U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–118 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–593 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE: 

WHAT IS AT RISK? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 19, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

LISA POWELL, Chief Investigative Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director 

THOMAS BISHOP, Minority Legislative Aide 

JESSICA NAGASAKO, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 31 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

Gary W. Schenkel, Director, Federal Protective Service, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ..................... 5 

Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 6 

David Wright, President, American Federation of Government Employees 

Local 918, Federal Protective Service ................................................................ 21 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Goldstein, Mark L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Schenkel, Gary W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Wright, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

APPENDIX 

Hon. Paul Strauss, U.S. Senator (Shadow) from the District of Columbia, 

prepared sttement ................................................................................................ 84 

Background .............................................................................................................. 88 

(1) 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE: 

WHAT IS AT RISK? 

THURDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. I want to welcome all of you here to this hearing, 

especially our witnesses. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and 

the District of Columbia to order. 

Today’s hearing, Management Challenges Facing the Federal 

Protective Service: What is at Risk?, will examine the results of the 

Government Accountability Office’s review of Federal Protective 

Service (FPS) management and operations. 

Approximately 1,100 FPS employees and 15,000 contract security 

guards protect 9,000 Federal facilities nationwide. More than one 

million Federal workers spend their days in these buildings in addition to millions of Americans who visit for government services, 

as tourists, or for other reasons. I requested that GAO conduct this 

review because I was concerned with the reports that FPS was 

weakened rather than strengthened by its transfer from the General Service Administration (GSA) to the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). I am sorry to say that my concern was well founded. 

The GAO report makes clear that Federal buildings remain vulnerable to terrorism and other crime. FPS has been in crisis since 

it moved to DHS. The problems are numerous. Budget shortfalls 

have forced FPS to postpone purchasing and repairing needed 

equipment, such as security cameras and X-ray machines. FPS cut 

its workforce by 20 percent and restricted employee training, overtime, hiring, promotions, and bonuses to reduce personnel costs. 

And FPS imposed new restrictions on employee travel, leaving FPS 

2 

inspectors unable to oversee contract security guards located hours 

away. 

These measures have undermined FPS’s ability to secure Federal 

buildings and encouraged many FPS employees to look for better 

opportunities elsewhere. It was clear that Congressional action was 

urgently needed when the Administration proposed to reduce FPS’s 

workforce further to 950 employees. 

I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Clinton to the 

Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act which requires FPS 

to maintain no fewer than 1,200 employees and to raise the building security fees enough to fund FPS fully at that level. While that 

staffing level remains lower than FPS had until 2007, it will start 

to ease the pressure on FPS employees. However, it will take years 

for new employees to build up the knowledge and expertise that 

was lost as FPS officers left the agency. 

In addition, understaffing has led to inadequate oversight of contract security guards and poor security guard performance. FPS 

does not have enough employees to oversee contract security 

guards properly. Some contract security guards are very rarely inspected because they are located far from the nearest FPS employee, or because they work nights or weekends when practically 

no FPS employees are on duty. Some FPS officers told GAO that 

they were instructed to conduct inspections of contract security 

guards over the telephone. 

With poor oversight comes poor performance. GAO investigators 

uncovered numerous troubling contract guard failures. FPS contract guards watched and did nothing as a FBI surveillance trailer 

was stolen from a parking garage, and on a different occasion as 

a shirtless man with handcuffs hanging from one wrist ran away 

from a FPS inspector. There are more examples in the report. 

This is a chronic problem in the Federal Government that has 

worsened under the current Administration with its heavy reliance 

on private contractors to do government work. We lack the skilled 

employees and resources necessary to oversee the work of private 

contractors. We must correct that mistake with FPS. 

Even under the best of circumstances, there are serious limits to 

what FPS contract security guards can do. Contract guards are not 

sworn law enforcement officers and they do not have arrest powers. 

We need a clear understanding of the restrictions on contract 

guards’ authority and how they can be addressed. 

There is some good news. The recent security fee increase has allowed FPS to phase out some of the cost-cutting measures that I 

just described. The downside of the increase in fees is that many 

Federal agencies have had to divert operational funds to cover the 

higher fees. We need to begin to think seriously about FPS’s funding and its fee structure. I am happy to hear that FPS agrees with 

that recommendation and will be examining its fee structure. 

I am also pleased that FPS agreed with all of GAO’s recommendations and that the agency seems to be making progress on 

some issues. However, it is not clear if the Administration has yet 

recognized the challenges FPS faces, even if FPS’s leadership has. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget again proposed to repeal the 1,200-employee requirement and to downsize FPS to 950 

employees. 

