.S. territories,
particularly where English is not the first language; and
Congress has assisted in addressing this need by authorizing
house hunting trips for agents and their spouses.
We are aware of, and in some instances provided information
for, several studies that are collecting data and reviewing
these issues. The recent report of the Office of Personnel
Management in this area is a comprehensive survey that includes
data on all of the principal law enforcement agencies. We will
continue to review and provide information as requested for all
these studies and reports.
Finally, as you know, our law enforcement employees do a
superb job maintaining the security of our citizens and
enforcing the rule of law. We are confident that you agree that
they deserve the best support we can give them as they perform
their jobs on our behalf. Ensuring fair and equitable treatment
in pay and benefits for all Federal law enforcement
professionals is one essential component in maintaining a
stable and satisfied and high-performing work force.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Simms.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simms follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.091
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I now would like to recognize
Norman Rabkin, Managing Director of Homeland Security and
Justice issues at the General Accounting Office.
Thank you, Mr. Rabkin, for being with us today.
Mr. Rabkin. Chairwoman Davis, Chairman Souder, members of
the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss two
recent GAO reports of interest to your subcommittees.
The first report discusses experiences encountered by the
Federal police forces in the Washington, DC, area last year as
they tried to hire officers to replace those who left to become
Federal Air Marshals and for other reasons.
The second report discusses key practices found at the
center of successful merges and transformations and is
applicable to the recent creation of the Department of Homeland
Security that combined 22 agencies with an estimated work force
of 160,000 employees.
With me to discuss this report is Chris Mihm, who's a
Director of Strategic Issues in GAO.
First, Federal police forces. Many Federal agencies in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area have their own police forces
to ensure the security and safety of the persons and property
within and surrounding Federal buildings. For example, the
Secret Service has over 1,00 uniform officers protecting the
White House, the Treasury building and other facilities used by
the people it protects. The Pentagon now has a police force of
about 400 officers. NIH has a force of just over 50 officers.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the
government's subsequent efforts to increase airline security,
many of these local police forces began experiencing
difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers. Police force
officials raised concerns that the Federal Air Marshall Program
was hiring many prospective and experienced officers by
offering better starting pay and law enforcement retirement
benefits.
Our review of 13 Federal police forces in the Washington
area show that, in fiscal year 2002, total turnover nearly
doubled from the previous year. Of the officers who voluntarily
separated in fiscal year 2002, about half left to become
Federal Air Marshals. Some of the forces tried to prevent this
turnover by providing retention allowances and using other
human capital flexibilities such as cash awards for
performance.
Officials at 8 of the 13 forces told us they experience
moderate to very great recruiting difficulties trying to
replace these officers. Among the reasons the officials gave
for difficulties were low pay, the high cost-of-living in the
area, difficulty completing the application process and better
retirement benefits at other law enforcement agencies. However,
none of the 13 forces used recruitment bonuses or student loan
repayments to try to improve their recruiting efforts, mainly
because they didn't have enough funding or authority to do so.
Entry level pay at the 13 agencies last year ranged from
$28,800 to $39,400. Twelve of the 13 agencies have since
increased entry level pay this year, and the range is currently
from about $33,000 to $43,000.
Since we issued our report, information we have received
from the 13 police forces indicates that in this fiscal year
turnover rates have dropped significantly for 12 of the 13
forces. For example, turnover here at the Capitol Police is
about 4 percent. Last year, it was about 13 percent. At NIH,
where last year 58 percent of the force turned over, the
current turnover is 17 percent.
Next, our report on mergers and transformations. I would
like to highlight four of the many key practices and
implementation steps that agencies such as the Department of
Homeland Security can take if they transform their cultures to
be more results-oriented, customer-focused and collaborative in
nature.
First, agency leadership needs to drive the transformation
by defining and articulating a succinct and compelling reason
for the change. The more the employees, customers and
stakeholders understand the expected outcomes of the
transformation, the more cooperation they will give and
ownership they will assume.
Second, in setting implementation goals, the agency should
try to understand the cultures of the merging organizations.
This will help leadership gain a better understanding of the
employees' values and beliefs.
Third, the agency should implement performance management
systems with adequate safeguards. Leading organizations have
modern, effective, credible systems with reasonable
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms to
support performance-based pay and related personnel decisions.
Fourth, agencies should try to involve employees in
planning the transformation and sharing information on how the
transformation is progressing. This should increase insights
about operations from a front-line perspective.
Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, this completes my oral
statement; and I will be glad to answer your questions.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Rabkin.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rabkin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.115
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Next, we have Donald Winstead,
Deputy Associate Director for the Center for Pay and
Performance Policy at OPM.
Thank you, Mr. Winstead; and you may begin your statement.
Mr. Winstead. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee, on behalf of Office of Personnel Management
Director Kay Coles James, I am pleased to be with you today to
discuss personnel issues affecting law enforcement employees in
the Federal Government. Let me assure you at the outset that we
greatly appreciate the many significant contributions to the
Nation's security made by the dedicated members of the Federal
law enforcement community.
The provisions governing pay and benefits for employees in
that community and those in related occupations have evolved
over many years. The stated purpose of the special law
enforcement retirement provisions has been to make it possible
for the government to maintain a young and vigorous work force
in certain occupations requiring such employees. These
provisions have never been intended as a reward for employees
who perform certain types of work. The evolution of these
provisions through legislation and judicial interpretation,
however, has led to coverage decisions that are not always
consistent and which are regarded in some cases as inequitable.
OPM recently completed a report on Federal employees with
law enforcement duties. Our report, which was transmitted to
Congress on June 30, covers employees who meet the definitions
of law enforcement officer and the laws governing the Civil
Service Retirement Service [CSRS], and the Federal Employees
Retirement System [FERS], as well as other employees who have
arrest authority; and here are some of the key findings of our
report.
The government employs a total of about 99,000 employees
who are covered by the special law enforcement retirement
provisions of CSRS or FERS. More than 80 percent of these
employees work in the Department of Justice or the new
Department of Homeland Security.
The government employs another 30,000 employees who have
authority to make arrests under Federal law but who are not
covered by the definition of law enforcement officer and CSRS
or FERS. Of these, 56 percent work for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Most law enforcement officers [LEOs], and other employees
with arrest authority, which we will call non-LEOs, are covered
by standard basic pay and benefit systems. Within these
systems, LEOs have special governmentwide pay and retirement
benefits. Some LEOs and non-LEOs are covered by non-standard
basic pay, premium pay and retirement provisions established
under independent legislative authority or the Title 5
demonstration project authority.
Some of the non-standard basic-pay systems covering LEOs
have a structure that is similar to, or linked to, the general
schedule. However, some basic pay systems provide higher pay
ranges than the general schedule. The Department of Homeland
Security has a number of non-standard premium pay provisions.
Customs inspectors and Immigration inspectors in particular
receive significantly higher payments for overtime and other
special work than other Federal employees.
We believe the information in OPM's June 30 report provides
the foundation for a greater understanding and appreciation of
the complexity of the pay and benefits provisions currently
applicable to Federal law enforcement personnel.
Under the terms of the Homeland Security Act, OPM is
working with the Department of Homeland Security to develop a
new pay system that will cover many law enforcement officers.
DHS and OPM have established a DHS human resources system
design team that has been charged with developing a range of
options for human resource systems in areas of basic pay,
classification, performance management, disciplinary action and
appeals and labor-management relations. Any changes in premium
pay or retirement benefits, however, would require additional
legislation.
OPM and DHS will work with the Office of Management and
Budget to help formulate the administration's position on any
possible legislative proposals involving law enforcement
personnel. We will be especially interested in evaluating the
impact of any such proposal on options for modifying the basic
pay of DHS employees under the new authority provided by the
Homeland Security Act. In general, we are weary of any proposal
that would have the effect of creating new pay or benefits
disparities without a clearly articulated rationale for
differences in treatment.
