[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE: ENSURING THE MISSION IS NOT LOST IN
TRANSITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT,
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-871 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico, Chairwoman
Dina Titus, Nevada Dan Crenshaw, Texas, Ranking
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Member
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Van Taylor, Texas
officio) Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
Lisa Canini, Subcommittee Staff Director
Katy Flynn, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Xochitl Torres Small, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Mexico, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Dan Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
Witnesses
Mr. L. Eric Patterson, Director, Federal Protective Service
(FPS):
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Ms. Lori Rectanus, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team,
Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Appendix
Questions for L. Eric Patterson From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres
Small.......................................................... 35
Question for L. Eric Patterson From Honorable Dina Titus......... 35
Questions for L. Eric Patterson From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson. 35
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE: ENSURING THE MISSION IS NOT LOST IN
TRANSITION
----------
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Management,
and Accountability,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Xochitl Torres
Small [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Torres Small, Titus, Barragan,
Crenshaw, Higgins, and Taylor.
Ms. Torres Small. The Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
the ``Federal Protective Service, Ensuring the Mission is Not
Lost in Transition.'' We are here today to discuss the plans to
transition the Federal Protective Service, or FPS, from
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to the
Management Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.
FPS was formally established by the U.S. General Services
Administration, GSA, in 1971, with the mission of protecting
Federal facilities and their occupants. In 2002, when DHS was
formed, it became the primary Federal department responsible
for the protection of all buildings, grounds, and property
owned, occupied, or structured or secured by the Federal
Government. Consequently, DHS has become the new home for FPS.
However, since then, FPS has struggled to find the right
placement within DHS's structure. The first place within U.S.
ICS, I am sorry, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
FPS's needs were passed over frequently, as ICE focused on its
own mission, and failed to dedicate the bandwidth to support
the mission of FPS. During this time, FPS began supporting
ICE's mission at the expense of its own. FPS lost personnel,
going from 1,400-plus personnel to just 1,000.
The Department reevaluated the placement of FPS in 2009,
and ultimately moved the agency to the National Protection and
Programs Directorate. At the time, the rationale for the
transfer was that, as the agency responsible--as the agency
responsible for securing the Nation's critical infrastructure,
NPPD could better provide mission support to FPS. As a result
of the legislation, in 2018, NPPD was redesignated as a
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, to
reflect its new cybersecurity focus and the Secretary of the
Homeland Security was authorized to decide the placement of FPS
within the Department and to begin the transfer.
Last month, it was announced that FPS would be placed
within the DHS Management Directorate. Although the Management
Directorate and FPS are not necessarily mission-similar, I am
hopeful that the Management Directorate will be a good fit for
FPS. I am hopeful because FPS must succeed. Nearly 6 years ago,
and less than 2 miles away from here, 12 people lost their
lives during the Washington Navy Yard shooting. In 2015, in my
home State in New Mexico, a Social Security office in
Albuquerque was the target of a gunman. FPS officers were
amongst the first responders to both incidents, and to the tens
of thousands of calls for service at Federal facilities
annually.
In order to ensure that we don't have repeats of these
unfortunate circumstances, we must fully equip and resource
FPS. That means ensuring that this latest transition, the third
transition, is successful, that it endeavors to make FPS more
self-sustaining. I thank both witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to their suggestions on how we can help
facilitate a successful transition for FPS.
[The statement of Chairwoman Torres Small follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small
June 11, 2019
We are here today to discuss the plans to transition the Federal
Protective Service, or FPS, from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency to the Management Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
FPS was formally established by the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) in 1971 with the mission of protecting Federal
facilities and their occupants. In 2002, when DHS was formed, it became
the primary Federal Department responsible for the protection of all
buildings, grounds, and property owned, occupied, or secured by the
Federal Government. Consequently, DHS became the new home for FPS.
However, since then, FPS has struggled to find the right placement
within DHS's structure. First placed within U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), FPS's needs were passed over frequently as
ICE focused on its own mission, and failed to dedicate the bandwidth to
support the mission of FPS. During this time, FPS began supporting
ICE's mission at the expense of its own. FPS also lost personnel--going
from 1,400+ personnel to approximately 1,000. The Department re-
evaluated the placement of FPS in 2009 and ultimately moved the agency
to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).
At the time, the rationale for the transfer was that, as the agency
responsible for securing the Nation's critical infrastructure, NPPD
could better provide mission support to FPS. As a result of
legislation, in 2018 NPPD was redesignated as the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to reflect its new cybersecurity
focus, and the Secretary of Homeland Security was authorized to decide
the placement of FPS within the Department and begin the transfer.
Last month, it was announced that FPS would be placed within the
DHS Management Directorate. Although the Management Directorate and FPS
are not necessarily mission-similar--I am hopeful that the Management
Directorate will be a good fit for FPS. I am hopeful because FPS must
succeed.
Nearly 6 years ago, and less than 2 miles away from here, 12 people
lost their lives during the Washington Navy Yard shooting. In 2015, in
my home State of New Mexico, a Social Security Office in Albuquerque
was the target of a gunman. FPS officers were among the first-
responders to both incidents, and to the tens of thousands of calls for
service at Federal facilities annually.
In order to ensure that we don't have repeats of these unfortunate
circumstances, we must fully equip and resource FPS. That means
ensuring that this latest transition--the third transition--is
successful, and that it endeavors to make FPS more self-sustaining. I
thank both witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to their
suggestions on how we can help facilitate a successful transition for
FPS.
Ms. Torres Small. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small; and thank
you for holding this hearing.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I appreciate you and
your expertise.
Mr. Patterson, thank you for all your service. I was just
reading your bio and your long service, both in the Air Force
and in the--at DIA.
Ms. Rectanus, thank you so much for being here.
I am pleased we are holding this hearing to examine the
transfer of the Federal Protective Service within the
Department of Homeland Security. As the primary agency
responsible for the protection of Federal facilities, and the
individuals that work and visit such facilities, it is
important that FPS has the support it needs to carry out its
mission.
It has been 24 years since the Oklahoma City bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. That horrific act killed 168
people, injured 680 others, and destroyed much of the building
itself. Until the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, this
was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. As we approach
the 25th anniversary of this tragedy, we are reminded of the
important work that the people of FPS do each and every day to
protect our Federal buildings, and the people who work and
visit these buildings each day.
FPS is responsible for the protection of over 9,000 Federal
facilities. The agency assesses the security of all Federal
facilities, develops protective measures for the buildings and
their occupants, conducts K-9 searches for explosives,
investigates crimes, engages with Federal, State, and local
partners to share information, and assists DHS for security for
special events.
As we review the decision on the best place to house this
agency, we must keep in mind that these important missions and
ensure they will not be compromised. The Government
Accountability Office has reviewed a number of possible
placements, and the Acting Secretary has decided to place FPS
within the Department's Management Directorate. As DHS
transitions FPS for the third time, I am hopeful that FPS will
finally find the right place to grow and mature as an agency.
Hopefully being housed in the Management Directorate will
give FPS the opportunity to correct reported human resource and
financial issues and focus more clearly on its essential
mission. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on
how we can best support the mission of FPS.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Crenshaw follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Dan Crenshaw
Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small. And thank you to our witnesses
for being here today.
I am pleased we are holding this hearing today to examine the
transfer of the Federal Protective Service within the Department of
Homeland Security.
As the primary agency responsible for the protection of Federal
facilities and the individuals that work and visit such facilities, it
is important that FPS has the support it needs to carry out its
mission.
It has been 24 years since the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building. That horrific act killed 168 people,
injured 680 others and destroyed much of the building itself. Until the
terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, this was the deadliest
terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
As we approach the 25th anniversary of this tragedy, we are
reminded of the important work that the men and women of FPS do each
and every day to protect our Federal buildings, and the people who work
and visit these building each day.
FPS is responsible for the protection of over 9,000 Federal
facilities. The agency assesses the security of all Federal facilities;
develops protective measures for the buildings and their occupants;
conducts K-9 searches for explosives; investigates crimes; engages with
Federal, State, and local partners to share information; and assists
DHS with security for special events.
As we review the decision on the best place to house this agency,
we must keep in mind these important missions and ensure they will not
be compromised.
The Government Accountability Office has reviewed a number of
possible placements and the Acting Secretary has decided to place FPS
within the Department's Management Directorate. As DHS transitions FPS
for the third time, I am hopeful that FPS will finally find the right
place to grow and mature as an agency.
Hopefully being housed in the Management Directorate will give FPS
the opportunity to correct reported human resource and financial
management issues and focus more clearly on its essential missions.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we can
best support the missions of FPS.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Torres Small. The Members of the committee are reminded
that under the committee rules, opening statements may be
submitted for the record.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
June 11, 2019
History has a way of repeating itself, as nearly 10 years ago we
were holding a similar hearing on FPS's transfer from U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD). Now today, we are examining yet another plan to
move the agency within the Department of Homeland Security. This time
to the Management Directorate.
While it is a small agency in size, FPS has an enormous mission.
FPS is charged with protecting approximately 9,000 Federal buildings,
and the more than 1.4 million personnel, visitors, and customers that
enter them each day. It works to prevent criminal and terrorist acts
and other hazards at Federal facilities by assisting tenants with
writing and implementing facility-specific emergency plans,
establishing procedures on handling suspicious mail or bomb threats,
and providing active-shooter and other safety awareness trainings for
Government personnel.
In light of this critical role, we must ensure that FPS's
transition is successful.
When FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE, the transition for 5
mission-support functions was delayed, resulting in increased
transition costs. Those misson-support functions included: IT services,
business continuity and emergency preparedness, security integrity and
personnel security, facilities, and equal employment opportunity.
Moreover, FPS's move to NPPD did not enable FPS to mature as an agency
and address shortcomings as was hoped for. FPS continued to wrestle
with funding constraints, overseeing its large contract force, and
carrying out its mission in NPPD. NPPD's own transformation into the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency overshadowed FPS.
Given that the move to Management will be the third transition that FPS
undergoes--and the second within DHS--I hope we get it right this time
around.
I am pleased that DHS finally made a decision regarding the new
placement of FPS as I am sure that the angst regarding its landing wore
on employee morale. I am optimistic that placement in the Management
Directorate will provide more visibility and opportunity for growth for
FPS. However, to finally get it right, the Management Directorate and
FPS must ensure that it properly aligns its activities and resources.
Further, the Department must commit to addressing FPS' long-standing
challenges and foster its ability to be more independent.
Not doing so puts at risk the security of Federal facilities, and
the millions of people who work in or visit them.