3 

We must continue to move forward with improving FPS. I will 

work to see that Congress focuses the attention and resources 

needed on this effort. I look forward to hearing more about FPS’s 

challenges and progress, in particular the issues that I just highlighted. I want to thank our witnesses again for being here today 

to discuss these critical issues. 

I will now turn to my friend, Senator Voinovich, for any opening 

statement that he would like to make. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I really appreciate the fact that you are having this hearing today in regard to 

the Federal Protective Service. 

I must tell you that I have more than a passing interest in this 

because in our Cleveland office, we are a tenant in the Anthony J. 

Celebrezze Building. I had a choice of whether I was going to go 

into that Federal building or continue the private leasing of another facility and I said, if I am going to be a Senator and I am 

going to have the General Service Administration under my jurisdiction, I ought to be in the building and find out about the management. 

The ability of FPS to meet its mission to protect the buildings, 

grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the 

Federal Government and persons on the property, I believe has 

continued to deteriorate since its transfer to the Department of 

Homeland Security in 2003. For the life of me, I can’t understand 

why we did that, but we went ahead and did it. If you have somebody managing the building, they are worrying about the heating 

and cleaning and the security. But in 2003 we basically said, no, 

that is no longer GSA’s responsibility. We are going to put building 

security into somebody else’s hands. 

It seems that FPS has become kind of a second-class citizen within the Department at the expense of public security and employee 

morale. One cannot say with certainty whether or not the problems 

we will discuss today existed when FPS was under the umbrella of 

the General Service Administration, although I doubt that. However, from an organizational perspective, there are obvious efficiencies to agency tenants, as I mentioned, when they have a single 

landlord responsible for property management, from turning the 

lights on to securing the doors. 

Each day, FPS is responsible for protecting more than one million Federal employees in 9,000 buildings across the country. In addition, they protect the thousands of citizens who visit Federal 

buildings daily to access basic government services, such as applying for Social Security or veterans’ benefits. 

In Ohio, there are only 16 FPS employees responsible for overseeing the security of more than 200 Federal buildings. Thankfully, 

we have not suffered a large-scale attack which would expose our 

low level of readiness. 

The GAO report that prompted these hearings paints a troubling 

picture of operational challenges, management problems, and poor 

coordination inside and outside of FPS. To meet their budget, FPS 

was forced to make poorly-timed cuts in funding for training and 

4 

retention bonuses. That is part of it. We didn’t give them enough 

money to do the job. 

There are questions of how the basic security fee is calculated, 

and FPS lacks the information necessary to measure its effectiveness. It seems to me that fees should be more closely modeled on 

the risk-based formula the Department of Homeland Security uses 

when allocating a number of its Homeland Security grants. It depends on what the situation is in terms of the threat assessment. 

Last and perhaps more troubling, there is little or no evidence 

of FPS outreach to local law enforcement. The support of local law 

enforcement becomes increasingly important as FPS transitions to 

an inspector-based workforce. It seems that lessons learned from 

Hurricane Katrina on the need to establish working relationships 

in advance, before an event, haven’t been applied to the security 

of our Federal buildings. To my knowledge, there isn’t any real 

communication between the FPS employees in the Celebrezze 

Building and the Cleveland Police Department. 

Director Schenkel, you inherited many of these problems and I 

commend you for recognizing the need to follow through on the 

GAO recommendations. As a career Senior Executive, you will have 

the opportunity to continue to lead the change in the new Administration. Acknowledging the problem is the beginning of finding a 

solution. I hope you will continue to keep the Subcommittee informed of your progress and call on us to assist you in reaching 

your goals. The end result will be a more secure environment for 

Federal employees and the citizens they serve, and a FPS workforce that is proud to serve. 

I would like to thank the witnesses that are here today for coming to testify before this Subcommittee. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I welcome to the Subcommittee today’s first panel of witnesses, 

Gary Schenkel, who is the Director of the Federal Protective Service, and Mark Goldstein, who is the Director for Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office. 

As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses. I would ask both of you to stand and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I do. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let the record note that the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

Mr. Schenkel, will you proceed with your statement? Before that, 

I want you to know that while your oral statements are limited to 

5 minutes, your entire written statements will be included in the 

record. 

Mr. Schenkel, will you please proceed? 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Schenkel appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY W. SCHENKEL,1 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 

PROTECTIVE SERVICE, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Voinovich, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to address the concerns raised in the report issued by the 

Government Accountability Office and to discuss the business improvements that FPS has made over the past 3 years and our vision for the future. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, auditors from the Government 

Accountability Office recently had the opportunity to sample the 

day-to-day work performed by the Federal Protective Service. We 

appreciate the thoroughness of the audit and welcome the recommendations for improving FPS. Audited work products are used 

throughout ICE for the betterment of the agency, including within 

FPS. 