Finally, we believe any changes in law affecting law
enforcement personnel should be driven by an assessment of the
impact of those changes on the ability of Federal agencies to
meet their strategic goals and objectives. For that reason, we
believe major changes in the current pay and benefit structure
for employees in law enforcement and related occupations should
not be made without considering such factors as the recruitment
and retention situation, the physical and mental demands of law
enforcement employment, the treatment of other types of
employees in similar circumstances, what human resources
management problems, if any, exist under current provisions and
how any proposed change would affect overall Federal
expenditures. In addition, the application of any such
provisions should be clear-cut, objective and consistent.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that any members
of the subcommittee may have.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Winstead.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winstead follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.127
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Finally, we have Kay Francis Dolan,
Director of Human Relations Policy at the Homeland Security
Department.
Ms. Dolan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Dolan. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis and Chairman
Souder. I am Kay Frances Dolan, Director of Departmental Human
Resource Policy at the Department of Homeland Security. Prior
to joining the Department in March, I was the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources at the Department of the
Treasury. I am very pleased to be here today, and the
Department of Homeland Security appreciates very much the
support we have received from the committee as we move to
create a new human resource system.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provided the Department
with a historic opportunity to design a 21st century human
resource management system that is fair, performance-based,
flexible and supports the goals of the Department as well as
the people of the Department of Homeland Security. We have a
responsibility to create a system that is flexible and
contemporary, while preserving basic Civil Service principles.
This is one of the most exciting challenges facing any
government agency. It's not a simple task, and it is not a task
to be taken lightly. The Secretary and the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management have asked us to take the time
to do it right.
Working with OPM, including my colleague here, Don
Winstead, we are following a process that ensures maximum
collaboration with our employees and their representatives,
stakeholders and subject matter experts.
I am pleased to note that the next panel includes several
union leaders who have joined with us in the design process.
Their commitment and their contributions to the process have
been invaluable.
We have established a design team that includes human
resource professionals both from the Department and from OPM,
DHS front-line employees and managers and union
representatives. The design team has been conducting research
and outreach since April 1st. We recently completed town hall
and focus group meetings in nine cities across the country,
meeting with over 2,000 front-line employees and managers to
elicit their input to the design of the new system. While the
results of these sessions are still being compiled, we can say
that participants are extremely proud of the work they do on
behalf of this country and they also believe very strongly that
they be treated fairly.
The design team has conducted research in the public and
private sectors and met with close to 100 individuals and
organizations to discuss practices and lessons learned. The
team has now begun to develop a range of options in each of the
six areas of flexibility granted to the Department: pay,
classification, performance management, adverse actions,
appeals and labor relations.
Secretary Ridge charged the design team with developing
options that support both the mission of the Department and the
people who implement that mission. He insisted that the team
develop options where all employees can be confident that they
will be hired based on merit, will receive fair treatment
without regard to political affiliation, will receive equal pay
for the same type of law enforcement work and will not be
retaliated against for whistle-blowing. Finally, he asked the
design team to develop options which hold people accountable
for their performance, and that's at every level.
A Senior Review Committee [SRC], has been established to
determine which action should be presented to the Secretary and
the Director for their consideration. The SRC will hold its
first meeting later this week on Friday, and that meeting is
open to the public. Around the beginning of October, the SRC
will meet again to review and narrow the range of options for
presentation to the Secretary and the Director. Finally, the
Director and the Secretary plan to issue proposed regulations
for a new system later this calendar year.
One of the most significant challenges is the issue of pay
and benefits disparities for the over 50,000 employees who are
either covered by law enforcement retirement benefits or who
are in positions with some kind of law enforcement work. As
members and the panelists know, the differences can be very
significant and include differences in base pay, overtime and
other premium pay, retirement and special pay supplements.
The Section 881 report required by the Homeland Security
Act provides many examples of differences we inherited when the
Department was created. Not all of the differences constitute
unwarranted disparities.
The design team will help identify those instances where
changes are needed, and both subcommittees have generously
invited the Department to make proposals where legislation may
be necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dolan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.137
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Dolan. And thank you
to all of our panelists for being willing to be here today. And
I am going to yield to my chairman, Mr. Souder, to begin the
questioning.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a--you gave us so much information.
We have been out in the grassroots, and I am trying to process
kind of where--which one of you and where to start. So let me
start first with the GAO study.
You referred to the turnover rates dropping, you use--is
the only place you studied D.C. in that?
Mr. Rabkin. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. And that the rates dropped dramatically after
TSA basically had finished their hiring, and there seems to be
some stability. In your opinion, were there--there is a couple
of different things I wanted to sort through, because that
suggests--and do you agree--that the problem was short-term. If
it was short term, were there gaps that were significant in
lack of protection during the period that we were trying to
catch up? Have we seen a decline in the quality of work force
because of the turnover and the rapid change? In other words,
what's the practical implication, at least from Washington, DC,
that you saw when there was a high turnover rate and now where
we have a little bit more stability?
Mr. Rabkin. That's an excellent question. We didn't look
specifically at that. We did followup with the agencies to get
their perceptions on recruiting problems. And many of these
police forces had significant or substantial problems trying to
recruit new officers to replace those that were leaving, many
of whom ended up going to the Federal Air Marshal program. But
I think it would take a different kind of an evaluation to
examine the impact that situation, short lived as it might have
been, had on the quality of the work or their ability to meet
their mission during that period of time.
Mr. Souder. I can't remember whether it was in your
testimony or Mr. Winstead's from OPM, that one of you had a
piece of data in there that suggested that the turnover rate
among police officers was higher than that among the Border
Patrol and Customs?
Mr. Winstead. Yes. I believe that was our testimony. We
used the term ``quit rate.'' And by that, we mean voluntary
separations from a position with the Federal Government,
excluding retirements. And I believe the testimony that we
provided indicated that for police officers, the quit rate in
fiscal year 2001, 2002, was in the 5 to 6 percent range, which
is higher than the overall average quit rates for Federal
employees as a whole.
The other thing I think we pointed out, however, is that
OPM approved higher special pay rates for police officers
throughout the country in early 2003 after the close of last
fiscal year. Those increases ranged up to 20 to 25 percent
depending on grade level and location. And our expectation
would be that those quit rates that we saw in the last couple
of years will begin to decline this year as a result of the
higher pay.
Mr. Souder. Did you separate--at that time Customs and
Border Patrol were two separate when you did the study? Or was
this after the Department of Homeland Security? Did you see
much differences between them?
Mr. Winstead. In terms of?
Mr. Souder. This is non-retirement reasons for quitting.
Mr. Winstead. Right.
Mr. Souder. Not retirement.
Mr. Winstead. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. OK.
Mr. Winstead. And separations from the Federal Government
as a whole. That's what we mean by the term quit rate. We
looked at criminal investigators and correctional officers.
Those are the two largest law enforcement officer occupations.
And the quit rates for those groups are actually less than 1
percent. And the next largest law enforcement occupation is
Border Patrol agents. And there, the quit rate was about 2
percent or less than 2 percent at the junior level. It is
higher at the entry level. And the----
Mr. Souder. Higher by what factor?
Mr. Winstead. Well, at the lowest grades, the entry grades,
the quit rate tends to be fairly high. And that's true, I
think, largely because of the stringent training requirements
and the fact that some of the individuals who are initially
recruited for those jobs simply fail to complete the training.
I can get those percentages for you.
Mr. Souder. One last question with that is, is that in the
Border Patrol, did you see any differences in those quit rates
in the south border from the north border? Because certainly
from our experience from going out there is, is that there is
almost no turnover at the north border. And at the south
border, that those who aren't trying to get out are out. And
that, in other words, at one point, in one zone 40 percent had
applied for either transfer or leaving the Border Patrol. I
believe that was in the Arizona sector when the Homeland
Security came up. It's partly challenge of jobs, it's partly
challenge of the pay questions. And we are trying to sort out
which things they are in retention and how much of this is pay
and how much of it is other substances.
Mr. Winstead. I don't have readily at hand the information
about the quit rates for the southern border as compared to the
northern border or other locations, but we can get that
information for you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Dolan, do you have any comments?