Ms. Torres Small. So I now welcome the panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. L. Eric Patterson, who serves as the
director of the Federal Protective Service.
Mr. Patterson has been director of FPS since 2010 and
previously served as the deputy director of the Defense
Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center at the
Defense Intelligence Agency. At DIA, he directed
counterintelligence activities world-wide to meet Department of
Defense requirements. He is a retired United States Air Force
Brigadier General with 30 years of service.
Next, we have Ms. Lori Rectanus, who is the director of the
Government of Accountability Office's physical infrastructure
team. Ms. Rectanus is GAO's expert on Federal Real Property
Management issues, including Federal security. Ms. Rectanus has
a long and distinguished career at GAO, having joined the
office in 1984.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with Director Patterson.
STATEMENT OF L. ERIC PATTERSON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE
SERVICE (FPS)
Mr. Patterson. Good afternoon, Ma'am; and thank you for
having us today.
Good afternoon, Chairman Torres Small, Ranking Member
Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of the nearly 1,500 men and women of the Federal
Protective Service, it is an honor to testify today about the
critical Homeland Security mission they accomplish every day on
behalf of American citizens. Thank you for this opportunity.
FPS was established in 1971 as a uniformed protection force
for General Services Administration. Since its inception, FPS
has protected people and property of the Federal Government by
identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities through risk
assessments, law enforcement, intelligence analysis, and
security countermeasures. When it comes to our mission, these
are the fundamental basics. Today, there are over 9,000 FPS-
protected Federal facilities and more than 1.4 million people
who work, visit, or conduct business at those facilities each
day.
A little over a week ago, our Nation laid witness to a
horrific act when a local government employee conducted a mass
shooting in a city of Virginia Beach government office. This is
what the brave men and women of FPS work tirelessly day in and
day out to prevent.
Speaking of our personnel, I could not speak more highly of
our team. The skills, talents, and dedication of our work force
form the foundation of our success. Our work force is comprised
of approximately 1,000 law enforcement officers, and more than
400 mission support staff. Our law enforcement personnel are
employed throughout the Nation and our Nation's territories.
They are trained physical security experts and sworn Federal
law enforcement officers; and despite the daily risk our
officers encounter, protecting people in Federal facilities, 90
percent of our officers do not receive Federal law enforcement
retirement coverage. This has got to change; and I am confident
it will, as Members of Congress have introduced legislation in
the past and present to address this important issue.
Last month, citizens across the United States came together
to participate in National Police Week, to honor and remember
our fallen law enforcement officers. In its history, FPS has
had 6 sworn officers killed in the performance of their duties.
This serves as a sobering reminder that the women and men of
FPS must remain vigilant and well-prepared to prevent, protect,
respond, and recover from events that threaten our Nation's
people, property, and institutions.
Through contracts with commercial security vendors, FPS
utilizes approximately 14,000 contracted Protective Security
Officers, we term PSOs, to assist in the protection of Federal
facilities. Our contracted PSOs are often the front line of FPS
and are in daily contact with our Federal facility, customers,
and visitors. They, too, put themselves at risk to accomplish
our mission to include making the ultimate sacrifice. During my
tenure here at FPS, I have attended the funerals of two of our
PSOs who were killed, standing their watch.
Our personnel work around the clock 365 days a year to
perform our mission. In addition to our daily mission of
providing law enforcement response and security services to
over 9,000 Federal facilities and officers, we are involved in
supporting FEMA in both Hurricane Michael and Hurricane
Florence; supporting United States Marshal Service in the
Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman trial; reopening the Immigration
and Customs office in Portland after demonstrators blocked
access to the facility; completing nearly 2,000 facility
security assessments; and conducting over 700 active-shooter
and active-threat assessment awareness training sessions, and
over 8,000 explosive detection K-9 team sweeps at Federal
facilities.
However, while our core mission remains the same, the way
we go about performing it is constantly changing. For example,
the assets we protect are growing more complex and diverse.
While new technologies enhance our ability to protect, they
also enhance the abilities of those who seek to do us harm.
Just last year, FPS existing authorities were enhanced--
extended to counter the evolving threats posed by unmanned
aerial systems to Federal facilities.
FPS is a completely non-appropriated entity, and executes
its mission throughout our Nation and territories, with a
current total budget authority of $1.6 billion. We derive our
funding through the collection of fees from our tenant
customers, the Federal Government, based on a square footage
model. However, beginning in fiscal year 2020, we are employing
a risk-based revenue model to better align basic security
assessments to the security work that FPS performs.
Finally, I am sure that there will be some questions today
regarding how the recently-announced move to FPS from the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to the DHS
Management Directorate may impact our mission. I want to say up
front that this change, which is to be executed by September
30, will unequivocally not change our operational mission. I am
here to assure you that the brave men and women of FPS will
continue to migrate--to mitigate terrorist and criminal actions
in or around Federal property.
I have had the great privilege of serving as FPS director
for nearly a decade. Over the years, FPS has matured
substantially as an organization and as our men and women
continue to execute our mission and provide both pride and
professionalism. The Federal Protective Service remains
committed to its mission, providing safety, security, and a
sense of well-being to thousands of Federal employees who work
and conduct business in our facilities every day.
I would like, again, to acknowledge and thank the
distinguished Members of the subcommittee for allowing me to
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of L. Eric Patterson
June 11, 2019
introduction
Good afternoon Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw,
and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) regarding FPS's critical mission
within DHS.
In the year 2021, FPS will celebrate its 50th anniversary. Since
its inception in 1971, FPS has protected people and property in the
Federal Government by identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities
through risk assessments, law enforcement, intelligence analysis, and
security countermeasures.
Today, we protect over 9,000 facilities and more than 1.4 million
people who work, visit, or conduct business at these facilities each
day.
While our core mission has remained the same, the assets we
safeguard are growing more complex and diverse. New technologies
enhance our ability to protect, and they also enhance the abilities of
those that would do us harm.
FPS provides the DHS Secretary with a highly-trained, Nation-wide
force that can support the Department's mission in countering emerging
or existing threats and terrorism, within the boundaries of our Nation
and territories.
Each day, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, including
the officers of FPS, risk their lives in protecting and securing this
great Nation. In recognition of their sacrifices, nearly 1 month ago,
citizens across the United States came together to participate in
National Police Week to honor and remember our fallen law enforcement
officers. In its history, FPS has had 6 sworn officers killed in the
performance of their duties. This serves as a sobering reminder that
the women and men of FPS must remain vigilant and well-prepared to
prevent, protect, respond to and recover from events that threaten our
Nation's people, property, and institutions.
In my testimony today, I will highlight for this subcommittee a
general overview of who we are, what we do, and how we have effectively
carried out our mission each and every day over the past nearly half-
century.
fps overview
FPS was established in 1971 as the uniformed protection force of
the General Services Administration (GSA). On March 1, 2003, pursuant
to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et. seq), FPS was
transferred from GSA to DHS in recognition of the role FPS plays in
securing our homeland. At the time, it was placed within U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but found a more permanent home in
2009 with the National Protection and Programs Directorate which was
being established at that time.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, FPS is organized through three
Zones and 11 Regions for mission execution.
FPS Workforce
The skills, talents, and dedication of our workforce form the
foundation of our success.
Our workforce of nearly 1,400 Federal personnel is comprised of
approximately 1,000 law enforcement officers and 400 mission support
staff. In addition to contract staff augmentation, FPS contracts for
approximately 14,000 security guards, more appropriately known as
Protective Security Officers (PSOs).
Our law enforcement personnel--inspectors, police officers, and
special agents--are employed throughout the Nation and our Nation's
territories. They are trained physical security experts and sworn
Federal law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement personnel perform
a variety of critical functions, including conducting comprehensive
security assessments to identify vulnerabilities at Federal facilities,
developing and implementing protective countermeasures, providing
uniformed police response and investigative follow-up to crimes and
threats, and other law enforcement activities in support of our
mission.
In addition to FPS's law enforcement officers, FPS also employs
nearly 400 mission support staff who are responsible for a myriad of
important tasks within the organization including outreach and
engagement with critical external stakeholders (e.g. Congress and the
Federal Executive Boards); human capital management; finance,
budgeting, and performance; and, law enforcement and security training.
FPS, through contracts with commercial security vendors, utilizes
approximately 14,000 PSOs, to assist in the protection of Federal
facilities. Our contracted PSOs are often the front line of FPS and are
in daily contact with our Federal facility customers and visitors. They
too put themselves at risk to accomplish our mission, to include making
the ultimate sacrifice. During my tenure here at FPS, I have attended
the funerals of two of our contract PSOs who were killed standing
watch.
FPS Authorities
FPS law enforcement personnel derive their law enforcement
authority and powers from section 1706 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, codified in 40 U.S.C. 1315. Pursuant to this authority, the
Secretary of Homeland Security can designate law enforcement personnel
for the purposes of protecting property owned or occupied by the
Federal Government and persons on that property.
These designated law enforcement personnel have specific
statutorily-prescribed police powers, to include enforcing Federal laws
and regulations, carrying firearms, making arrests, conducting
investigations, and serving warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States.
Specifically, 1315-designated officers may conduct investigations
of offenses that may have been committed against either property owned
or occupied by the Federal Government, or persons on such property, and
make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United
States committed in the presence of the officer or for any felony
cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent
has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing a felony.
On February 18, 2005, the U.S. Attorney General approved Guidelines
for The Exercise of Law Enforcement Authorities By Officers And Agents
Of the Department of Homeland Security as required in 40 U.S.C.
1315(f). These approved Guidelines govern the exercise of the law
enforcement powers of DHS officers designated by the Secretary under
1315(b)(1).
Additionally, consistent with 41 C.F.R. 102-85.35, FPS Law
Enforcement Personnel provide general law enforcement services on GSA
property, and per 41 C.F.R. 102-74.15, all occupants of facilities
under the control of Federal agencies must promptly report all crimes
and suspicious activities to FPS.
Most recently with the passage of the Preventing Emerging Threats
Act of 2018, codified at 6 U.S.C. 124n, FPS and its organic statute, 40
U.S.C. 1315, is an integral part of the Department's development and
use of security countermeasures for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
that threaten the security of Federal facilities and persons thereon.
The Department, under the law enforcement and security provisions found
in 40 U.S.C. 1315, is authorized to use certain UAS countermeasures
for protection of Federal facilities.