With this in mind, I believe that it is necessary to address some 

of the points raised in the GAO report. Some additional context is 

needed. 

The transfer of FPS into the Department of Homeland Security, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, provided an opportunity 

for FPS to comprehensively assess its mission and to ensure that 

its activities were focused on enhancing the security of Federal facilities it protects. FPS has embarked on a strategic approach to 

ensure that its operations are not only fully aligned with the goals 

and objectives of ICE and its stakeholders, but also that they move 

FPS towards greater compliance with the standards for internal 

control established by the GAO. 

Using this strategic approach and Congress’s support and guidance, we have significantly enhanced our business processes, including contracting functions. For example, we have improved the 

procurement process for guard services that in the National Capital 

Region alone, have reduced the cost of three new security guard 

contracts by $5.5 million in fiscal year 2008, savings that were 

passed directly on to the agency client. 

This strategic approach has resulted in a number of achievements, including in 2007 FPS eliminated a backlog of 2,200 invoices worth $92 million, some of which predated the transfer to 

the Department of Homeland Security. To improve FPS’s invoice 

payment process, ICE FPS consolidated the entire process by requiring that all invoices be sent to a single location. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2008, FPS has paid 95 percent of all invoices 

within 30 days, and in the month of May the percentage of payments paid within 30 days rose to 99.5 percent. Part of the success 

and timeliness of invoice payments is the fact that we added contracting officer technical representative training to our basic training curriculum. 

FPS improved working relationships with its internal and external stakeholders through newsletters and regular communications. 

FPS also provided customer service training to employees and used 

satisfaction surveys to gauge its success at providing comprehensive security services that are meaningful for FPS stakeholders. 

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

FPS formally chartered an Executive Advisory Council to coordinate security strategies and activities, policy, and communication 

with the Federal Department and agency occupants of GSA-controlled facilities. 

FPS also conducted a number of focus groups with stakeholders 

to identify and resolve issues and to identify systemic problems. 

The focus groups enabled us to immediately identify a common concern of all our clients in that they want FPS personnel to increase 

the level of physical security functions, such as contract oversight, 

qualified building service security assessments, and higher visibility throughout the service. 

Among the most important improvements from a strategic approach is our movement to the Law Enforcement Security Officer 

or inspector-based workforce, which will meet these customer concerns while affording the added protection of law enforcement presence. To put in proper perspective the importance and advantage 

of transferring FPS’s workforce, FPS was responsible for protecting 

9,000 buildings in 2003. At that time, only 55 percent of FPS’s law 

enforcement staff was qualified to conduct BSAs, a core FPS activity. 

FPS made a conscious decision to integrate the entire security 

program by making the countermeasure program a true extension 

of its law enforcement activities by combining those responsibilities 

of a Law Enforcement Security Officer. A Law Enforcement Security Officer-based force allows the FPS necessary flexibility to provide law enforcement and immediate corrective action to contract 

security guards. Under the prior bifurcation of security operation, 

law enforcement had little or no oversight for the contract guard 

program. 

Notwithstanding the important issues raised and recommended 

by the GAO, we agree with all that they have recommended. 

I am extremely pleased to lead the proud and professional men 

and women of the Federal Protective Service. I interact with them 

every day. I can tell you that they are dedicated, determined, and 

committed to developing, implementing, and maintaining the security systems to ensure that facilities they are charged with protecting are secure and that their occupants are safe. I am confident 

that they can be relied upon to ensure that FPS will continue to 

be able to meet the challenges of its homeland security mission. 

Thank you again, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Voinovich, for holding this important oversight hearing. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 

Schenkel. 

Mr. Goldstein, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN,1 DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you very much, Chairman and Mr. 

Voinovich. We are pleased to be here to discuss the efforts of the 

Federal Protective Service in protecting Federal employees, the 

7 

public, and GSA facilities. As you know, in 2003, FPS transferred 

from the General Service Administration to the Department of 

Homeland Security and is responsible for providing physical security and law enforcement services to about 9,000 GSA buildings. 

Within DHS, FPS is part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement component, the largest investigative arm of DHS. 

This testimony provides information and analysis on FPS’s operational challenges and actions it has taken to address them, funding challenges FPS faces and actions it has taken to address them, 

and how FPS measures the effectiveness of its efforts to protect 

GSA facilities. The testimony is based on our report issued yesterday, ‘‘GAO Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Faces 

Several Challenges that Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal Facilities.’’ 