Ms. Dolan. No, I don't. Nothing to add.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure who this question is for. How do you respond
to--you all heard Representative Filner's comment. And that's
what actually tweaked my interest when he first came to me
about his bill, was men and women who do their job every day
and are not classified as law enforcement officers, yet when
they die they are classified as law enforcement officers. How
do you respond to that?
Mr. Winstead. Madam Chairwoman, I think what I would say is
the law certainly does not reflect the dictionary definition of
law enforcement officer. We are charged with administering the
law as it currently exists, and that law defines the term ``law
enforcement officer'' in a very precise and very particular way
that happens to exclude individuals, many individuals who would
probably meet the dictionary definition of that term, law
enforcement officer. The term itself I think has been
problematic from the inception.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. What changes from life to death to
make them meet the requirements of the law to be considered a
law enforcement officer?
Mr. Winstead. Well, I'm not privy to the rules governing
the circumstances under which the names are added to the wall
at the memorial. So I don't know exactly what criteria are used
for that purpose.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Have you all had a chance to look
at these three pieces of legislation from the three gentlemen
that are here? And, if so, any comments on the legislation?
Mr. Winstead. We have looked at the legislation. I think
the administration, however, is not in a position to express
that, a position on any of that legislation at this point in
time.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Anybody else?
Ms. Simms. I would have to ditto that, and only add that we
haven't had sufficient time at this point to thoroughly analyze
what it means. I think we are generally supportive, but we'd
have to look at the specifics of it.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Let me ask you, Ms. Simms, do you
think that law enforcement officer retirement benefits should
be given to all employees who do law enforcement activities? Or
should they be used strictly as a personnel management tool for
recruitment and retention?
Ms. Simms. We are a strong proponent of consistency across
the board. Within the Department of Justice we've taken looks
at several junctures; we've formed various committees to take a
look at the inequities across--within the--internal to the
Department. We have had representatives from each one of the
bureaus talk about the pay and benefit disparities. We have
actually done an onsite study in Puerto Rico where we have
housing and language and education issues. We are a strong
proponent of consistency across the board.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Do you think there are
inconsistencies right now?
Ms. Simms. Yes, I do.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Just within the Department of
Homeland Security, or throughout?
Ms. Simms. When I say across the board, I mean internal to
the Department of Justice as well as externally when we are
looking at our sister agencies.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. What can we in Congress do to help
you alleviate or remove those inconsistencies?
Ms. Simms. I think, certainly, endorsing the legislation
that is coming forward after all have had an opportunity to
weigh in on that and address it as it pertains to our own
particular organizations. The fact that we are here today I
think is a huge step in that direction. I don't know that it
has been addressed in this type of forum before, and we
certainly appreciate that.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Anybody else have any comments on
those questions?
Unfortunately, we have been called for another vote now.
Mr. Winstead. Madam Chairwoman, I think we said in our
statement that one of the things that we will be careful to
look at in reviewing any proposed legislation is the extent to
which it may have an impact on the options that we are
developing jointly with the Department of Homeland Security.
And, in addition, we are very concerned about the potential for
creating new pay and benefits disparities. Part of the problem
that we have right now is that legislation has been enacted
over the years, which of course was well intentioned and
addressed a problem, a serious problem that existed at the
time. But in the aggregate, what we end up with is a situation
with a number of perceived inequities. And we simply would want
to avoid replicating that situation by seeing legislation
enacted that creates new pay and benefits disparities.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I think that's been a concern of
this committee as well, Mr. Winstead. We had all of these--in
fact, my staff didn't want me to co-sponsor so many of those
pieces of legislation because it was piece-mealed. But I wanted
to, to send the message that we need to do something to correct
the inconsistencies and inadequacies that are out there for our
folks that are on the front line, if you will.
We, unfortunately, have a series of 6 votes, which means we
are going to have to adjourn probably for about 45 minutes or
so. I don't want to keep this panel. I have a lot more
questions. If I can submit them to you in writing and get you
to respond to me in writing, that way I can let you go.
And, unfortunately, I am going to have to ask Ms. Kelly,
bless your heart, you always have to wait for votes. I am going
to have to ask the third panel if you would excuse us while we
recess for 45 minutes roughly, until we finish the 6 votes.
I want to thank all four of you, and hope that you will be
available to our staff if we have questions, if you will review
the legislation. And when are you supposed to get back to us,
Ms. Dolan?
Ms. Dolan. The Secretary and the Director of OPM will be
issuing proposed regulations in the fall. And meanwhile, we
will be happy to keep you apprised of our progress.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I would appreciate that. We have a
lot of good men and women out there doing the job, and we don't
want to lose them and we want to make sure that they are
treated fairly. Thank you all so much.
We are going to recess until about 11:50, and hope we will
be back by then. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. We recessed for the votes we were
going to have, and they have recessed basically for an hour,
which means that about the time we get started again they are
going to call us for the votes again. And we have a problem of
having to be out of this room by 1:30. That's the way things
are in Congress, though. And we have to be flexible.
We are going to go ahead and start. And we will swear the
other witness in when he gets in. So if the panel would rise.
We have on this panel Colleen Kelley, president of the
National Treasury Employees Union; Ignatius Gentile, president
of the DHS Council 117 as part of the American Federation of
Government Employees; Nancy Savage, president of the FBI's
Agents Association; Richard Gallo, former president of the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; T.J. Bonner,
president of the National Border Patrol Council; And, finally,
Louis Cannon, president of the D.C. State Lodge for the
Fraternal Order of the Police.
If you will raise your right hands, I will administer the
oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. And you may be
seated.
The panel will now be recognized for an opening statement.
We will ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes; and
any more complete statement you may wish to make will be
included in the record.
I would first like to welcome Colleen Kelley, who is no
stranger to this committee. Colleen, you have been here several
times to testify this year. I would like to thank you for being
with us today. And you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION; IGNATIUS GENTILE, PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL 117, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; NANCY SAVAGE, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION AGENTS ASSOCIATION; RICHARD GALLO, FORMER
PRESIDENT, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; AND
LOUIS P. CANNON, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE LODGE
CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL OFFICER'S COMMITTEE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Davis, Chairman
Souder. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the 150,000
Federal employees represented by NTEU. That number includes
over 7,500 Customs inspectors, 6,000 IRS Revenue officers, and
over 900 Customs K-9 enforcement officers who do perform law
enforcement functions every day.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has
moved the issue of Federal law enforcement officer status to
the forefront of Federal employee pay and benefit issues. On
March 1, 2003, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection was
established within DHS. The CBP combines over 42,000 Federal
employees from the Customs Service, the INS, the Border Patrol,
and the Agriculture Department.
In addition to provisions in the legislation that created
the DHS, a number of other pieces of legislation have been
introduced during the 108th Congress that would alter the
definition and the benefits of Federal law enforcement
officers. One of the most important pieces of legislation
involving the definition of law enforcement officer is H.R.
2442, the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act of 2003. This
bipartisan legislation would include Customs inspectors, CEOs,
and IRS revenue officers as law enforcement officers for the
purpose of 20-year retirement.
NTEU believes that Customs inspectors, IRSROs, and Customs
CEOs should receive the same 20-year retirement option as other
law enforcement officers. Their job duties regularly expose
them to real threat and injury, and even to death. This is
dangerous work with real and unrelenting hazards.
The Customs inspectors and CEOs in the CBP have as their
primary mission stopping terrorism and the flow of illegal
drugs into the United States. Inspectors and CEOs enforce
Federal criminal laws and stop fugitives who are subject to
State and Federal warrants and are responsible for stopping
sophisticated and dangerous narcotics smugglers, international
money launderers, armed smugglers, and terrorists. They search
aircraft, vessels, automobiles, rail cars, travelers, and
baggage for violations of civil and criminal laws at 307 ports
of entry.
The work of the Customs inspectors and the CEOs involves a
substantial physical risk and personal danger. According to the
FBI's 2001 Uniform Crime Report, Customs officers accounted for
62 percent of the officers who were injured in the line of duty
in the Treasury Department in 2001. Inspectors and CEOs are
currently required to undergo 9 weeks of basic training at the
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Training Center in Glencoe, GA.