FPS Funding Structure--New Fee Model
FPS collects fees from Federal departments and agencies in order to
execute its mission throughout our Nation and territories with a total
budget authority of $1.6B in fiscal year 2019. We derive our funding
through the collection of fees from our tenant customers (the Federal
Government) based on a square-footage model in which we charge $0.78
per square foot of those facilities we protect and secure and 8 percent
overhead on PSO and Technical Counter Measure (TCM) contracts.
However, beginning in fiscal year 2020, FPS is employing a risk-
based revenue model to better align basic security assessments to the
security work that FPS performs. The new approach employs statistical
analysis of operational workload data at each building to understand
the key drivers of FPS's security costs.
FPS uses the model that the analysis produces to determine the
basic security assessments for each customer agency. All told, this
approach offers a more equitable method for assessing basic security
fees because it reflects FPS's historical security workload data for
each building.
Using historical workload data, this new revenue model is security-
oriented whereas the square-footage model represented a rent-based
approach that did not accurately reflect the law enforcement and
security work FPS executes daily.
fps operations
Our operations focuses on the integration of security, law
enforcement, and intelligence to protect the people in an around
Federal facilities. Our personnel work around the clock, 365 days a
year. On any given day, you will find FPS personnel:
Conducting security assessments of Federal facilities to
identify risks;
Designing, installing, and maintaining security
countermeasures to mitigate risks;
Providing a visible law enforcement response and presence;
Overseeing contract security guards who conduct access
control and security screening;
Performing background suitability checks for FPS contract
employees;
Conducting criminal investigations, including threats to
Federal employees and facilities;
Monitoring security alarms via centralized communication
hubs;
Integrating and sharing criminal intelligence for risk-
informed decision making;
Providing security during FEMA Stafford Act deployments,
National Special Security Events (NSSEs) and Special Event
Activity Rating (SEAR) events;
Leading special operations, including K-9 explosive
detection operations; and
Training Federal employees in active-shooter response, crime
prevention, and occupant emergency planning.
2018 was an exceptionally busy year for FPS operations and this
frequency continues today.
Below are just a few accomplishments I want to highlight for this
committee to provide the scope and scale of FPS Operations.
Provided Stafford Act support (via Emergency Support
Function-13) to FEMA for Hurricane Michael in Florida and
Hurricane Florence in North and South Carolina--including PSO
support to FEMA Joint Field Offices and Disaster Recovery
Centers;
Provided support to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S.
Marshal's Service (USMS) during the Juan ``El Chapo'' Guzman
trial in the Eastern District of New York. FPS has a long-
standing operational relationship with USMS in that FPS
provides perimeter protection to Federal courthouses across the
Nation;
Reopened the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office
in Portland, Oregon after demonstrators illegally blocked
access to the facility;
Completed nearly 2,000 Facility Security Assessments (FSA),
of which nearly 700 of those assessments were the highest-risk
facilities, and recommended countermeasures to meet the ISC's
baselines level of protection;
Conducted over 700 Active Shooter/Active Threat awareness
training sessions to Federal employees; and
Conducted over 8,000 Explosive Detection Canine Team sweeps
at Federal facilities.
fps law enforcement and security training
Just last month, the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Centers (FLETC) testified before this subcommittee regarding
FLETC's responsibility for training more than 70,000 law enforcement
officers and agents annually--including that of FPS.
Our relationship with FLETC today is stronger than ever, and we
work with FLETC's director and his staff to ensure our law enforcement
officers are well-prepared, and well-trained to respond to the varied
and complex threats our Nation's people, property, and institutions
face regularly.
To this end, embedded within FPS, is our Training and Professional
Development Directorate (TPD). The men and women within TPD conduct
state-of-the-art, timely and professional training to ensure the
readiness and professional growth of our workforce. They are also
responsible for training the trainers of our PSO workforce, to ensure a
consistent high level of proficiency across our contract workforce.
One of the core courses, which is part of the FPS Inspector Initial
Hire training at FLETC, is our Physical Security Training Program
(PSTP). I am very proud to note that this course is one of only a few
which has been Interagency Security Committee (ISC)-certified, and it
is a course which other Federal agencies with protective
responsibilities come to FPS to receive best-in-class training.
fps placement and transition
Placement
On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into the law the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Act of 2018
which renamed and reorganized the National Protection and Programs
Directorate into CISA.
In addition, the CISA Act of 2018 authorized the Secretary of
Homeland Security to re-position FPS elsewhere within the Department
after the release of a Government Accountability Office's report on
FPS's organizational placement. The GAO report ultimately recommended
that the DHS Secretary evaluate placement options for FPS.
Accordingly, on May 9, 2019, Congress was notified of the Acting
Secretary's decision to keep FPS within the Department and transition
the Service from CISA to the Management Directorate by the end of
fiscal year 2019 (September 30, 2019). FPS's mission remains unchanged
and we have formed a Working Group with Senior-Level representation
from FPS along with the Management Directorate and CISA to guide the
transition planning effort and execution.
In short, the Acting Secretary's placement decision to keep FPS
within the Department further underscores just how critical our mission
is within the Department and to the Nation we serve.
closing
In closing, I have had the great privilege of serving as FPS's
director for nearly a decade. Over the years, FPS has matured
substantially as an organization and our men and women continue to
execute our mission with both pride and professionalism.
The Federal Protective Service is unwaveringly committed to its
mission of providing safety, security, and a sense of well-being to
thousands of Federal employees who work and conduct business in our
facilities daily.
I would like to acknowledge and thank the distinguished Members of
this subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
Patterson.
I now recognize Ms. Rectanus for--to summarize her
statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LORI RECTANUS, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Rectanus. Madame Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking
Member Crenshaw, and Members of the subcommittee, I am pleased
to be here today to discuss the Federal Protective Service's
organizational placement. All of us would agree that FPS is a
key role in protecting our Nation. Yet throughout multiple
placements since DHS was formed, FPS has experienced
operational, management, and funding challenges that have
affected its performance. While FPS has made significant
progress in addressing many of its challenges, others persist.
Because the organizational placement of an organization can
affect its performance, for our January report, we developed
various criteria that DHS should consider before making a
decision to move FPS again. In light of DHS's recent decision
to place FPS in the Management Directorate, I will focus my
remarks today on our findings relevant to that decision, as
well as what DHS should consider as they implement their
decision.
Let me first highlight the 5 criteria we believe are key to
determining an effective organizational placement for FPS.
These criteria are: Mission, roles and responsibilities,
organizational culture, information sharing and collaboration,
and mission support. The premise is that a good organizational
placement would be a parent organization that offers synergy
with FPS for these criteria. If there is not synergy, that
could affect FPS's success, unless any mismatches are
considered and addressed.
Using these criteria, we reviewed several placement options
outside of and within DHS. As a part of those options, we
assessed making FPS a stand-alone entity, reporting directly to
the deputy secretary of DHS. While none of the organization
placement options we reviewed met all the criteria, we found
that making FPS a stand-alone entity fully met 2 of the
criteria, namely, mission and organizational culture, and
partially met the other 3.
For these 3, this means that, if left unaddressed, such a
placement could cause FPS to continue to face challenges in
some areas.
For example, FPS has some responsibilities, like managing
the contract guards, that DHS as an entity generally does not
have. For coordination, FPS works with GSA and many other
agencies to protect Federal facilities. This is a long-standing
area that we have commented on. While GSA and FPS recently
signed an MOA to enhance coordination in this area, we are
still waiting for an MOA that clarifies the roles of the many
agencies involved in Federal courthouse protection.
In the area of mission support, FPS has many of its own
services, but relies on others as well. For example, for Human
Capital, FPS relies on NPPD, now CISA's, assistance to fill
competitive civil services job. It also uses an ICE platform
for financial management. If FPS became a stand-alone entity,
DHS would have to decide whether to maintain these
relationships, or give FPS its own systems.
We did not assess FPS as a placement within the Management
Directorate, but these criteria could easily apply to that
assessment as well.
If FPS--I am sorry--if DHS decides to move ahead with this
placement, our prior work offers valuable insights to ensure
that this move puts FPS in the best position.
First, DHS should consider, and, more importantly, answer
questions that are key to a successful implementation, such as
what are the goals of the consolidation, what are the likely
costs and benefits, how it would be funded, and how
stakeholders will be affected.
Second, DHS should pay attention to key practices to make
sure the transformation works. Such practices include top
leadership attention; development of a coherent mission;
principles and priorities; key time lines and milestones; and,
of course, a communication strategy that involves employees.
In conclusion, DHS's decision to place FPS in the
Management Directorate offers an opportunity to apply these
criteria in order to try to address some long-standing
challenges FPS has faced. In implementing this transition, DHS
will need to pay close attention to these implementation
practices in order for this placement to help FPS effectively
carry out its crucial mission.
Madame Chairman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and
Members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rectanus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lori Rectanus
June 11, 2019
gao highlights
Highlights of GAO-19-605T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management and Accountability, Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
FPS conducts physical security and law enforcement activities for
about 9,000 Federal facilities and the millions of employees or
visitors who work in or visit these facilities. Legislation enacted in
November 2018 required DHS to determine the appropriate placement for
FPS. The legislation also gave the Secretary of DHS authority to move
FPS within DHS. In May 2019, DHS announced its decision to place FPS
within the DHS Management Directorate as a direct report to the Under
Secretary for Management.
GAO has reported that FPS faces persistent challenges in meeting
its mission to protect facilities, and, as of 2019, physical security
continues to be part of GAO's Federal real property management high-
risk area. For example, FPS has not yet fully implemented its guard
management system. Thus, FPS is unable to obtain information to assess
its guards' capability to address physical security risks across its
portfolio.
This statement describes considerations for FPS's placement in
DHS's Management Directorate based upon 5 key organizational placement
criteria GAO identified, as well as steps to transition FPS based upon
GAO's prior work on organizational change.
This testimony is based on reports GAO issued from 2002 through
2019, particularly, GAO's January 2019 report on FPS's organizational
placement. Detailed information on the scope and methodology for this
work can be found in these published products, cited throughout this
testimony.
federal protective service's organizational placement.--considerations
for transition to the dhs
What GAO Found
In its January 2019 report, GAO identified five key criteria
relevant for evaluating placement options for the Federal Protective
Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) or
other Federal agencies. (See table.)
KEY CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE
SERVICE (FPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key criteria Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misssion, goals, and objectives........ An agency's ability to function
well is dependent upon having
a clear mission, goals, and
objectives.
Responsibilities....................... In order for an agency to
perform its duties, it needs
to have clear responsibilities
and the capacity to do them.