My testimony summarizes the following: First, FPS continues to 

face several operational challenges that have hampered its ability 

to accomplish its mission to protect GSA facilities and the actions 

it has taken may not fully resolve these challenges. Since the 

transfer, while FPS has maintained 15,000 contract guards, its 

staff has decreased by about 20 percent, from almost 1,400 employees at the end of fiscal year 2004 to about 1,100 employees at the 

end of fiscal year 2007. This decrease in staff has contributed to 

diminished security and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks at many GSA facilities. 

For example, FPS has decreased or eliminated law enforcement 

services such as proactive patrol in each of its 11 regions. In addition, FPS officials at several regions we visited said that proactive 

patrol has in the past allowed its officers and inspectors to identify 

and apprehend individuals that were surveiling GSA facilities. In 

contrast, while FPS is not able to patrol Federal buildings, there 

is an increased potential for illegal entry and other criminal activity at Federal buildings. Moreover, FPS has not resolved longstanding challenges, such as improving the oversight of its contract 

guard program. 

In addition, FPS faces difficulties in ensuring the quality and 

timeliness of BSAs, which are a core component of FPS’s physical 

security mission. For example, in the recent past, one regional supervisor stated that while reviewing a BSA for an address he personally visited, he realized that the inspector completing the BSA 

had falsified the information because the inspector referred to a 

large building when the actual site was vacant. 

FPS has also experienced problems ensuring that security countermeasures, such as security cameras and Magnetometers, are 

operational. To address some of these operational challenges, FPS 

is currently changing to an inspector-based workforce which seeks 

to eliminate the police officer position and rely primarily on FPS 

inspectors for both law enforcement and physical security activities. 

Second, until recently, the security fees FPS charged to 10 agencies have not been sufficient to cover its costs and the actions it has 

taken to address the shortfalls have led to adverse implications. 

Since transferring to DHS, DHS and FPS have addressed these 

projected shortfalls in a variety of ways. DHS has transferred 

emergency supplemental funding to FPS, and FPS has restricted 

hiring and traveling, limited training and overtime, and suspended 

8 

employee performance awards. According to FPS officials, these 

measures have had a negative effect on staff morale and are partially responsible for FPS’s overall attrition rates increasing from 

about 2 percent in fiscal year 2004 to about 14 percent in fiscal 

year 2007. 

FPS also increased the basic security fee charged to tenant agencies from 35 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2005 to 62 cents 

per square foot in fiscal year 2008. Because of these actions, fiscal 

year 2007 was the first year that FPS collections were sufficient to 

cover its costs. It also projects that collections will cover its costs 

in fiscal year 2008. 

However, its primary means of funding its operations is the basic 

security fee, which is the same for Federal agencies regardless of 

the perceived risk or threat to a particular building or agency. 

Therefore, the fee does not account for the risk faced by particular 

buildings, and depending on that risk, it does not account for the 

level of service provided to tenant agencies or the cost of providing 

those services. For example, Level 1 facilities may face less risk because they are typically small, storefront properties with a low 

level of public contact. However, these facilities are charged the 

same basic security fee of 62 cents per square foot as a Level 4 facility that has a high volume of public contact, may contain highrisk law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and have highlysensitive government records. 

Finally, FPS is limited in its ability to assess the effectiveness 

of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. To determine how well it is 

accomplishing its mission to protect GSA facilities, FPS has identified some output measures, such as determining whether security 

countermeasures, such as cameras, have been deployed and are 

fully operational, the amount of time it takes to respond to an incident, and the percentage of BSAs completed on time. Output measures assess activities, not the results of these activities. 

However, FPS has not developed outcome measures to evaluate 

the results and the net effect of its operations to protect FPS facilities. Outcome measures are important because they can provide 

FPS with broader information on program results, such as the extent to which its decision to move to an inspector-based workforce 

will enhance security. In addition, FPS does not have reliable data 

management systems that would allow it to accurately track and 

measure, or other important measures, such as the number of 

crimes and other incidents occurring at GSA facilities. 

In our report that we issued to this Subcommittee and other 

Congressional committees, we recommended, among other things, 

that the security of DHS direct FPS to develop and implement a 

strategic approach to better manage its staffing resources, to evaluate current and alternative funding mechanisms, and to develop 

appropriate measures to assess performance. We are happy to report that DHS agreed with all of these recommendations. 

This concludes my comments and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have for us. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldstein. 

Mr. Schenkel, as Mr. Goldstein just testified, FPS eliminated employee performance awards and restricted employee hiring, promotions, training, travel, and overtime to deal with its budget 

9 

shortfall. As he also mentioned, one of the challenges is morale and 

he indicated that there has been harm to morale. I understand that 

some FPS workers were frustrated with the level of communication 

about FPS’s budget and staffing and they wonder why the budget 

restrictions were not eased sooner when it became clear that FPS 

would not have a budget deficit in fiscal year 2007. 