Their current training includes criminal law, arrest authority,
arrest procedures, search and seizure authority, and techniques
including self-defense tactics, frisk and patdown procedures,
handcuffing and takedown techniques, antiterrorism, and
firearms use. And all inspectors and CEOs are required to
qualify on a firing range at least 3 times a year.
According to the agency, inspectors and CEOs have been
stabbed, run over, dragged by automobiles, assaulted with blunt
objects, and threatened. Inspectors at every port face these
hazards as they try to detect and detain drug traffickers,
terrorists, and other felons. One only has to ask Customs
inspector Diana Dean who stopped terrorist Ahmed Ressam, known
as the Millennium Bomber, from entering the United States with
a truckload of explosives in Port Angeles, WA on December 14,
1999. It was later determined that Ressam has intended to use
those explosives to destroy the Los Angeles International
Airport.
In addition to legislation providing 20-year retirement,
other legislation such as H.R. 466 and 1676 would help Federal
law enforcement officers to obtain the adjusted percentage
differentials or locality pay under the Federal Law Enforcement
Pay Reform Act of 1990.
While NTEU agrees with the intent of these bills, we would
prefer that Congress first eliminate the disparity between
Federal employees such as those in Customs and IRS who for
statistical purposes are considered law enforcement officers
but by statutory definition are not.
There is no doubt that extending law enforcement officer
status to additional Federal employees will involve substantial
costs. However, NTEU strongly believes that the costs are
easily outweighed by the benefits to the officers, to the
agencies, and to the American public. No one could reasonably
dispute the importance of the work done by these law officers.
Whether stopping illegal drugs or enforcing our Nation's tax
laws, these hardworking men and women provide a critical public
service. Given the significance of these jobs, it is vitally
important for Customs and the IRS to be competitive with other
State and local law enforcement agencies in granting these men
and women 20-year retirement, and law enforcement officer
status would be a very positive step in that direction.
On behalf of the 150,000 members represented by NTEU, I
thank this committee for taking such a serious look at this
issue, and ask for your help in moving this issue forward to
make it a reality. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. We
appreciate you being with us today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.152
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Next, we have Nancy Savage of the
FBI Agents Association. And we thank you for being with us, and
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Savage. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you today to testify about personnel issues that affect the
effectiveness of Federal law enforcement; in particular, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Also, I want to thank you for
your bipartisan leadership and that of the other members of the
committees, Representatives Mica, Sanchez, Van Hollen, who have
joined you on H.R. 1676, which is critical to this effort.
Allow me also to recognize and thank Congressman Mike Rogers,
who had to leave here, for his critical effort in this regard.
I am a special agent of the FBI, assigned to the Portland,
ORegon division. I have worked for the FBI for 26 years, 6 as a
personnel specialist, and 20 as a special agent. My early
career in the FBI and also in the Department of the Army as a
personnel specialist has helped me to try to frame this issue
in my own mind, because I want to work for an effective
personnel solution to what affects all my colleagues in Federal
law enforcement.
First, let me stress that FBI agents are patriots by
nature. We don't take this job for wealth or fame. All FBI
agents want to make a difference, but they also want to make a
living.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, our agents
have been on a constant state of alert. They typically work 10-
plus-hour days and face a 1 to 4-hour commute in a constant
effort to prevent future attacks and bring terrorists to
justice. They are also working their other traditional law
enforcement responsibilities: the crackdown on organized crime,
drug cartels, civil rights, violent gangs and hate groups, as
well as guard against cyber crimes and identity theft. The list
grows longer every day.
To combat 21st century crimes, the FBI and other Federal
law enforcement require highly trained individuals with special
skills, advanced degrees, and, above all else, experience. We
face an immediate crisis in high-cost-of-living areas. For
example, the total salary, including overtime, a starting FBI
agent in San Francisco can make is $45,000, which with overtime
can reach a maximum of about $56,000. In May 2002, the median
cost of a single family home in this area set a record of
$439,000. The maximum a family with an income of $56,000 can
afford to spend on a house is $203,000, half the going rate for
a normal small house.
In response to a recent Agents Association survey, one New
York agent who has a law degree and speaks Spanish responded:
``I have had to sell off most of my belongings and borrow from
my family. The bottom line is that presently I am forced to
move from room to room, often being homeless for days or weeks
at a time.''
The other financial issues that strikingly face us in
California and New York are Joint Terrorism Task Force agents
who work on our task forces in New York City and also in
California. They work jointly with other Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers, are generally the lowest paid
employees on those task forces.
The personnel and effectiveness issues now confronting the
FBI are a combination of short-term crisis in high-cost cities
and broader systemic national problems. To this end, H.R. 1676
offers both a short-term fix and a long-term solution. It
eliminates the pay cap for agents, provides a geographic pay
adjustment for the 13th highest cost-of-living in the United
States, and directs OPM to study the effectiveness of a
separate pay system for Federal law enforcement officers. This
combination is critical if we are to succeed in addressing the
issues Federal law enforcement faces here. A short-term fix
alone in the form of a locality pay raise would soon erode, and
representatives of Federal law enforcement will be back again
asking Congress for help on this issue. Moreover, while a
locality pay raise would be of great importance in those areas
hardest hit right now, it will not fix the wider issues.
To address the near-term pay problems in high-cost cities,
it would adjust locality pay rates to make them more accurately
reflect the real cost of living. It would be based on Chamber
of Commerce cost-of-living statistics. And this would make a
huge difference, because if we can pay those individuals who
live in San Francisco, who live in New York, who live in L.A.,
what a true cost of living is, it will stop the exodus of our
employees who are trying to get to Houston or other cities that
are paid relatively large salaries based on a wage-base
configuration currently in place.
It would also provide an incentive for our employees to
move to Washington, DC, which is an increasing cost-of-living
geographic metropolitan area, and which is required of most of
our management moves. And this is a critical issue. We need the
best managers as well as the best agents. Without this
incentive, we are facing a true crisis that grows worse year by
year. And this is an important dynamic.
To sum up this issue, I would have to also speak back to
one of the earlier speakers, Donald Winstead from OPM. We need
an effective solution that will take in and consider a
personnel management system change that actually encourages our
senior agents and even our junior agents to stay and work in
high-cost-of-living areas where some of our more critical
investigative functions are, and also encourage people to take
that turn to come to Washington, DC, and fight some of these
Beltway battles and become better prepared to go back out into
the street and lead street agents.
As a conclusion, I would like to say that we just thank you
very much. We owe the people who protect our national security
far better than we are currently able to give them under our
current Federal law enforcement personnel system. And we owe
the American public the confidence that H.R. 1676 would
provide.
Over the long term, our Federal law enforcement remains
capable and effective in defending the American people from
terrorists and protecting all of you from criminals. Thank you
for the opportunity.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Savage.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Savage follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.163
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Next we will hear from Richard
Gallo from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
And, Mr. Gallo, I believe first that Mrs. Maloney from New York
would like to welcome you.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and
Madam Chairwoman and Chairwoman for calling this, and I thank
all of you for service and for what you have done for us. And I
particularly want to welcome Richard Gallo, who is a
constituent and past president of the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association. And I join with all of my constituents in
thanking you and all of Federal law, and, I would add, city and
State law, for the heroic work that you do every day and the
heroic work that you did particularly after September 11. I
certainly support any initiative that advances pay, uniformed
pay, and works to help our law enforcement officials.
And I am here to welcome you and introduce you. I look
forward to your testimony. Thank you for being here. Thank you
for your service.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
Mr. Gallo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallo. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. And I would like to
thank you for your leadership on this issue as well and for
giving us the opportunity to discuss H.R. 2442. And I hope I
get your attention when I say H.R. 2442, not H.R. 466 or 1676,
because H.R. 2442 was the last of several bills introduced in
the 101st Congress back in 1990. H.R. 2442 was the result of
hearings held by the National Advisory Commission on Law
Enforcement created by the 100th Congress.
The National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement was
staffed by three U.S. Senators, five Members of the House of
Representatives, the U.S. Attorney General, the Treasury
Secretary, the Director of OPM, the Director of FBI, the
Administrator of DEA, two Inspector Generals, and FLEOA. H.R.