Agency responsibilities
generally stem from the
objectives outlined in
strategic plans and can take
the form of Memoranda of
Agreement or agency
directives.
Organizational culture................. Organizational culture includes
the underlying beliefs,
values, attitudes, and
expectations that influence
the behaviors of agency
employees.
Information sharing and coordination... An agency's ability to share
information related to
National homeland security is
necessary for the protection
of Federal facilities.
Coordination refers to working
with other agencies to provide
this protection.
Mission support........................ Mission support includes
training, financial
management, human capital, and
information technology (IT) to
support the agency in
fulfilling its mission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO./GAO-19-605T.
Placing FPS, in the DHS Management Directorate was not an option
GAO assessed in its January 2019 report. However, GAO did assess the
option of making FPS a ``stand-alone'' entity reporting directly to the
deputy secretary of DHS. GAO found that this placement met the first
criteria (mission, goals, and objectives) and the third criteria
(organizational culture) but did not completely meet the other
criteria. For example, FPS had joint responsibility for coordinating
facility protection with other Federal agencies. DHS did not have joint
responsibility for coordinating facility protection with FPS. GAO
recommended DHS fully evaluate placement options for FPS. DHS
concurred, and officials stated they conducted an assessment. GAO has
not yet received DHS's assessment of placement options.
GAO's prior work on implementing an organizational change provides
valuable insights for making any transition regarding FPS. These
insights include key questions to consider such as: ``What are the
goals of the consolidation?'' ``How have stakeholders been involved in
the decision making?'' In addition, GAO has identified key practices
for organizational transformation, practices that include ensuring that
top leadership drives the transformation and establishing a
communication strategy to create shared expectations, among others.
These questions and practices could provide insights to DHS and FPS as
they implement FPS's new placement.
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss
considerations related to the Federal Protective Service's (FPS)
organizational placement. For almost 50 years, FPS has been charged
with protecting Federal facilities and the millions of employees and
individuals who work in or visit them. FPS provides physical-security
and law-enforcement services at about 9,000 facilities, a majority of
which are held \1\ or leased by the General Services Administration
(GSA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GSA-held facilities are Federally-owned facilities under the
custody and control of GSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The organizational placement of an office or agency can affect its
performance and ability to meet its mission. Our prior work has found
that during FPS's previous organizational placements in GSA and two
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it
experienced a number of operational, management, and funding
challenges, which had a bearing on its ability to accomplish its
mission. Most recently, in January 2019, we reported that FPS had made
progress in addressing some of these challenges, but others persisted.
We also identified criteria DHS should consider in evaluating
organizational placement options for FPS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Federal Protective Service: DHS Should Take Additional
Steps to Evaluate Organizational Placement, GAO-19-122 (Washington, DC:
Jan. 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2019, DHS announced its decision to transfer FPS from its
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to its
Management Directorate, and to report to the Under Secretary for
Management. We have also previously reported on practices to consider
in implementing organizational transformations or reorganizations.\3\
In light of DHS's decision, this testimony describes: (1)
Considerations for FPS's placement in DHS's Management Directorate, and
(2) steps to transition FPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, DC:
July 2, 2003) and GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider
When Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and
Management Functions, GAO-12-542 (Washington, DC: May 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is primarily based on our January 2019 report. For
that report, we reviewed our 2002 work related to organizational
transformation, which we conducted prior to the creation of DHS.\4\
From this prior work, we identified 5 key criteria for assessing
potential placement options for FPS and we applied those key criteria
to 8 agencies that we identified as potential organizational placement
options for FPS.\5\ For each criterion, we also identified elements
(i.e., characteristics) that were specific to FPS based on our review
of FPS documents, our prior work on topics related to the criterion, as
well as our discussions with Federal officials, an association
representing Federal law enforcement officers, and a former high-
ranking official in the former National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD)--now reorganized as CISA--with knowledge of FPS. We
identified placement options at agencies inside and outside of DHS that
have similar responsibilities, where FPS was previously placed, or that
reflected FPS's management preference. We also reviewed our prior work
on organizational change and Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government for relevant management responsibilities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-19-122 and GAO, Homeland Security: Critical Design and
Implementation Issues, GAO-02-957T (Washington DC: July 17, 2002).
\5\ GAO-02-957T identified criteria topics that include 4 overall
purpose and structure questions, and 7 organizational and
accountability questions. We selected the most relevant questions to
develop criteria for FPS's organizational placement. The 8 selected
agencies are the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD); United States
Secret Service; General Services Administration (GSA); Department of
Justice (Justice); and the U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals). We assumed
that FPS would be a stand-alone entity in DHS, GSA, or Justice. At the
end of GAO's review, in November 2018, NPPD was renamed the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). In its January
report, GAO referred to this agency as NPPD.
\6\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO-14-704G (Washington, DC: Sept. 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our January 2019 report includes further details on the scope and
methodology of our work.
We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Detailed information on the scope and methodology of the GAO
reports cited throughout this testimony can be found in these published
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
background
While the core mission of protecting Federal facilities has
remained constant as FPS has moved from one agency to another, its
responsibilities have changed. In the 1970's, GSA created FPS as part
of its Public Buildings Service (PBS). While in GSA's PBS, FPS was
responsible for protecting GSA's held or leased facilities, providing
both physical security and law enforcement services. To protect
buildings, FPS officers developed physical security risk assessments,
installed security equipment, and oversaw contract guard services. As a
part of its law enforcement services, among other duties, FPS officers
enforced laws and regulations aimed at protecting Federal facilities
and the persons in such facilities and conducted criminal
investigations.
Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 \8\ was enacted. It created DHS and moved FPS from GSA to
the new department, effective in March 2003. Within DHS, FPS was placed
in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where its
responsibilities grew beyond solely protecting GSA buildings to include
homeland security activities such as implementing homeland security
directives and providing law-enforcement, security, and emergency-
response services during natural disasters and special events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, DHS proposed transferring FPS from ICE to NPPD. In
explaining this transfer in DHS's fiscal year 2010 budget justification
to Congress, DHS stated that having FPS and NPPD's Office of
Infrastructure Protection in the same organization would further
solidify NPPD as DHS's lead for critical infrastructure protection.\9\
FPS was placed in NPPD and continued to lead physical security and law
enforcement services at GSA-held or GSA-leased facilities and continued
its efforts in homeland security activities. In November 2018,
legislation was enacted that reorganized NPPD to an organization that
had a greater statutory focus on managing cyber risks and authorized
the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine the appropriate
placement for FPS within DHS and begin transfer of FPS to that
entity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fiscal year 2010 FPS funding was provided as part of the NPPD
appropriations. See Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2156-57 (2009).
\10\ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018,
Pub. L. No. 115-278, 132 Stat. 4168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout FPS's organizational placements in DHS, we have reported
on persistent challenges it faced in meeting its mission to protect
facilities. In 2011, we reported on FPS's challenges in transferring
mission support functions from ICE to NPPD.\11\ While FPS was in NPPD,
we reported on FPS's challenges related to managing and overseeing
contract guards and collaborating with GSA and the United States
Marshals Service (Marshals) on facility security.\12\ We made
recommendations to help address these challenges and FPS has made
progress on some of these recommendations. For example, in September
2018, FPS and GSA established a formal agreement on roles and
responsibilities related to facility protection, as we recommended.
However, in our January 2019 report, we identified challenges related
to other aspects of overseeing contract guards and collaboration with
other agencies on physical security that had persisted. As of June
2019, FPS continues to work on establishing a contract guard-management
system. However, FPS is unable to assess its guards' capabilities
across its portfolio because the system is not fully implemented nor
does it interact with its training system. As of 2019, Federal physical
security continues to be part of our Federal real-property management's
high-risk area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO, Federal Protective Service: Progress Made but Improved
Schedule and Cost Estimate Needed to Complete Transition, GAO-11-554
(Washington, DC: July 15, 2011).
\12\ GAO, Federal Protective Service: Actions Needed to Assess Risk
and Better Manage Contract Guards at Federal Facilities, GAO-12-739
(Washington, DC: Aug. 10, 2012); Federal Protective Service: Challenges
with Oversight of Contract Guard Program Still Exist, and Additional
Management Controls Are Needed, GAO-13-694 (Washington, DC: Sept. 17,
2013); Homeland Security: FPS and GSA Should Strengthen Collaboration
to Enhance Facility Security, GAO-16-135 (Washington, DC: Dec. 16,
2015); DHS Management: Enhanced Oversight Could Better Ensure Programs
Receiving Fees and Other Collections Use Funds Efficiently, GAO-16-443
(Washington, DC: July 21, 2016) and Federal Courthouses: Actions Needed
to Enhance Capital Security Program and Improve Collaboration, GAO-17-
215 (Washington, DC: Feb. 16, 2017). FPS is fully funded by fees
collected from Federal agencies that use FPS for facility protection.
\13\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve
Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas, GAO-19-157SP (Washington, DC: Mar.
6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Criteria for Evaluating Placement Options
In 2002, we reported on organizational and accountability criteria
for establishing DHS. From this prior work, we identified key criteria
that are relevant to assessing potential placement options for FPS, as
shown in table 1.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO-02-957T. As described above, we selected criteria that
were most relevant to FPS's organizational placement. See GAO-19-122
for more information.
TABLE 1.--KEY CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL
PROTECTIVE SERVICE (FPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Criteria Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission, goals, and objectives.... An agency's ability to function well
is dependent upon having a clear
mission, goals, and objectives. In
that respect, similarities in
agency mission, goals, and
objectives between FPS and any
other organization could affect the
extent to which FPS's missions and
goals are carried out effectively.
Agency strategic plans describe the
mission, goals, and objectives
covering the major functions and
operations of an agency.
Responsibilities.................. In order for an agency to perform
its duties, it needs to have clear
responsibilities and the capacity
to do them. As a result,
similarities in responsibilities
between FPS and any other
organization could affect the
extent to which FPS's
responsibilities are prioritized.
Agency responsibilities generally
stem from the objectives outlined
in strategic plans and can take the
form of Memorandums of Agreement or
agency directives.
Organizational culture............ Having a cohesive culture is
critical to organizational success.
Organizational culture includes the
underlying beliefs, values,
attitudes, and expectations that
influence the behaviors of agency
employees. Similarities in
organizational cultures between FPS
an any other organization could
facilitate FPS's ability to meld
and operate in another agency.
Information sharing and An agency's ability to share
coordination. information is critical to its
successful operation. This
criterion includes sharing
information related to National
homeland security and necessary for
the protection of Federal
facilities. Coordination refers to
working with other agencies to
provide this protection.