What are you doing to improve morale in FPS, and in particular 

to address any gaps in communication with workers and with the 

union? Mr. Schenkel. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Well, to begin with, I have given them an open 

and honest position of where we stood and where we need to go 

and how we need to get there. I visited nine of the 11 regions, personally held town halls and spoke with the members, not only the 

police officers and inspectors, but also the mission support people. 

I think telling them the honest truth as to where we stood and 

where we need to go and what resources we have to get there, I 

think was the first starting point. 

Because we had such a, and I will use the word convoluted, way 

of doing business prior to the last several years, it was very 

opaque, the way things were conducted. I am not saying it is the 

wrong thing, right thing, incorrect way, and certainly not trying to 

throw another agency in the limelight. I am saying it was a very 

difficult system for us to sort out and I think we finally got our 

hands on that in 2006, 2007. As a consequence to that, we were 

able to provide performance wards for 2007. We were able to provide some individual spot awards for individual acts. 

In addition, we were finally able to provide a uniform allowance 

to get all of our officers in the same uniform. Although it was minimal, we have actually been able to increase that towards the end 

of this year. 

In regards to the union, I have reached out to President Wright. 

I think we have a very good relationship. I will let him answer that 

on his behalf, however. I came from a very large police department 

that had very large union participation and I brought that kind of 

mindset with me, is that nobody knows better about Beat 2212 

than the beat officer on 2212, and we need to listen to the people 

and I think that we are making some tremendous progress on some 

of our operational issues. We would obviously like to provide more 

financial support to them, but at this point, I think we are making 

progress in the right direction, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Schenkel. 

Mr. Goldstein, I would like to hear any thoughts you have on 

how FPS could improve officer morale. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. When we did our review over the last year, we 

visited seven of the 11 regions of the Federal Protective Service 

and we talked to more than 160 officers, inspectors, regional administrators, and support staff out in the field, and we found that 

they were extremely discouraged. Morale was not in very good 

shape for a number of reasons. They didn’t have effective equipment. Mr. Schenkel has talked about uniforms. Equipment they 

were missing included security cameras, radios that didn’t work, a 

lot of equipment to handle Building Security Assessments. Special 

kinds of technical light meters and things that they needed to do 

some of those activities were not in working order or available. So 

10 

equipment and uniforms and things like that are certainly one 

thing. 

But more broadly speaking, I think morale would be improved if 

the Federal Protective Service was able to put in place a system 

that most of the officers and inspectors felt would be effective in 

protecting Federal property. In our review, in our discussions with 

officers, many of them felt that the shift to proactive—that was 

going to eliminate proactive patrol in many places would not be an 

effective means of protecting property, which is the principal reason that they hold those jobs in trying to protect the people and 

the buildings themselves. 

So there is, I think to some extent, a large policy issue that FPS 

is going to have to work through with its union and with the officers to be able to achieve greater harmony. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Schenkel, GAO’s report states that FPS is 

no longer using its cost-cutting measures. What is FPS doing to address the training needs that were not met during the last couple 

of years? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. That has been a very big priority of us from 

when I first arrived and I found out the sad state of training, that 

the officers, when I would go on the visits to the regional offices, 

we were supposed to be the premier force when it comes to being 

building security assessors and identify risk and yet some of our 

officers hadn’t been to any training for years. Consequently, we reinstated our ALERT training, which includes additional hours on 

physical security assessments and training and new innovations 

that we are going to use within that. 

In addition, as I think Mr. Goldstein mentioned, we have the 

RAMP Program coming online, which will give the individual inspector a defensible document, if you will, that belongs to the Federal Protective Service as opposed to the disparate systems that we 

are dependent upon now to try and gather. That should cut that 

workload down. 

In addition to that, in addition to the benefits that we will gain 

by having this defensible document, that should cut that workload 

down substantially, as well, and we have also revisited the curriculum at our Physical Security Training Program (PSTP), down 

at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia, added the COTOR training, as we 

had mentioned in the opening statement. We are making improvements, not just in the law enforcement side of training, but we are 

trying to also make those same kinds of improvements in our physical security assessment and physical security training programs. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I am happy to hear that training is a priority. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. You have mentioned some of the training, but 

does FPS track employee training to ensure that employees get appropriate advanced and refresher training? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. We are now, sir. We have appointed Josh Vayer 