2442 was debated in front of this committee. In fact, on March
28, 1990, FLEOA testified in front of the House of
Representatives Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Subcommittee on Compensation and Employees Benefits, in favor
and support of H.R. 2442, which was signed into law by the
President on November 5, 1990.
That law called for a separate pay and classification
system to be set up by OPM. In fact, the wording was, ``OPM
shall create a separate pay and classification system.'' And
when you all use that term ``shall create,'' it doesn't mean
that you are giving them wiggle room. ``OPM shall create a
separate pay and classification system for Federal law
enforcement officers.'' That was the law that you all passed,
that the President signed, that OPM has ignored. Here we are 13
years later, after having to watch the work of that good
Congress erode away, the work of that Commission erode away,
and we are discussing the same issue.
Our written testimony covers in greater detail the points
that we believe are important, points too numerous to cover
within a 5-minute presentation. But we should not be able to
tell you that there are first-year Federal law enforcement
officers who qualify for public assistance, or that there are
Federal law enforcement officers who commute before dawn to the
city in which they work in and then sleep in their cars to
catch up on their sleep before reporting to work, because they
live so far away to afford a house for their family and their
children they have no other alternative; or that we hire and
train people for the Federal law enforcement occupation but
then they resign in order to go to work for a State or local
law enforcement agency so they can make a better salary and
have better benefits. These things are happening.
We should not be able to tell you that law enforcement
officers have been moved by their headquarters from one city to
the other, the entire office has been moved from one city to
another in order to place that entire office within a higher
locality pay area. This was done when the FBI moved their
office in Concord, NH to Manchester, NH. The FBI moved their
offices to Concord, NH because that was in the RUS pay
district. They moved them to Manchester, NH because that
qualified for the Boston pay district.
But all these things have happened. If you look at the USA
Jobs Web site, there is an announcement requesting applicants
for positions as a special agent with the Secret Service, and
the closing date on this announcement is in December in the
year 2099. They can't get enough applicants for the job because
of the starting pay.
In the 107th Congress, H.R. 466 was known as H.R. 3794,
with a companion bill in the other Chamber offering partial pay
increases and the locality pay adjustments paid to the group of
Federal law enforcement officers that Congress singled out in
H.R. 2442 back in 1990, that law that was passed. In the
closing days of the 107th Congress, there were attempts to
attach it to the legislation that created Homeland Security.
The obstacle that emerged in the other Chamber centered around
the fact that H.R. 3794 only covered 18 pay districts, leaving
some Senators feeling that Federal law enforcement officers in
their States which were not among the 18 pay districts may be
compromised by a mass exodus of senior agents to other pay
districts. And remember, this does happen. FBI moved their
offices from Concord to New Hampshire. So even headquarters
does this, much less the agents themselves who are looking for
their best high three.
Some Senators from both sides of the aisle informed us that
they were hesitant to support the bill. Other Senators, and
again from both sides of the aisle, informed us that they would
make sure that the bill would be tabled unless it included
their States, because they felt that the bill as written, only
covering several pay districts not including their own States,
would impact the effect of law enforcement, the ability of law
enforcement in their State.
This year's answers to last year's concerns, bipartisan
concerns, was to increase the adjustment for some districts and
to cut the adjustment for some districts in order to include
the remaining districts without blowing the budget, and the
result was H.R. 466.
And we truly appreciate Representative Peter King's--a
Notre Dame graduate, I might add--leadership on this issue.
H.R. 466 offers partial pay adjustments for all 32 districts
and a section originally written by Senator Joseph Biden's
staff for FLEOA to fence off LEAP pay from counting toward the
pay cap.
We are pleased that both Chairs, Vice Chairs, ranking
members, and actually majority of both subcommittees are
cosponsors of H.R. 466, and also pleased to see that majorities
of Republicans and Democrats of the full committee are
cosponsoring H.R. 466. And, last, we are pleased to note the
majority of Representatives in Congress have already
cosponsored H.R. 466 with over 225 cosponsors now.
In closing, FLEOA strongly supports H.R. 466; however, if
the committee during markup attaches the provision calling for
the 1993 OPM study to be revisited, we would not object in the
least, since in the other Chamber, the bill that mirrors H.R.
466 includes that section, and that already has 37 co-sponsors.
Let us go to markup. Let us get the--let us hammer out the
differences in markup, and let us get a bill that can pass not
only this Chamber but the other Chamber and get to the
President's desk this year.
I will answer any questions, of course, that this
subcommittee may have. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Gallo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.175
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. I would now like to recognize
Ignatius Gentile, representing Immigration and Naturalization
Service Employees. Thank you for being with us today. And you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gentile. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and members of
the subcommittee. My name, as you know, is Ignatius Gentile. I
am the president of Council 117 within the Department of
Homeland Security. And we are with the American Federation of
Government Employees.
I have also been employed by the U.S. Immigration Service
in New York City for over 32 years, serving most of my tenure
as a deportation officer in New York. Our union represents over
16,000 inspectors, deportation officers, detention officers,
special agents, adjudication officers, asylum officers, and
other support staff.
Contrary to the myth created during last year's battle over
work rules at the Department of Homeland Security, our union
has never been an obstructionist or has ever constrained our
agency or our new Department in carrying out its critical
mission. In fact, we play an essential role in examining
proposals affecting pay benefits, personnel rules, and making
sure our employees' views are clearly understood. After all, it
is our employees of this newly formed Department that
ultimately will determine its success or failure.
In fiscal year 2002, we inspected almost 70 million air
travelers at more than 220 airports designated as ports of
entry [POE], and this was around the United States and abroad.
Those inspections resulted in the interception of approximately
6,900 criminal aliens, 2,700 persons being smuggled into the
United States, and more than 18,000 fraudulent travel documents
and identification cards. In total, our staff of inspectors
denied admission to over 208,000 travelers during the air
inspections at the port of entry in just fiscal year 2002.
We are here today to talk about the critically important
pay and benefits issues affecting thousands of our employees
with the new Department of Homeland Security. These issues are
important not only because they are the bread-and-butter
concern to our workers and their families, but also because
they have a tremendous effect on our employees' morale. One of
our best measures of measuring our employees' morale is the
rate of attrition. We commend Representative Filner for his
longstanding support on this issue, and thank both he and
Representative McHugh for their efforts.
Under the current law, the immigrations inspectors are
treated inequitably. Not only is their pay scale lower than any
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency, but
they also do not receive, as you are aware of, any law
enforcement retirement benefits. H.R. 2442 seeks to rectify
this injustice by granting these officers the same retirement
benefits received by other Federal law enforcement officers. We
can see no justification for treating our inspectors as
anything less than full law enforcement officers.
Immigration inspectors are regularly put in harm's way,
which is the reason why they are required to carry a firearm
and qualify in the usage of that firearm. They have search
authorities to undertake searches, make arrests, deport aliens.
Our immigration inspectors also prepare cases for criminal
prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office, including cases
involving alien smuggling, document fraud, and attempted
illegal entry. In fact, our inspectors have general arrest
authority for any offense committed against the United States.
It has been suggested by some that this legislation is too
expensive and therefore should not be adopted. Of course, we
strongly disagree. To date, no study undertaken on H.R. 2442
has considered the potential saving resulting from a reduced
training cost. According to an OIG Department of Justice report
issued in fiscal year 2002, the INS invested over $19 million
to train approximately 1,000 new inspectors out of its academy.
We believe that much of that money could have been saved had
H.R. 2442 been in effect, and therefore should be accounted as
an offset savings in any future cost studies on the actual
bill.
Finally, it bears to note that the Bush administration's
first appointee as the INS Commissioner, Mr. James Ziglar,
actively supported law enforcement retirement coverage for our
immigration inspectors because he felt so strongly that it
should indeed be provided.
We as a Nation simply cannot afford to lose our most
experienced personnel at this time. We need the inspectors'
instincts, their experience, their eyes trained on thousands of
people they inspect daily. We need their dedication,
commitment, and knowledge. We need to treat these dedicated
employees as they actually are: law enforcement officers.
The enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act
would be a very important step in that direction.
In closing, I would like to thank this committee for
inviting me here today to share my thoughts and my values on
this vital matter. At this point, I would be happy to respond
to any of your various inquiries. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Gentile.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gentile follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.180
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. We would like to now recognize
Louis Cannon of the Fraternal Order of Police. Thank you, Mr.
Cannon, for being here today. And you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis, Chairman
Souder, and other members present of the two subcommittees. My
name is Louis Cannon. I am the president of the Fraternal Order
of Police District of Columbia State Lodge and chairman of the
National FOP's Federal Officers Committee. On behalf of
National President Chuck Canterbury, we appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you here today to discuss our
views on compensation issues affecting Federal law enforcement
officers. On a side note, we would also like to thank Chairman
Souder for his efforts on the House floor yesterday on the CJS
appropriations bill.
The Fraternal Order of Police is the Nation's largest law
enforcement labor organization, with over 306,000 members in 43
State lodges. Included in that total are more than 25,000
Federal law enforcement officers, representing agencies from
each of the three branches of the Federal Government. For our
organization, the most pressing concern is the continuing
inequality in retirement benefits afforded to Federal officers
under the law enforcement officer or 6(c) retirement system.
And it is on this issue that I will primarily focus my remarks.
Each and every day, tens of thousands of Federal police
officers and other law enforcement employees place their lives
on the line in the defense of Federal employees, the general
public, and the institutions that are the foundations of our
democracy. They serve as our Federal Government's first
responders, and are asked to face the same hazards as their
State and local counterparts. And when one of them falls in the
line of duty, their names are added to the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington.
They are also the brave men and women who were among the
first to respond to the devastating terrorist attacks in New
York City and the Pentagon. Yet these same individuals, despite
carrying out their sworn duty to protect and serve with honor
and dedication, are consistently denied equal status with their
Federal law enforcement colleagues under the law enforcement
officer retirement provisions of Chapters 83 and 84 of Title 5
U.S. Code. Their exclusion under current law and the
regulations of OPM is not based on the duties that they are
asked to perform, forcing the officers to constantly appeal to
OPM or to bring a case before the Merit Systems Protection
Board to fight for the status to which they are already
entitled.
That is why the Fraternal Order of Police strongly supports
amending current law to clarify the definition of law
enforcement officer and ensure the inclusion of Federal police
officers and others whose primary duties are law enforcement
and who are currently denied LEO retirement coverage. And that
is why we support H.R. 2442, the Law Enforcement Officers
Equity Act introduced by Representatives Filner and McHugh last
month.
The FOP believes that there are three primary reasons to
enact H.R. 2442, and to reform the current definition of who is
and is not classified as law enforcement officer for retirement
purposes.
First, the extension of LEO status will improve the
recruitment and retention efforts of law enforcement agencies
throughout the Federal Government. Perhaps the most pressing
problem facing Federal law enforcement agencies today is the
ability to recruit qualified applicants for the police and
investigative positions, and the challenge of retaining fully
trained and qualified personnel in the face of a competitive
market for the services they perform.
However, the lack of law enforcement retirement coverage is
one of the primary incentives for police officers and others to
seek employment with other agencies. In the Washington, DC,
area alone, there are scores of Federal, State, and local
agencies for which an individual seeking a career in law
enforcement can choose from without the inconvenience of having
to relocate his or her family.
Next, H.R. 2442 will bring equity to the various law
enforcement and police occupations. The major duties of the 083
Federal police position, whether or not they are currently
covered by law enforcement retirement, are indistinguishable
from those of State and local law enforcement. However, there
are not enough to distinguish many Federal law enforcement
officers from other government employees and other retirement
laws.
The Office of Personnel Management reached a similar
conclusion in a 1993 report to Congress, stating that it is
undeniable that uniformed police work is considered a core law
enforcement function outside of the Federal Government. And the
Federal Government has also recognized it is law enforcement by
putting some Federal police positions in the definition of law
enforcement officer for pay purposes under current law.
While not explicitly recommending the extension of LEO
retirement coverage, OPM did note that as they studied law
enforcement in protective occupations and worked on the design
of a separate job evaluation pay system, it became clear that a
different definition of law enforcement officer would be needed
for system coverage purposes.
Finally, passage of this legislation will permanently end
the confusion regarding which requirements qualify law
enforcement employees for law enforcement status. This issue of
who is and who is not a law enforcement officer for retirement
purposes is a source of great confusion for the thousands of
police officers employed by the Federal Government. For them,
achieving law enforcement status is not about bigger paychecks
or enhanced benefits, but about achieving parity with their
fellow officers. They have trouble comprehending how they can
perform the same functions as their LEO-covered Federal
counterparts, yet receive unequal benefits.
When a Federal law enforcement officer falls in the line of
duty, the government does not look at whether or not they were
considered LEO or non-LEO for the purposes of providing public
safety officer benefits to their family. It is only within the
Federal Government that an employee who performs basic law
enforcement functions will be considered something other than a
law enforcement officer.
Today, all Federal law enforcement officers, regardless of
their classification and grade, must shoulder greater burdens
in the post-September 11th world. These brave men and women are
now asked to serve as first responders, to be prepared and
capable of responding to incidents and situations which
threaten our Nation, and to be on the front line in the fight
to improve Homeland Security.
Amending current law to clarify the definition of law
enforcement officer and ensuring the inclusion of Federal
police officers and others who are denied coverage will improve
the recruitment and retention of qualified officers, ensure
equity among law enforcement employees, and eliminate the
confusion surrounding the current definition. But more
importantly, the passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Equity
Act would afford Congress the opportunity to do what is right
and what is needed to ensure that the Federal Government is
protected by the most highly trained, qualified, and
professional corps of law enforcement officers available.
In conclusion, the FOP does not believe that now is the
time for enacting measures which have the effect of continuing
disparities which exist between and among Federal law
enforcement employees or which allow one agency to recruit
officers at the expense of another. Rather, it is time for
those which recognize the important work performed by these
brave men and women throughout the Federal Government and which
will attract the best and brightest to Federal law enforcement
work.
Thank you very much, Chairwoman Davis and Chairman Souder,
for the opportunity to appear before you today. We very much
appreciate the support of yourself, Madam Chairwoman Davis, and
numerous members of both subcommittees who were cosponsors of
the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act in the 107th Congress.
I look forward to working with the subcommittees to advance
legislation, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.191
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Bonner, we haven't forgotten
you, but I would need you to stand so I could swear you in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Let the record reflect that the
witness has answered in the affirmative. And, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
T.J. Bonner from the National Border Patrol Council, we welcome
you. And you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL
COUNCIL
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman,
other members of the subcommittees. On behalf of the 9,000
frontline law enforcement officers represented by the National
Border Patrol Council, we welcome this opportunity to present
our views concerning issues that affect every aspect of our
working lives.
While there is a clear consensus that we need to attract
and retain the best and the brightest employees in order to
safeguard our Nation's liberty, there is a considerable amount
of disagreement concerning how best to achieve this goal. In
the brief time allotted, I would like to share the perspective
of frontline employees.
We believe that any pay and personnel systems that are
developed must follow three basic principles: First, employees
must be treated fairly and equitably. Second, their wisdom and
experience must be valued, solicited, and heeded. Finally, they
must be adequately and equitably compensated for the essential
services that they provide.
Deviating from these commonsense principles will make it
difficult, if not impossible, to attract and retain the best
and the brightest employees, and should be avoided at all
costs.
For example, depriving employees of a meaningful voice and
input into their conditions of employment by limiting or
eliminating their collective bargaining rights ignores the
wealth of knowledge and experience that they possess. Since
Federal employees cannot strike or bargain over wages or
benefits, the only topics left on the bargaining table are
working conditions. Denying these employees a meaningful voice
in these matters is foolish and counterproductive, and results
in poor morale as well as ill-advised policies generated by
managers far removed from the front lines.