Similarities between FPS and any
other organization in information
sharing and coordination could help
ensure that FPS obtains the
information it needs to perform its
mission and activities.
Mission support................... An agency requires effective mission
support in order to carry out its
duties. Mission support includes
training, financial management,
human capital, and information
technology (IT) to support the
agency in fulfilling its mission.
The mission support made available
to FPS by any organizational
placement may affect FPS's
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO./GAO-19-605T.
considerations for fps's placement in dhs's management directorate
For our January 2019 report, we applied these key criteria for
evaluating organizational placement to 8 agencies that could be
potential placement options for FPS. We found that none of the selected
agencies met all the organizational placement criteria; thus, any of
the organizational placement options could result in both benefits and
trade-offs. In instances where placing FPS within DHS met our criteria
(that is, instances where DHS was similar to FPS), FPS could experience
benefits. In those instances where the criteria were not met, we
reported it would be incumbent upon any agency to consider and address
any potential tradeoffs in order to ensure the decision was successful.
We reviewed FPS as a ``stand-alone'' entity reporting directly to
the Deputy Secretary of DHS and found this placement option met several
key criteria. Table 2 below summarizes our analysis.
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) AND
THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE (FPS) IN KEY CRITERIA FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
PLACEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPS as a Stand-alone
Key Criteria Agency in DHS Met/Did not Meet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission, goals, and objectives DHS is similar to FPS Met.
in that their mission
statements and goals
include an explicit
focus on the
protection of
infrastructure or
specific facilities.
Responsibilities.............. Facility protection Met.
responsibilities:
Similar to FPS, DHS
has facility
protection
responsibilities.
Physical security and Met.
law enforcement
activities: DHS is
similar to FPS
because it performs
both physical
security and law
enforcement
activities.
Contract guard Did not meet.
responsibilities: FPS
employs and oversees
a large number of
contract guards. DHS
only uses a limited
number of contract
guards.
Organizational culture........ DHS has a similar Met.
culture to FPS in
that it is a law
enforcement agency.
Information sharing and Information sharing: Met.
coordination. DHS, like FPS, has
access to and can
share information
related to National
homeland security.
Coordination of Did not meet.
activities: FPS and
GSA have joint
responsibility for
protecting
facilities, and FPS,
GSA, and the U.S.
Marshals have joint
responsibility for
protecting
courthouses. DHS does
not have joint
responsibility for
coordinating facility
protection with FPS.
Mission support............... Financial management: Did not meet.
FPS collects monies
from other Federal
agencies to support
its operations. DHS
does not collect fees
from other Federal
agencies to support
its operation.
Human capital: DHS has Met.
the authority to fill
competitive service
jobs that could
support FPS needs.
Information Met.
technology--financial
management systems:
FPS owns many of its
operational and
business-related IT
systems and
applications but does
not own some systems,
such as a financial
management system.
DHS has financial
management systems
that can support FPS.
Law enforcement Met.
training: FPS has
access to DHS's
Federal Law
Enforcement Training
Centers for law
enforcement training.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO./GAO-19-605T.
Notes: For the purposes of our comparison of DHS to FPS, we assumed that
FPS was independent of DHS.
For the first four criteria--(1) Mission, goals, and objectives;
(2) responsibilities; (3) organizational culture; and (4) information
sharing and coordination--we determined that DHS met the criteria if
the agency or its subcomponents had any similarities to FPS. For the
last criterion--mission support--we determined that DHS met the
criterion if the agency or its subcomponents had similarities to FPS or
could provide FPS-needed mission support.
Mission, Goals, and Objectives.--In January 2019, we reported that
FPS's mission focused on the protection of Federal facilities and the
people working in and visiting those facilities. DHS was similar to FPS
in that its mission statement and goals as stated in its strategic plan
include an explicit focus on the protection of infrastructure or
specific facilities. Our prior work found that placing an agency into
an organization that has a similar mission might help ensure that the
agency's mission receives adequate funding, attention, visibility, and
support.\15\ Our January 2019 work reported that one of DHS's goals--as
noted in its strategic plan covering fiscal years 2014 to 2018--was to
reduce risk to the Nation's critical infrastructure. DHS and FPS share
objectives that focus on mitigating risks and responding to incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-02-957T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibilities.--In January 2019, we reported that FPS has
facility-protection and physical-security responsibilities and law-
enforcement, and contract-guard oversight responsibilities. DHS was
similar to FPS as it had responsibilities for physical security and
performed law enforcement functions. As a part of its physical security
activities, FPS conducted facility security assessments,\16\ identified
countermeasures (e.g., equipment and contract guards) best suited to
secure a facility, and oversaw contract guards. As a part of its law
enforcement activities, FPS proactively patrolled facilities, responded
to incidents, and conducted criminal investigations. FPS also provided
additional operational law enforcement support, at the direction of the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to address emerging threats and
homeland security incidents. One of FPS's most critical activities was
overseeing about 13,500 contract guards who were posted at Federal
facilities and were responsible for controlling access to facilities,
responding to emergency situations involving facility safety and
security, and performing other duties. FPS was responsible for
ensuring, among other things, that these guards are performing their
assigned duties and have the necessary training and certifications.
DHS, however, only used a limited number of contract guards and
therefore had less responsibility. At the time of our review, DHS
officials told us they procured about 130 guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ These assessments consist of identifying and assessing threats
and vulnerabilities of a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational Culture.--In January 2019, we reported that while
there are many areas relevant to organizational culture, law
enforcement was a key aspect of FPS's organizational culture, according
to officials we interviewed from an association of security companies
and a former, high-ranking official in NPPD. DHS had a similar culture
in that it was a law enforcement agency.
Information Sharing and Coordination.--In January 2019, we reported
that Component Intelligence Programs (CIP) were organizations in DHS
that collected, gathered, processed, analyzed, produced, or
disseminated information related to National homeland security. In
2016, DHS designated a division within FPS as a CIP, a move that
allowed FPS more access to information on threats other DHS agencies
have identified and actions they plan to take. While DHS, like FPS, had
access to and could share information related to National homeland
security, DHS did not have joint responsibility for coordinating
facility protection with FPS. Rather, FPS shared this responsibility
with GSA, and these two agencies and Marshals had joint responsibility
for protecting courthouses. FPS has faced challenges with coordinating
with these agencies in the past. For example, in September 2011, we
reported that FPS, Marshals, and other agencies involved in protecting
courthouses (i.e., GSA and the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts) faced challenges related to coordination, such as in the
implementation of roles and responsibilities and the use or
participation in existing collaboration mechanisms.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ We recommended that these entities address these issues by
updating a memorandum of agreement that, among other things, clarifies
roles and responsibilities. GAO, Federal Courthouses: Improved
Collaboration Needed to Meet Demands of a Complex Security Environment,
GAO-11-857 (Washington, DC: Sept. 28, 2011). An updated memorandum was
drafted but had yet to be signed by all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Support.--In January 2019, we reported that mission support
was comprised of financial management, human capital, information
technology systems for financial management, and law enforcement
training. FPS owned and used many of the key operational and business-
related information technology (IT) systems and applications it needs
to carry out its mission. However, FPS received some mission support
services from other agencies in DHS, such as human capital and some
aspects of information technology. We found that if FPS changed its
organizational placement it would need mission support in these areas.
For example, FPS did not have delegated examining authority to allow it
to fill competitive civil service jobs and relied on NPPD to provide
this service.\18\ DHS had the authority to fill competitive service
jobs that could support FPS needs. Further, FPS used a financial
management IT system owned by ICE. DHS could provide FPS access to
financial management systems that can support FPS. Finally, FPS offered
its own training courses and would still need access to DHS's Federal
Law Enforcement Training Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Delegated examining authority is an authority that allows
Federal Executive branch agencies to fill competitive civil service
jobs through a delegation from the Office of Personnel Management.
Agencies with this authority fill the civil service jobs by performing
activities such as recruiting and hiring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our January 2019 report, we did not assess FPS as a placement
within DHS's Management Directorate.\19\ Further, we recommended DHS:
(1) Identify the specific goals of a change in FPS's placement--that
is, what DHS expects to achieve by moving FPS to another agency, and
(2) fully evaluate placement options for FPS based on what DHS expects
to achieve by changing FPS's placement, an assessment of FPS's current
placement, and other best practices such as an analysis of alternatives
assessing the benefits and tradeoffs. DHS agreed with our
recommendations. In May 2019, FPS officials told us that the Acting
Secretary's decision to place FPS within the Management Directorate was
based upon an assessment of placement options within DHS using criteria
and analyzing the tradeoffs. GAO has not yet received DHS's assessment
of placement options. We will assess the actions DHS has taken in
response to our recommendations when we receive DHS's assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DHS's Management Directorate ensures that the Department's
over 240,000 employees have well-defined responsibilities and that
managers and their employees have efficient means of communicating with
one another, with other Governmental and non-Governmental bodies, and
with the public they serve. The Management Directorate is responsible
for budget, appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and
finance; procurement; human resources and personnel; information
technology systems; biometric identification services; facilities,
property, equipment, and other material resources; and identification
and tracking of performance measurements relating to the
responsibilities of the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
steps to transition fps
Our prior work offers valuable insights for agencies to consider
when evaluating or implementing a reorganization or transformation, and
can provide insights for making any transition regarding FPS. These
include considering: (1) Key questions for consolidations and (2)
leading practices when implementing an organizational change.
Two sets of considerations for organizational transformations
provide insights for making any FPS organizational placement. First, in
May 2012, we reported on key questions for agency officials to consider
when evaluating and implementing an organizational change that involves
consolidation.\20\ Table 3 provides a summary of these key questions.
Answering these questions would help provide FPS with assurance that
important aspects of effective organizational change are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO-12-542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--KEY QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING AND IMPLEMENTING
CONSOLIDATION
Key Questions
What are the goals of the consolidation? What opportunities
will be addressed through the consolidation and what problems
will be solved? What problems, if any, will be created?
What will be the likely costs and benefits of the
consolidation? Are sufficiently reliable data available to
support a business-case analysis or cost-benefit analysis?
How can the up-front costs associated with the consolidation
be funded?
Who are the consolidation's stakeholders, and how will they
be affected? How have the stakeholders been involved in the
decision, and how have their views been considered? On balance,
do stakeholders understand the rationale for consolidation?
To what extent do plans show that change management
practices will be used to implement the consolidation?