as our Training Coordinator at the headquarters level. We are 

standardizing the process and procedures for training throughout 

the regions. And we have also hired a new individual down at 

FLETC to represent FPS under the umbrella of ICE’s Office of 

Training and Development who will also be our advocate at FLETC 

11 

and also coordinate all of our follow-on and veteran training, our 

in-service training at that location. Plus we are going to move our 

follow-on post-UPTP, or individual official initial training, up to our 

Bryn Mawr facility, where we will have access from the headquarters level to also not only document and observe the training, 

but also interact with any of our new employees that we may be 

able to hire here in the next few years. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Goldstein, how long have you been looking over the shoulder of the FPS? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We started our review about a year ago, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Did you have any previous experience with 

auditing the FPS? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We have done several reviews over a number of 

years. We have looked at performance measures there. We have 

looked at the mega-centers. And we have included FPS in a broader review at the Department of Homeland Security that we did, 

looking at performance measures with respect to risk management 

and to criteria for establishing security. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Did you have a chance to look at any of the 

other past reports about the FPS and compare them to the conditions that are existing today? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The reports we did in the past were slightly different in that we didn’t look at the workforce in the regions and 

specifically the kinds of challenges that they faced operationally in 

the past, except for a little bit when we looked at the mega-center 

and performance measures. But many of the same kinds of issues— 

performance measures, criteria for risk mitigation, and threat assessment and the like—that we have seen in previous years certainly exist in the kind of challenges they face today and we do address them in this report, also. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the question I have from a management point of view, after the report came back and cited FPS as 

a low priority within the Department of Homeland Security, and 

just based on your experience with management, do you think the 

decision to pull FPS from the General Service Administration over 

to Homeland Security was a wise decision? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I would answer it in two ways, Senator. We are 

doing a two-part review for this Subcommittee, and in the second 

part of that, we are looking very specifically at that question, which 

is where is the best location for FPS. 

But I can tell you already, based on the interviews we have done 

in the field, that almost to a person that we discussed this issue 

with in the field, officers and inspectors and regional administrators, almost every one of them did not believe that it belonged— 

that FPS did not belong in ICE. Many said it belonged perhaps in 

Infrastructure Protection or as a stand-alone unit in DHS, and 

some thought perhaps that it belonged back at GSA. But one of the 

things we will look at over the next couple of months is exactly 

where it might be best housed. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Schenkel, this is probably a tough question for you to answer because you haven’t been on board that long, 

but you have had extensive management experience in the Marine 

Corps and then you had a very important position with the Chicago 

12 

Police Department. It is going to be very difficult for you to answer 

this, but from an objective point of view, if you looked at where 

FPS is today, do you think it would be better to place FPS back 

with the General Service Administration? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I think that any time that you put a manager in 

a position where he or she is faced with the choice of buying cleaning supplies or security guards, that puts that individual in a very 

difficult position. I think that is—I call it the Max Arrow approach. 

That is the screeners that used to be at airports around the country many years ago, even prior—far prior to September 11, 2001. 

It is a very cut-throat business. There is very low profit margin in 

that kind of business. And my concern would be that if it came 

down to price, we would go to the lowest bidder as opposed to the 

better standard of quality. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But up until now, that hasn’t been the case. 

It seems that FPS has been given the back of the hand, and one 

could argue that in terms of the attention given, FPS has not been 

as much of a priority as it should be. If you go to Chicago they are 

putting a lot more money into security than they did prior to September 11, 2001 and building security is given a higher priority, 

particularly if they do any kind of a threat assessment as to their 

location. 

So your answer is you think it is better off where it is at right 

now? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I think it is best away from the General Service 

Administration. I think that we are very dependent on ICE. ICE 

has been very helpful, especially on the financial end of it. We do 

not have those long trails and contracting support and experience 

that is necessary to support our contract guard program and our 

countermeasure program as a stand-alone entity. So regardless of 

where we were placed, if we are placed correctly or incorrectly in 

an agency within DHS, we still require that substantial financial 

support that we enjoy from ICE. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Would you agree that after FPS was transferred into the Department of Homeland Security, that somebody 

in DHS didn’t realize its importance and didn’t give it the priority 

that it deserved? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I can’t answer that one, sir, because I don’t sit 

in those chairs. I don’t have access to the information that other 

people have. I think we have been treated very fairly since I have 

been here and they have been extremely supportive. We would not 

have been able to pay those 2,200 invoices last July. We would not 

have been able to consolidate our financial system, which continually detracted from our mission, were it not for ICE’s support. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. And Mr. Goldstein, do you agree with 

that? The impression that I got was it came over to the Department of Homeland Security and they had other priorities and FPS 

didn’t get the kind of attention that it deserved for lack of understanding how important FPS was in terms of securing our buildings. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I can’t say specifically because we didn’t look at 

that as a question, but I think it is important to note that one of 

the early problems that was faced was the loss of the subsidy from 

the Federal Buildings Fund, and I would suspect that the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Nov 14, 2008 Jkt 044118 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44118.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13 

ment of Homeland Security didn’t fully recognize the impact of the 

loss of that subsidy—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the subsidy was if FPS, and therefore 