Grievance and appeals processes that fail to provide for
review of management decisions by independent neutrals only
exacerbate inequities and demoralize the work force, chasing
away good workers. Employees are not willing to serve their
entire career under the threat of being fired without cause at
the whim of a manager or political appointee, nor are they
willing to work under a system that denies them the basic right
to contest such actions in a fair forum. Pay banding systems
that do not have fair and easily understood rules,
incorporating the principle of equal pay for substantially
equal work, create inequities that are extremely damaging to
morale and the spirit of teamwork that is so essential in law
enforcement.
So-called pay-for-performance, which is actually pay based
upon favoritism in many cases, suffers from the same flaws and
yields the same disastrous results. Pay systems that deny
employees time-and-a-half compensation for their overtime work,
such as the Law Enforcement Officers Availability Pay Act of
1994, are a prime source of dissatisfaction and cause good
employees to seek jobs with other agencies.
The relative ease of recruiting in an economic slump should
not deceive anyone into believing that this meets our goal of
attracting highly qualified law enforcement officers who will
remain in the service of our Nation for 20 to 30 years. Hiring
desperate people who are looking to make ends meet until they
can find a career that genuinely interests them serves neither
the employees nor the public well.
Federal law enforcement officers are in the midst of a
human capital crisis. Employees are voting with their feet in
record numbers, and there is great cause for alarm. Last fiscal
year, for example, one out of every five Border Patrol agents
left the agency for one reason or another.
There are four major reasons that employees are abandoning
careers in Federal law enforcement: lack of job satisfaction;
low pay compared to that of other law enforcement officers
performing similar tasks; lack of upward and lateral mobility;
and poor working conditions. Unless all of these issues are
addressed simultaneously, attrition will remain unacceptably
high.
Frontline employees recognize that the current system is
far from perfect and is in need of reform. They are also wise
enough to know that it could easily be made worse, and
therefore do not embrace change for the sake of change. They
understand that in order to effectuate positive change, reform
needs to be accomplished in accordance with the principles
outlined herein.
Salaries of employees in high-cost-of-living areas must be
commensurate with those of other law enforcement officers in
those areas if the Federal Government hopes to remain
competitive. Law enforcement retirement coverage needs to be
extended to all of those who enforce our Nation's laws,
including legacy immigration and Customs inspectors, if we want
to attract the best and the brightest to these important jobs.
In order to convince people to choose a career in Federal
law enforcement, they need to be provided with challenging and
financially rewarding career opportunities. Choice promotions
need to be offered to existing employees before outside
applicants are considered.
In sum, any changes to personnel laws, rules, and
regulations must be viewed through the prism of the commonsense
principles outlined herein, and must recognize that the goal of
a first-class work force cannot be achieved if workers are
treated in a second-class manner.
Thank you. And I would be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.196
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. And thank you to all of our guests
today for being so patient with us. And they are telling us we
may have a vote here in the next 15 minutes or so, so we will
have to see what happens.
I would like to yield now to Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Just a couple of brief things.
First, I want to thank, Mr. Cannon, the FOP, for your
letter in our efforts on trying to stop this back-door
legalization of marijuana. We have that; that will be one of
not the immediate next series but the next series after that of
votes, and hopefully we will prevail, thanks a lot to your
help, the narcotics officers of the United States, and others
who are standing firm as people try to weaken the laws and
increase the terror in our streets.
And we want to thank all of your agencies, because you are
front line in our defense. Diana Dean and the great Customs
Inspectors; the people in the Border Patrol are out there,
relatively boring job much of the time, watching for people
coming across illegally and the drug runs that come sometimes.
There was one done by cells with seven SUVs tearing in,
planning to shoot their way through. To argue INS agents, who
are immigration authorities, trying to check for the illegal
people coming through, never knowing increasingly in this day
and age if they are al Qaeda or just a random poor person
trying to find a job, there is a big difference in that risk.
Much like a police officer going to a domestic disturbance,
when you go in there and then they are fleeing, you don't know
whether they have a gun, a knife, or what exactly you are
dealing with, whether they are on drugs or alcohol. And the
risk that everybody takes is very much appreciated by all of
us.
Mr. Gallo's testimony jogged me. First, I want to thank you
for, in particular, acknowledging my colleague's graduation
from the premier university of the United States, Notre Dame,
that--there aren't too many of us Nomers here, but we are a
stick-together type. But you triggered a question in my mind,
and I thought it was a very interesting layout of the history
as we have tried to work through this.
In locality pay, does locality pay, I presume, get counted
into the retirement base?
Mr. Gallo. Yes, it does, sir.
Mr. Souder. Because one of the problems I potentially see
in moving this, because I thought it was really good in reading
through your full testimony about what we run into in trying to
pass this, and whether people would move from other places--
particularly to use the word ``veteran,'' people in the
agencies would move to places of high locality pay. Therefore,
the 18 areas not covered were concerned about the locality pay
and losing their senior people. And that is, is that locality
is pay to really address what you are dealing with in trying to
come up with housing and costs when you are moving into an
area. But if it was really just locality pay, nobody would
transfer over just to get the pay.
Mr. Gallo. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. So it's retirement, because it's based on the
previous, if you're in the old system, what, top 3 years? That
if even if the locality pay merely was to equalize, it really
wouldn't be equal because your retirement would go up.
Mr. Gallo. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. So in trying to figure out how to work this,
that may be--have you addressed that before? Should locality
pay not count in the retirement and, rather, have a base that
is based on your senior level of activity and locality pay is
pulled out of that retirement system? Or would you not adjust
the locality pay quite as much because it is going to help you
in retirement? Because that is not a locality adjustment, then,
if there is an incentive to move to another area.
Mr. Gallo. Sir, in order to get that locality pay or the
little bit extra, right now the RUS pay district is at 9
percent.
Mr. Souder. Let me first acknowledge that it is way off
now. That is not the current, currently. But if we try to
adjust it, should that be calculated in the adjustment if we
try to legitimately? Because you could see from the salary
differences, I mean, some areas are 78,000 for local police
officers and others were 40-something.
So, in the current system it is totally broken. But as we
look to revise it and if we were actually looking to make the
playing field level, how do we calculate that retirement?
Mr. Gallo. That is one of the reasons why all the districts
were included, so it wouldn't be such a huge disparity between
the RUS and the San Francisco and the New York. We cut down
some of those areas and we raised the RUS a little bit so the
disparity wouldn't be as pronounced.
But there is a big issue in reference to that, Congressman,
in reference to Alaska and Hawaii, because they are going to
get a 25 percent COLA. They don't get any locality pay; they
get a 25 percent cost-of-living adjustment, and it doesn't
count at all toward your retirement. And the Congressmen from
Hawaii and the Senators from Hawaii have pointed out that a lot
of their 48-year-of-age agents, because we get to retire at 50
years of age or 20 years in, are transferring to Los Angeles
for their last 3 years, because the 17 percent locality pay in
Los Angeles counts toward your retirement but your 25 percent
COLA in Hawaii does not. And that's something that I guess we
all have to look at in markup, to maybe make it a dollar-for-
dollar conversion that the COLA would count. Because, again, if
you raise Los Angeles up another--I think both bills have them
going up more or less to 10 percent. Instead of being 17, it
will be near 27 under Congressman Rogers' bill and Congressman
King's bill. A 27 percent difference between Honolulu and L.A.
may trigger a one-way ticket to the mainland for your last 3
years. And here you are with your 20 years of service or your
25 years of service, entering your last 3, and the citizens of
Honolulu are deprived of your services, and in fact you are
replaced with somebody else who is less senior, actually.
So that may be something for markup, sir, definitely.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, sir.
Representative Van Hollen was supposed to be one of our
witnesses for our first panel and wasn't able to be here. So I
am going to go to him now, and I am going to give you time to
do your opening statement and then ask questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And
thank you, Chairman Souder, as well. And thank all the
witnesses for your testimony.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I will be brief if I could just
include my full statement in the record. And I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on this legislation, H.R. 2276, the
National Institutes of Health security bill. And I want to
commend both Chairwoman Davis and Chairman Souder for taking
the initiative on this whole set of Federal law enforcement
legislation, and thank you for including this among them.