Source: GAO./GAO-19-605T
Second, we reported in July 2003 on key practices and
implementation steps for mergers and organizational
transformations.\21\ The practices we noted are intended to help
agencies transform their cultures so that they can be more results-
oriented, customer-focused, and collaborative in nature (see table 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO-03-669.
TABLE 4.--KEY PRACTICES AND IMPLEMENTATION STEPS FOR MERGERS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Practices Implementation Step
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensure top leadership drives the -Define and articulate a
transformation. succinct and compelling reason
for change.
-Balance continued delivery of
services with merger and
transformation activities.
Establish a coherent mission and -Adopt leading practices for
integrated strategic goals to guide results-oriented strategic
the transformation. planning and reporting.
Focus on a key set of principles and -Embed core values in every
priorities at the outset of the aspect of the organization to
transformation. reinforce the new culture.
Set implementation goals and a time -Make public implementation
line to build momentum and show goals and time line.
progress from Day 1. -Seek and monitor employee
attitudes and take appropriate
follow-up actions.
-Identify cultural features of
merging organizations to
increase understanding of
former work environments.
-Attract and retain key talent.
-Establish an organization-wide
knowledge and skills inventory
to exchange knowledge among
merging organizations.
Dedicate an implementation team to -Establish networks to support
manage the transformation process. implementation team.
-Select high-performing team
members.
Use the performance management system -Adopt leading practices to
to define responsibility and assure implement effective
accountability for change. performance management systems
with adequate safeguards.
Establish a communication strategy to -Communicate early and often to
create shared expectations and report build trust.
related progress. -Ensure consistency of message.
-Encourage two-way
communication.
-Provide information to meet
specific needs of employees.
Involve employees to obtain their ideas -Use employee teams.
and gain their ownership for the -Involve employees in planning
transformation. and sharing performance
information.
-Incorporate employee feedback
into new policies and
procedures.
-Delegate authority to
appropriate organizational
levels.
Build a world-class organization....... -Adopt leading practices to
build a world-class
organization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO./GAO-16-605T
In summary, the questions and practices for organizational change
that we previously identified could provide insights to DHS and FPS for
any transition.
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Ms. Torres Small. I thank the witnesses for their
testimony, and I will remind each Member that he or she will
have 5 minutes to question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for questions.
A transition plan was required 30 days after notification
of the Secretary's decision regarding FPS's placement, and June
8 marks that 30 days, but the Department has not provided a
plan to Congress.
Mr. Patterson, do you know if the plan has been completed,
and when we can expect to see it?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. The plan has been completed, and
I know it has been signed by the acting deputy secretary. I am
not exactly sure when it will be rendered to you, but we can
find out.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Director Patterson.
As we discussed, FPS is undergoing its third transition.
Director Patterson, if you could, quickly, speak to the pros
and cons of placing FPS within Management Directorate at DHS
and how you anticipate this transition to be more successful
than previous ones.
Mr. Patterson. Yes. Well, I wasn't part of the previous
transitions; but I can speak to what I think are clearly the
benefits of moving to management.
Clearly, as I had stated in my opening remarks, from an
operational perspective, there won't be any impact on our
mission operationally. We will continue to move forward
operationally.
Where we will, I think, gain synergy is in the areas of our
lines of business. One of the areas where the GAO has commented
on before and in others, in the IG, they have commented that we
have not had a strong bench as it relates to our human
resources program, our financial management program, and I
think management will give us the opportunity to strengthen
those lines of business. So, I look at this as a plus.
Ms. Torres Small. I appreciate you recognizing those
opportunities for development, because one of the other
considerations was having FPS work as a stand-alone agency.
Can you elaborate on what it would take for FPS to become a
stand-alone agency and how long you think it would take?
Mr. Patterson. Well, I think if that had been the Acting
Secretary's decision to make us a stand-alone at this point,
then I think we could have. We could have done that with no
problem. I think, again, we would have to work with management
and others to look at how we would augment some of the
authority that I would lack relative to certain approvals that
would be required as we do our jobs.
For instance, in order to--for hiring and for certain
financial management processes, the Secretary or the Department
has certain authority that would have to be rendered to me in
order to make certain decisions. If they were not willing to do
that immediately, then we would have to find ways of
accomplishing that but; once again, from an operational
perspective, there would be no problem.
Ms. Torres Small. Mr. Patterson, is there--are there
opportunities that you see for the Management Directorate to
provide more of an opportunity to mature and to develop some of
those capabilities?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am, I do. I think that is kind-of
the seed of where all the larger decisions within the
Department are made. It gives us an opportunity--it gives a
small agency like the Federal Protective Service an opportunity
to view how the decisions within the Department are made, and
gives us an opportunity to understand how to better leverage
our folks and what we need in order to make better decisions as
it relates to human resources and financial management.
Ms. Torres Small. Director Rectanus, do you have anything
to add there?
Mr. Patterson. No. Thank you.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Ms. Rectanus. Yes, I would agree with director's assessment
that when we applied our 5 criteria, again, we did not do it to
the Management Directorate; but when we look at the roles of
the Management Directorate, certainly they offer opportunities
for support in the mission area in terms of Human Capital
procurements, financial management.
However, those are also some of the areas that GAO has
identified that DHS, in general, is struggling with in terms of
their major management challenges.
So, again, we haven't seen the assessment or their
transition plan. I would hope in working through this, they
would recognize those challenges that DHS has, and make sure
that any challenges DHS faces does not adversely affect FPS.
I think I would also add, important for us are those other
criteria. Now, we found, as I said in our report, no
organization might meet all 5 criteria; but obviously, mission
is a key one, organizational culture, roles, responsibilities.
So, we would look forward to seeing DHS's plan, given that
the Management Directorate is a little different than FPS in
terms of what its mission and roles and responsibilities are.
We would really look forward to seeing how DHS wants to find
synergy in those areas as well.
Ms. Torres Small. Mr. Patterson, in the last brief moments,
can you just speak to the fact that 90 percent--you mention
that 90 percent of the officers do not receive Federal law
enforcement benefits. Has that impacted your recruitment and
retention?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, it does, very much so.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Mr. Patterson. We have a----
Ms. Torres Small. I apologize. That is all I had time for.
So, I will cut myself off now.
Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.
Now I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Ranking Member
Crenshaw, for any questions.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I will keep the
line of questioning along the same lines of we just want to
make sure that this is going to be the right fit, and it was
the right decision made under the right auspices, and I will
try not to repeat some of the good questions that the
Chairwoman had.
Director Patterson, for all of us to understand the
tradeoffs involved, can you share with us whether there would
be any advantage to keeping FPS under CISA, given its
infrastructure security component?
Mr. Patterson. At this time I don't think there would be,
given that the primary focus now of CISA is on the
cybersecurity side, and so we--I think we have lost a little
bit of synergy in that regard if we were to stay with CISA.
But, again, you know, it clearly could be an option.
Mr. Crenshaw. I want to piggyback off of the previous
question about becoming a stand-alone agency. What exactly
prevents you from becoming a stand-alone department within the
agency--entity within the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Patterson. So I don't know that anything really
prevents us. I think it is--it is a decision that will be made
by the Acting Secretary, whether that would be--if we would be
a separate component within the Department or not. So, I don't
know that there is anything that precludes it.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. So then would the move to the Management
Directorate be considered a long-term solution then? Is it a
stepping stone to becoming a singular entity?
Mr. Patterson. I think it could be either. I think it could
be a stepping stone, or it could be a long-term solution. I
think that is one of the things----
Mr. Crenshaw. Is there some intent there? Have those
discussions happened at all?
Mr. Patterson. We have had very few discussions at this
point, sir. What we are trying to do is, now the decision has
been made, we will now go into the more serious discussions
about what that might look like.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Ms. Rectanus, in the GAO report, it states,
``DHS has not taken key steps to fully assess potential
placement options.'' Can you briefly discuss what you all mean
by that, and what additional steps DHS should have taken to
assess the placement?
Ms. Rectanus. At the time of our review, DHS had just
started to put together a working group in response to the
legislative requirement to think about a good place for FPS. At
that time, they had put together a charter, but we thought it
was a good first step, but certain things they had not done at
that time, which we felt would be needed, first of all, to
sort-of assess what would be the reason to move it in the first
place, and whether, in fact, NPPD was working or not.
We have actually seen a lot of progress from FPS in the
time it has been in NPPD. We also felt that they should better
clarify what would be the goals of moving, what would be the
cost and benefit, who would pay for those, and sort-of what
would be the reason to move, do some analysis of alternatives.
Those are the sorts of things that we actually recommended that
DHS do before it decides where to put FPS.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. As far as the movement to the Management
Directorate, given the GAO's report, you didn't analyze
specifically going to the Management Directorate; but you have
mentioned throughout this testimony, you all don't seem to have
a huge problem with it. Would that be accurate to say?
Ms. Rectanus. I think, again, we haven't seen their
analysis. We would hope that in making that decision, they
would have applied the criteria that we identified, as well as
identified, you know, if there was a reason to move, what would
be the goal of moving it to the Directorate. Again, for our 5
criteria, how would they try to make the best decision so that
those key criteria, if they are not automatically met, what
would they be doing to make sure that FPS could carry out its
mission and roles and responsibilities, particularly in light
of the some of the challenges that they have been dealing with
for the last decade or so.
Mr. Crenshaw. Director Patterson, I understand FPS has used
that time as part of disaster response. How will the transition
affect FPS's capability in assisting in disaster response?
Mr. Patterson. I don't think it will have an impact.
Once again, sir, operationally, we will continue to
function as we have; and I think that what the transition to
management will, quite frankly, give us some better insight and
understanding of what may be more necessary in areas than
others.
Mr. Crenshaw. There was an earlier GAO report that talked
about the lack of firearms training, you know, active-shooter
training, the screening, things like that for the contracting
side of FPS, not the actual Federal officers, but the
contractors, which make up a huge amount of them. Has there
been steps taken to improve that training and make sure that
they are on par with your officers?
Mr. Patterson. Absolutely, sir. We have a very aggressive
training program in place today, and a very aggressive
oversight program that we have today, where we are following
the training of all of our PSOs. We have created two
initiatives: One is called the post tracking system, and the
other is a training system to where we can, day-to-day, collect
all of the training data and requirements for all of our PSOs,
so we have an up-to-date understanding of where they are, and
know the training that they have is up to date.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
Ms. Torres Small. The Chair will now recognize other
Members for questions they may wish to ask the witnesses.