GSA, needed money to deal with a particular security concern, they 

could reach into the Federal building fund, and that made up for 

any shortfall. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, for a number of years, from 2000 through 

2004, they received anywhere between $95 and $140 million in 

order to help pay the bills at FPS, and I suspect they didn’t quite 

recognize the impact that would have in losing those funds when 

they took over FPS and they didn’t understand a number of the 

other ramifications. So I am not sure that it is a question that they 

didn’t pay attention to it so much as that they didn’t understand 

all of the implications of the agency that they were inheriting. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The last question I have, Senator Akaka, is 

to Mr. Schenkel. One of the things that I have been very pleased 

about since we forced the Department of Homeland Security is the 

communication that has gone back and forth between local police 

departments, the sheriffs, the FBI, and other security entities in 

the community. But according to this report, that relationship 

hasn’t been built up between the FPS and local law enforcement 

agencies. I would like to know, what have you done to try and remedy that situation? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Well, first of all, I am a little surprised that the 

statement was even made because we have extremely good relationships with all of our local law enforcement agencies. We have 

got mutual supporting informal agreements existing all over the 

country. We have expertise and assets that most police departments don’t have, that being bomb dogs, that being the expertise 

in physical security assessment and determining what countermeasures are appropriate. So on a frequent, if not daily, it is certainly a weekly basis, there is some region at some point doing 

some interaction with local law enforcement, and—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. You are telling me that the FPS employees 

in Ohio are sitting at the table with the other law enforcement 

agencies today to exchange information and so forth? Is that what 

you are telling me? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I can’t say that they are with every law enforcement agency, but I can—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. How many of them? Have you ever done an 

inventory of a State to find out how many of them actually are 

communicating with each other? And the other issue is, are they 

communicating with the private outfit that has been hired or are 

they communicating with the FPS people that are in between the 

law enforcement agencies and the private sector people? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. They are supposed to be communicating with the 

FPS, the district commanders, area commanders, if not regional directors. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would sure like to get an answer to 

that. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. All right, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would appreciate finding out just what 

kind of relationship there is between the FPS in Ohio and our local 

14 

law enforcement officers and whether any of them are sitting in on 

those task forces that we have currently around the State. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Mr. Schenkel, I believe that mentoring programs are critical in 

integrating new employees into an organization and building their 

skills. Mentoring might be particularly useful in FPS because there 

may be skill gaps from the high attrition and the recent restrictions on training. Does FPS have a mentoring program or any plan 

to establish one? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. The FTEP, or Field Training—I want to 

call it the Field Training Officer Program, but we changed it to 

FTEP, and forgive me, I can’t remember what the ‘‘E’’ is for, but 

it is a field training officer program to indoctrinate and inculcate 

new inspectors into the service. The initial documents were put together. The plan is on the table and being reviewed by employee 

and labor relations. We had input from individuals from the union 

up in Region 10, and then it will get a final brush from Local 918 

before we enact it. It is based on the San Jose FTO Program. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Schenkel, GAO’s report detailed broken security cameras, X-ray machines, radios, and other important equipment. You testified that you have a national maintenance contract 

in place in order to ensure timely repair and replacement of security equipment. Can you tell us more about that process and the 

time line for getting it done? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. The National Countermeasures Program 

was a priority when I first got here, when I found out that we 

bought equipment as opposed to leased equipment, because I knew 

that much of this was 1960s technology. I did a short stint with 

the TSA and had some experience with the X-ray machines and 

walk-through metal detectors, etc. So I asked some of the folks to 

reach out to TSA and to some of the other agencies that were frequent users of these kinds of equipment. 

As I mentioned before, it was a somewhat challenging way of 

doing business in the past years, and subsequently we have found 

out that there is a tremendous ownership question in regards to 

many of these security measures, in particular cameras, X-ray machines, and walk-through metal detectors. So when we conducted 

our inventory to find out how bad a situation this was, we found 

out that there were three different owners, if you will. In some 

cases, the equipment was claimed to be owned by GSA. In some instances, in particular around courthouses, the equipment was 

claimed to be owned by the Marshals Service. And in other instances, it was Federal Protective Service. 