And I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of
the full committee for being cosponsors of this legislation and
the chairman and ranking member of the Civil Service
Subcommittee for their cosponsorship. I appreciate this being a
bipartisan effort.
There is a heightened need to enact this bill dealing with
NIH because of the nature of--the sensitive nature of the work
done at NIH makes it a potential target for terrorist
activities in this post-September 11 environment.
As the country's premier biomedical research facility, NIH
is soon going to become the home, or is expected to be the home
of the BioShield initiative. And this Congress just passed the
BioShield legislation recently out of the House on a bipartisan
basis.
In response to September 11, 2001, the Congress increased
the authorized size of the NIH police force from 64 officers to
85 officers. Unfortunately, that force has never come close to
reaching that level of manpower.
And it's due to the current pay system and the retirement
system and this bill is designed to address those shortcomings.
The NIH Police are one of the lowest paid in the Washington
metropolitan area. Making matters worse, they are not
classified as Federal law enforcement officers and thereby they
are denied the retirement benefits and the distinction that
affords to others. The result has been a very low retention
rate for officers and difficulty with recruitment. Even if you
exclude retirement, there's been a 77 percent annual attrition
rate at NIH. And as a result of staffing shortages, valuable
investments have been lost. For example, NIH was forced to
spend almost $2 million in overtime costs in fiscal year 2002.
In addition, every time a police officer leaves NIH, we
lose the investment that we have made in training that officer.
Again, for example, NIH spent over $200,000 training the 20
officers that left in fiscal year 2002. Thirty-four officers
have left since September 11, 2001 for better pay and benefits
elsewhere.
Let me just give you very few examples of the other
consequences of the understaffing. There has been an inability
to fill the specialty units such as the HAZMAT response, which
is critical for responding to possible biological chemical and
radioactive terrorist attacks. There has been an inability to
provide routine and specialty training, which includes learning
to respond to terrorist attacks or threats. When under high
alert levels, NIH officers--under the protocol, they are
required to assume additional responsibilities which they are
unable to meet. They have been unable to patrol off-campus
facilities even though that's required when you go to the
higher levels. They have been forced to work 14-hour days, 6 to
7 days a week just to meet the minimal law enforcement and
security responsibilities.
Those are some of the problems that have been associated
with the current system. This legislation would change that by
elevating their status, putting them on a status similar to
other Federal law enforcement agents. It also provides some
change in their jurisdiction. Right now, they're not allowed to
go off NIH campus and do not have any kind of arrest authority
even at their annexes or facilities that are off the main
campus. In Bethesda, this legislation would expand that
jurisdiction. So it tries to address a number of issues that I
think are important. These are important issues for security
before September 11. They become even more important since
September 11, particularly given the sensitive nature of work
that's going on at NIH in the proposed new location of the
biomedical--excuse me, the biodefense lab at that particular
site, which I have other concerns with, but certainly that is
the expected home of that lab at this time.
So I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I hope
that we can include this in the final package that this
committee reports. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.202
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, you are
welcome to ask questions of the panelists.
Mr. Van Hollen. I have no questions at this time.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Souder, do you have any others?
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Then you get me. This is for the
FBI Agents Association. My subcommittee staff, on their trip
out West, heard some very compelling stories as we heard from
Representative Mike Rogers earlier about the high cost of
living areas, and their inability to buy homes, and as you
heard him testify, you know having to put their house payments
on hold and different things. What has been your experience in
working with the FBI on issues involving employee pay?
Ms. Savage. The most critical issue we're facing right now
is the disparity in law enforcement pay and FBI agent pay
around the country in high-cost living areas. Just
overwhelmingly the agents that are assigned in some of these
high cost of living areas, especially at the more inexperienced
levels because their pay is lower, are scratching and clawing
to get out of those areas by any way they can. They are trying
to transfer through specialty transfers to hardship areas where
they didn't have a chance to move to more desirable locations
because they cannot meet their basic family needs. They are
going into debt and unable to pay for retirement, unable to
become property owners of any sort, unable to adequately pay
for their families basic expenses. Like I said, when they have
to go on--I worked with an agent who had to go on public
assistance just to feed his family. They are having to go into
military housing and happy to do so, but it's got to be a
temporary-type move.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. How often do you think this
happens? Is it on a regular basis?
Ms. Savage. Concentrated in a number of cities, New York,
San Francisco is probably the most extreme right now because
their cost of living is probably the highest in the Nation or
one of the highest in the Nation. We have, you know, obviously
significant criminal impact in New York, San Francisco, LA and
those are probably the very worst, although there are others in
significant need.
We face a huge anomaly because of the wage-base system that
is currently in effect for general schedules. Basically, the
Office of Personnel Management does studies periodically and
probably not often enough, and they take a look at what wages
are paid to an individual in a comparable occupation. Well,
it's got a bifurcated problem, part of the problem they are
comparing an FBI agent with advanced degrees and specialized
skills with that of a deputy sheriff. And not that we don't
appreciate and understand local law enforcement, but the type
of skill level and education level, there is usually a
tremendous disparity and that doesn't work. And also we hire as
well as most Federal law enforcement, we hire on a national
basis. We hire our agents. We send them to a training academy
for 16 weeks, and then we may hire someone from Omaha, and we
air drop them into San Francisco, where they have no real say
in the matter.
So they're coming in from one area and then being
transferred into another where they stay and be assigned for a
significant length of time until they can get their way out of
there. Increasingly, even though they love the work, have high
morale and love being an FBI agent, that's not the issue.
They're going broke, and they're trying to find any way out of
there. So those officers are increasingly inexperienced, even
when we have an inexperienced work force in Federal law
enforcement some of these critical offices have an even--they
have an even less of an experienced work force than anywhere
else. And they're trying to get into other areas that based on
the wage-base system--you know, our highest-paid agents just
about in the country are in Houston. And some of the other
areas that they're trying to get to, their basic standard of
living can be much much higher because dollars only mean what
goods and services they can buy. And in San Francisco,
increasingly, the other area I mentioned San Francisco, New
York, LA and those other cities I have left off, but an
increasing problem is Washington, DC. And it just exploding in
costs and it's very, very important for us to be able to
attract our more senior and experienced agents into the
Washington, DC, headquarters arena.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. When you say Washington, DC, are
you meaning Washington, DC?
Ms. Savage. The whole metropolitan--the commuting area
where they can afford to buy is far out in Maryland, far out in
Virginia.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. Representative Rogers made a
comment about someone from Quantico. Is Quantico based on D.C.
cost of living?
Ms. Savage. All included in the same metropolitan
statistical area. Because they want to look at what is the
commuting range, they just can't base it on what it may cost
for someone to live at 10 and Pennsylvania Avenue because
there's no housing there. They have to come and work there so
they may have to live in Fredericksburg or far out in Maryland
and they're having a longer and longer commute, maybe 1\1/2\
hours each way to get in here, but you still have to look at
what their cost of living and even the OPM system how it works
now based on wage rates, it's based on--that metropolitan
statistical area is based on commuting rates because they
recognize that. So that's why I say someone assigned to
Washington and that's one of the major problems we have,
because there's no incentive. They're going to put their family
through tremendous financial hardship in order to raise their
hand and be a law enforcement leader. And that we need not only
good agents but we tremendously need the best and the brightest
within our organizations to step up into leadership positions.
And those leadership positions require that the individuals be
well rounded and have experience not only in the field but they
have to have experience at our headquarters and inside the
Beltway to understand how government works and how they can
more effectively go out and help their field office.
Mrs. Davis of Virginia. My time is up. Mark, do you have
anything else?
I have one here that I am supposed to ask--never mind that
was for the other panel.
Bear with me, I am going to recognize our ranking member on
the Civil Service Subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis, and see if he
has an opening statement. Any comment?
Well, I would like to thank you all for being here. We may
have questions as time goes along and thank you so much for
your patience and we actually made it without having to make
you wait again. But thank you again for coming and appreciate
it and hope we can work with each and every one to try and get
something passed in the near future to do something to correct
the disparities and the inequities that we have with our law
enforcement personnel. Thank you all for coming.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0887.234