In accordance with our committee rules, I will recognize
Members who are present at the start of the hearing based on
seniority on the committee, alternating between Majority and
Minority. Those Members coming in later will be recognized in
the order of their arrival.
The Chair recognizes, for 5 minutes, the gentlewoman from
Nevada, Ms. Tyson--I am sorry--Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Before I ask my question, I wanted to know if you wanted to
add something to the Chairman's question about the incentive
for recruiting. You kind-of got cut off there.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. Relative to--I think the
question was, our folks don't receive law enforcement
retirement benefits, and it does have an impact because what we
do, we have a very robust and aggressive training program, and
we train our folks to a very high standard. Unfortunately, once
we bring them on and they recognize that they do not qualify,
don't have the same retirement system as many of their
contemporaries in other law enforcement agencies, they seek
employment elsewhere. So, it is one of the things that we
really look to work with the Department and Congress to help to
bridge that gap, if you will.
Ms. Titus. So, it is not just hiring. It is retention----
Mr. Patterson. Yes, yes.
Ms. Titus [continuing]. Your expense that trains them and
then somebody else gets the advantage of it.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am, we do a very good job. We don't
have a lot of problem in hiring. Folks want to come to us. The
challenge is, is that, once they come and we train them, trying
to keep them, trying to keep the quality folks because if they
see opportunities in other places where they can get a
retirement benefit, law enforcement retirement benefit, then
many of our folks, or some of our folks will decide that that
is what they want to do.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I wanted to ask you about Federal buildings in large urban
areas, like Las Vegas. Many times, they will house more than
one agency. One floor, say, is U.S. Attorney's office. Another
floor will be Social Security. Someplace else will be Health
and Human Services. You will have jurisdiction over providing
security for some of those. Maybe the U.S. Marshals have
jurisdiction in other areas. Could you talk a little bit about
how your agencies coordinate in a situation like that, and if
this change--this move will make any difference there?
Mr. Patterson. Well, to answer your--to answer the last
part of your question, no, it won't have any impact on it and,
yes, we work very aggressively. In fact, we have--I have an
officer or a--one of our agents that is a liaison at the U.S.
Marshals Service that works these issues every day and, in
fact, as we speak, myself and my deputy were supposed to be
sitting before the Judicial Security Committee to talk about
courthouse security today. We do that every 6 months and just
to work through those issues of that we may have.
As it relates to those offices where there are multi-tenant
facilities, the Marshals and the Federal Protective Service
will collaborate on who will do what now. As you well know, the
Marshals are responsible for the protection of the courthouse,
inside the courthouse, the judges, and that.
So, quite often, what they will have, they may have the
responsibility for the inside. We will have the responsibility
for outside. If it is a multi-tenant facility, quite often what
they will have is their court security officers posted outside
of the courthouse; and we may also have Protective Security
Officers in other floors and other areas within that facility.
So, that would be a shared responsibility.
Ms. Titus. OK. Well, so you think that is working well?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Ms. Titus. That is good to hear.
I know that the Department of Homeland Security is
responsible for the protection of all the property that is
owned or occupied by the Federal Government; but right now, you
have a footprint, or a presence, in about 9,000 of the 400,000-
plus facilities owned by the Government. Do you see that
expanding under the new organization? Do you want it to expand?
Are there challenges?
Mr. Patterson. Well, we have a presence on an interagency
security committee, which is a group of security folks that
come from all of the agencies across the Government, and we
talk about some of the shortfalls in security, and we are in a
position to provide them with our thoughts on how things could
be improved. So it is a--it is a--it is an opportunity that we
get to share some of our experience with those folks.
So, I think--and our position as the longer that we stay
with the Department, in the Department, I think we will have an
opportunity to better impact different agencies that aren't
part of that GSA footprint.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. Thank you for keeping us all
safe.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. We appreciate it.
I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
The Chair recognizes, for 5 minutes, the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chairwoman. I do not know if my mic
is on or not. My light is not working, but I think I can be
heard.
Sir, Madam, thank you for being here this afternoon to
speak to us.
Director, you had stated in your testimony that new
technologies enhance your ability to protect. They also enhance
the abilities, those that would do us harm. You are referring
to emerging--emerging threats regarding cyber threats. Clarify
what you mean by that, please.
Mr. Patterson. Well, what I was talking about in that
specific comment was more so on the unmanned aerial vehicles
that have--that we are seeing a proliferation of, and looking
how we might counter that threat. But we are also looking at
the cyber threat relative to our system----
Mr. Higgins. Regarding UAVs, before you move on, is your
agency, department to department, communicating with the next
generation, training, for instance, with the Secret Service
regarding UAVs?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. There is within the Department
there is a huge collaboration between all of the components top
look at the threats from UAVs and how they may counter those
threats from the Secret Service.
Mr. Higgins. So, you feel confident that FPS is on top of
emerging threats as we move deeper into the digital age and we
face our previously unseen threats like UAVs?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. I think we are moving in that
direction, yes.
Mr. Higgins. Keeping that in mind, how involved were you? I
mean, the critical functions of the Federal Protective Service
are incredibly important; and thank you all for the service you
provide, and the men and women that stand behind the badge. It
is crucial work.
To what extent were you, as a director, involved in the
decision to place FPS under the Management Directorate?
Mr. Patterson. I wasn't involved in the decision, but my
staff was part of a working group that was involved in making
recommendations to the Secretary. The two recommendations that
were made to the Secretary or the Acting Secretary were stand-
alone, and a direct report to the under secretary of
management.
Mr. Higgins. As a director, are you comfortable with the
move?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Higgins. It has been stated that there would be a
potential to improve on areas that have been found, that GAO
has found to be lacking. Human Capital Management and Financial
Systems Management, it has been stated by FPS that the move
under the Management Directorate would help you address that.
Do you concur with that, that general assessment?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir, I do. I think it gives us an
opportunity. As I had a commander say, You grow where you plant
it; and I think what it would allow us to do is to kind-of
control some of our own destiny as it relates to getting
control of the operations, or especially our lines of business
operation within the Federal Protective Service.
Mr. Higgins. Our goal is to assist regarding what is
actually needed. We don't--we don't want to invest in people's
treasure and areas that are already functioning and we as a
committee, as Congress, we don't want to interfere with the
boots on the ground and the job that needs to get done. So, but
we do have to question the wisdom of the decisions that get
made like this; and it can be very complex. So, thank you for
your candor.
I have a cop question for you, Brother.
FPS employs between 13- and 14,000 private contracted
security officers called PSOs. Is this correct?
Mr. Patterson. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Now, I am reading between the lines here. You
had mentioned training earlier. You used the words ``robust and
aggressive,'' if I quoted you properly there. You have--your
law enforcement officers retrieve--receive training at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, correct?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir, they do.
Mr. Higgins. The FLETC certification level block of
instruction is--I am presuming there is a certificate that
comes with this training. Is this different? Is there an
instructor level block of instruction for your private
contractors, because it stated that FLETC trains instructors
who are then able to provide training to their employees which
is most of your force. So, please explain the difference, and
hopefully, Madam Chairwoman will allow you to answer the
question between the instructions that your officers receive
and the instruction--the instructor level block of instruction
that these private contractors receive.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. Well, our law enforcement folks or
our Federal folks are law enforcement officers, OK, trained law
enforcement officers. Our PSOs are not. OK. They are our--each
one is licensed by the State and we have--and we certify that
they are--that they have undergone certain training.
Mr. Higgins. But they are getting training from someone
that has been trained to train them?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. They are not training--they are not getting
their training at FLETC, correct?
Mr. Patterson. I am sorry--no, they are not getting their
training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, no,
sir. What we have is a program called Train-the-Trainer, to
where there are certain aspects of our training.
Ms. Torres Small. I apologize. The gentleman's time has
expired. We are going to do a quick round. So, I--can I--I will
take back myself.
Mr. Higgins. I will defer to the next round.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is an important question we
need to dig into.
Ms. Torres Small. So I will recognize myself now for
questions and ask you to finish your answer, if you don't mind.
Mr. Patterson. I am sorry, ma'am.
Ms. Torres Small. Would you mind finishing your answer?
Mr. Patterson. Oh, yes, yes. So, at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training, we train all our Federal law enforcement
folks, and our PSOs are not trained at the Federal Law
Enforcement Center. However, we do train some what we call some
contractors in a term we call Train-the-Trainer. So, what they
do is we train them in certain aspects of their job in
detecting, you know, certain items for bomb-making materials
and things of that nature so that they have a better
proficiency of understanding what we want and what they need to
do.
The other training that they receive is in life-saving
training, and other specific training that is required by the
State in order to perform their function as a----
Mr. Higgins. Does that include----
Ms. Torres Small. I am sorry. I am sorry.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Active-shooter training?
Ms. Torres Small. I apologize. Actually I just wanted him
to finish that question and then I have got a few more to
answer--to ask. I apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Just could you briefly describe FPS's new fee model and why
it is needed?
Mr. Patterson. Yes. Well, clearly it is needed because one
of the challenges that we have had, when we came from the
General Services Administration over to the Department, the way
that we collect our--you know, we are fully fee-funded. So,
there is no appropriation that is allocated to us. So, we
collect our monies through square footage that we protect.
Unfortunately for us, the GSA is under mandate to reduce
the number of leased space and owned space. So every year, we
face a dilemma that they are reducing the square footage. So,
we are collecting fewer and fewer funds against that square
footage. So, it makes it very difficult for us to move forward
and grow and progress like we would need to.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Do you anticipate this new fee structure to eliminate the
potential for budget shortfalls?
Mr. Patterson. Well, I don't know that it will eliminate
it, but it will help to mitigate it and what that will do is
that now, instead of--it is a risk-based model that looks at
the three basic things: Calls for service, the number of calls
we have to a particular facility; the number of posts; and
also, the incidents that we respond to. So, there is an
algorithm that is brought forward that we take forward to each
one of our customers, if you will, and we explain to them this
is how they will be charged and this is--and every 3 years, we
go through that process and update that as required.
Ms. Torres Small. Do you think the incident-based model has
any potential for deterring contractors from notifying FPS
about the threats?
Mr. Patterson. No, because on--I think that--I am sorry. Do
you think the contract----
Ms. Torres Small. I am sorry. Not the contractors, the
entities you are serving.
Mr. Patterson. No, I think that--no, because most of the
reporting comes through our PSOs. So, I don't think that there
is going to be any reduction. We have had very good
conversations with all of our customers as it relates--some
have increases in their--have increases in their fees; others
have a reduction in their fees based on that algorithm and
those who have had increases understand why that the increase
exists, and they just want transparency. So, we are going to
provide that to them; and if there is a conflict, hopefully we
can work through it.
Ms. Torres Small. Great.
Just last question on that, how do you--do you have an
amount that you currently expected to impact your ability to
achieve financial solvency?
Mr. Patterson. I am not sure that I understand your
question, ma'am.
Ms. Torres Small. How much do you expect to make more based
on this new approach compared to the dwindling services that
you are seeing based on square footage?
Mr. Patterson. I don't know the exact amount that we are--
of the increase but what we are looking for is a stabilizing, a
stable, and then working with the Department to look at how we
might increase those--that figure, but right now, it is just
stabilizing the baseline is what we are really trying to do
because with the old model with square footage, we could not
stabilize the baseline. So as such, we were always having to
jiggle or re-prioritize the way that we did business.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I will yield the rest of my time.
Mr. Crenshaw, do you have any questions?
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I can follow up
on a couple of things.
I do want to dive back into the movement to the Management
Directorate; and I want to get a better sense for what changes
you need to make within FPS, what management changes, what
organizational structural changes you need to make. If there is
one thing you guys have gotten good at, it is moving
organizations. So maybe you are used to this by now.
That was meant to be a joke. So, you can laugh.
So what do you anticipate, and how do you overcome those
things?
Mr. Patterson. I am sorry. I am not sure that I understand
your question, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. When you are moving from one organization to
another, I imagine you are anticipating some management
obstacles, right? You have to move folks around, change some
pay. I don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Patterson. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. That--really that is what I am asking. Are
there issues you are going to have to deal with, and how are
you going to deal with them?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. I do not think that--quite
frankly, there is not going to be a huge impact to it as we
move from CISA to Management. Once again, it is going to be,
quite frankly, to the field, there is no change----
Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
Mr. Patterson [continuing]. It relates to our field force.
There is absolutely no change. Where the change is how we
conduct business at our headquarters, you know, how we go about
developing our budget, how we go about hiring our forces and so
forth. That really is, it is kind of the backroom work that
will move from one element to another element, and what we will
have to do is get familiar with how Management wants us to,
more or less, integrate some of our processes in with them
instead of over at CISA.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
Mr. Patterson. But with Management, it gives us an
opportunity at a much higher level now to compete, if you will,
than being, you know, up under CISA.
Mr. Crenshaw. Going back to the training aspects and, you
know, I think my colleague wanted to follow up on something
about active-shooter training. What does that look like,
especially for the contracted officers? I imagine that the
Federal officers probably get a lot of that training at FLETC.
I have a question about active-shooter training, but not just
that, but also countersurveillance training and being able to
identify surveillance, identify counterintelligence issues, you
know, things you are well-versed in.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. We have a really a robust program
for our Federal law enforcement folks on countersurveillance
training, as well as active-shooter training; and, however, it
is a different story for our Protective Security Officers.
Because, No. 1, they are licensed by the State; and, No. 2,
because they are not law enforcement, what we do is we train
them to understanding what a--what it is for an active-shooter
situation, but we cannot train them to respond to an active-
shooter situation, because they are not law enforcement, and
most States, all the States will not allow them to respond to
those incidents. So, they are not provided that level of
training that our Federal law enforcement folks would have.
Now, they can respond to a situation if it confronts them,
but they cannot go and actively pursue an active shooter in a
facility that they protect.
Mr. Crenshaw. They are legally prevented from----
Mr. Patterson. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Are they armed?
Mr. Patterson. By the State. Because they are licensed by
the State, the States don't allow them to go do that because
they are not law enforcement.
Mr. Crenshaw. On the countersurveillance side, I mean, can
we at least train them? This doesn't take long, as you know. It
doesn't take long to train somebody in what to look for for
countersurveillance.
Mr. Patterson. Right. Yes, well, they are trained in the
counter--they are trained in looking for the anomalies outside
of their facilities, yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
Mr. Patterson. We don't necessarily call them counters, but
they are trained to look for those things that are out of the
normal.
Mr. Crenshaw. There is a reporting process for them to----
Mr. Patterson. Yes, they immediately call 1 of our 4
MegaCenters that they have a--there is a possible problem and
we document that daily, you know, whether it be from a backpack
or a vehicle that has been sitting too long in a no-parking
area, whatever.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. I have no further questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
Nevada, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. So, when you say they are not law enforcement,
do you mean that they are not post-trained? Is that the right
term that they use as the State level?
Mr. Patterson. I am not sure about that term, ma'am. I just
know that they are not certified law enforcement officers for
the State.
Ms. Titus. OK.
Mr. Patterson. They are not recognized as such. So, because
of that, there are certain things that they are limited--that
we are limited to do within the State. So----
Ms. Titus. I think it is called post-training in Nevada,
but I don't know.
I just wanted to ask you. Have you had your employees at
the table or the unions that represent them at the table, as
you have discussed all this transition and the timing of it and
how you are going to deal with it?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. We have kept our employees and
the union up-to-date on every aspect of this--of the working
group as it moved forward through that, so that everybody, we--
you know, it is complete transparency. We didn't want anybody
not to understand what was going on, and because it is really
important for our--especially our employees to be part of this
in the buy-in to what is happening.
So, to my knowledge, we have had great support by all of
our employees. They just--I think what they really want is they
want this to be done. There was an apprehension about, you
know, where we going to go, because there was some discussion
at one point that maybe we were going to leave the Department
and go back to GSA; and that was a troubling discussion, you
know, or troubling thought, quite frankly. So, we did not want
to go back to GSA; and I don't think any of our folks really
wanted to do that.
Ms. Titus. That is all I have. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Director Patterson.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. What State law prevents a legally armed or
unarmed security guard from responding to a threat within their
given perimeter? I am not familiar with any State law of that.
Mr. Patterson. That is the guidance that I was given by our
general counsel, sir, that our folks, because they are
licensed----
Mr. Higgins. Can your office produce that? I would be--I
would be----
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Quite surprised to know of any
law that exists within the sovereign States of these United
States that would stop an armed or unarmed security guard from
responding to a threat within their given perimeter, or any
citizen. Teachers respond within a school shooting. Any--many
civilians, off-duty or retired officers, have responded at
active shooters. I find it difficult to believe your statement
was----
Brother, I love you. Thank you for your service, and I am a
badge with you, OK?
Mr. Patterson. Right.
Mr. Higgins. But what you have stated does not jive with
what I believe to be true. I don't believe there is a State law
that would--that would deny an armed or unarmed security guard
from responding to a threat within their given perimeter.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. They can, again, if the individual
is confronted with a situation, they can respond.
Mr. Higgins. I heard you say that.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. But what does that mean, confronted? If it
happens within the perimeter and you hear the shots, what State
law would prevent any citizen of these United States or the
sovereign States thereof? What State law would prevent any
citizen from responding? What law would stop any man or woman
present here today from responding to an active shooter or a
threat within this room?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, I am just giving you feedback on what
we received----
Mr. Higgins. I believe your counsel to be wrong.
Mr. Patterson [continuing]. As we--as a result of our
contract, as we contract----
Mr. Higgins. A contract perhaps, and perhaps insurance
rate, but not a State law. We would--I would like the committee
to receive some clarification on that.
Mr. Patterson. OK.
Mr. Higgins. Our concern, as we move deeper into the
incredible bureaucracy of this bizarre realm of Washington, DC,
what we want to do is make things better and more streamlined,
not more complicated.
So, definitely, we want the law enforcement officers,
private subcontractors, or professionally-trained Federal law
enforcement officers, we certainly want them to respond to a
threat within the given perimeters that they are--that they are
charged to guard at our Federal locations and properties.
Mr. Patterson. We absolutely agree with you, sir. I mean, I
don't disagree. I am just providing you the guidance that I
have been provided as a result of the contracting action of a
vendor who provides----
Mr. Higgins. We would like to help you, good, sir. You are
a good man, obviously, a beautiful spirit, great courage. Thank
you for appearing before us. Please have your staff work with
our committee staff.
Madam Chairwoman, let us get to the bottom of that. Can we,
please?
I yield, and I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Patterson, this committee has expressed concerns about
the significant number of top management vacancies at DHS.
Given there is currently no under secretary for management
leading the Management Directorate, how will you make sure that
you get top leadership support for FPS?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. We will continue to work with
the leadership that is there and do our best with that.
Ms. Barragan. You know, when I think of law enforcement
careers, I think of community members who are the core of our
middle class. In older generations, a law enforcement job meant
health insurance, a pension, and community. Look, I am worried
that largely contract force means that FPS employees aren't
getting all of their benefits.
Does a large--does a contract force make sense when we are
trying to build domestic middle class jobs?
Mr. Patterson. I believe it does. It gives us quite a bit
of flexibility in our ability; but also, you know, it is
important that we provide our own law enforcement folks the
benefits that I believe that they should have as well.
Ms. Barragan. Is there anything else that you haven't been
asked that you want to share with us?
Mr. Patterson. No, ma'am. I think that is it.
Ms. Barragan. OK. I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. The Chair--I think in that
case, I think we may be reaching a conclusion here. So, in that
case, thank you all so much for coming.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions.
So, I just want to recognize, for the record, Mr. Taylor,
the gentleman from Texas.
Do you have any questions to ask?
Mr. Taylor. [Nonverbal response.]
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Sorry about that.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members of the--and the Members for their questions. The
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for
the witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in
writing to those questions. Without objection, the committee
record shall be kept open for 10 days.
Having no further business, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions for L. Eric Patterson From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small
Question 1. How much more revenue is FPS's new fee model expected
to generate annually?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Will the additional revenue be sufficient to cover all
of FPS's expenses?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question for L. Eric Patterson From Honorable Dina Titus
Question. What, if any, bearing will the transition to the
Management Directorate have on the union contract with FPS National
Local 918 or existing protections for current bargaining unit
employees?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions for L. Eric Patterson From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
Question 1. Is conversion of FPS uniformed officers to the law
enforcement retirement system being discussed with DHS as part of the
transition planning?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. In the past there have been discussions around
potentially moving away from the contract guard program. Are there
plans to revisit this discussion of hiring more Federal officers to
reduce FPS' reliance on contract guards?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. What has been the result of any discussions between FPS
and the Management Directorate about whether to request Congressional
appropriations to assist with FPS's transition from the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Please provide a list of all Federal departments or
agencies that owe FPS back fees along with the amount owed. What
efforts are being made to recover these fees?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]