So about 60 days ago, we were near the end of our inventory and 

what I told them is if there is any question, FPS will take responsibility for this. The National Countermeasures Program will be in 

place in October 2008. This will include a National Countermeasures Maintenance Program to where there will not be an individual company that would have to be called to maintain this 

equipment. We will have one contract nationwide, and as I said, 

this will begin in October 2008. In addition, we will be replacing 

15 

the first third of the equipment that is long past its usefulness, as 

well. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to hear both of your thoughts on 

this issue. As FPS’s response to the GAO report indicates, the 

building security fee structure was created to provide basic protection to Federal buildings as real estate assets. Since that time, it 

has become all too clear that terrorism is a real threat and Federal 

buildings may be attractive targets to those who would do us harm. 

Failure to account for the increased risks that Federal buildings 

face has led to insufficient investment in Federal building security. 

As you know, FPS currently is entirely fee funded. Should Congress appropriate money to cover some of FPS’s basic costs? Mr. 

Schenkel. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I have discussed this recently with OMB and 

with other Congressional and Senatorial staffers as well as ICE, 

and we think that there is certainly a good argument for a baseline 

appropriation. Right now, we charge it at 62 cents, to go to 66 

cents next year for a basic security fee, with the expectation of our 

customers to all who receive that same basic service. That same 

basic service right now is the same at 26 Federal plazas as it is 

in Bangor, Maine, for a book repository, which is unrealistic with 

a force of only 1,200 people. 

I think once it is determined what that basic security fee should 

pay for, in other words, if right now we are required to provide the 

basic security assessment, assist with occupant emergency plans, 

investigate all threats against individuals inside of our buildings 

and investigate all threats against our buildings, etc., and have 

proactive patrol and law enforcement response. That is a big order 

for 1,221 people. 

I think if it is determined that basic security fee would provide 

only portions of that or if there was something over and above that 

was required due to specific threats or a higher-risk building or a 

higher-risk area, that would have to be a separate cost. So if there 

was a baseline that would be provided not only as an appropriation 

but for that appropriation every customer would have that same 

expectation that we could meet, I think that would be a starting 

point, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Goldstein, what are your thoughts about 

this? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We recommended in our report that FPS evaluate whether a fee-based structure or some alternative is the most 

appropriate way to support the Federal Protective Service. We are 

not against a fee-based structure. There are many fee-based structures in the Federal Government that support agencies. But this is 

one that isn’t fully effective at this point in time for the reasons 

that both Mr. Schenkel and myself have mentioned in terms of the 

equitability of the costs, the spreading out of risk across all the patrons, and regardless of where you are, you pay the same fee. 

One of the issues that FPS has to address, as well, with respect 

to its charges is whether it has an effective cost accounting system 

that can account for the costs of providing security to its tenants, 

and we believed and made a recommendation that they need to improve their cost accounting and FPS has agreed to do that, as well. 

16 

So while we are not in a position to say that you should absolutely go to an appropriations approach, we do believe that further 

evaluation of the fee-based structure and an appropriations structure is clearly necessary and that is what FPS has agreed to do. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Schenkel, FPS’s attrition rate increased dramatically in recent years. Now that FPS is hiring again, rather 

than downsizing, and does not face a budget deficit, is the attrition 

rate improving? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. The attrition rate thus far this year is 6 percent, 

as opposed to last year it was 14 percent at this same time. We 

are able to attract some other Federal law enforcement officers because of our ability to increase their grade. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act requires FPS to have 1,200 employees by July 31, 

2008. Your testimony states that FPS has 1,051 employees, which 

is about 50 fewer people than you had at the beginning of the fiscal 

year, and you plan to be close to 1,200 by September 30, 2008. 

What is the cause of the delay? When did you start hiring, and are 

you having a hard time attracting qualified candidates? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. The delay was evidently instituted by Secretary 

Chertoff sending a letter requesting that he be given the authority 

to wait until September 30. The ability to attract, as I just previously mentioned, we started recruiting in the March-April time 

frame. 

We have been very fortunate because we targeted a very lucrative audience, if you will, that being the veterans, many of them 

coming back from the Gulf, or from the Middle East, looking for 

work in security and having experience. Because we have gone to 

that LESO-based force, we are able to attract folks that would perhaps be going to a regular police department that also would have 

had some challenges attracting people. But because of our ability 

to increase their grade, provide them equipment now, quality 

equipment, we are able to attract a great number. As a matter of 

fact, we have got 800-and-some—835, I believe—on our certification 

list. 

I would be lying to you if I told you it wasn’t a painful process, 

getting them through the process of hiring, the Federal hiring, 

most of which is out of our control. But we are pushing them very 

hard. We have got plenty of folks that want to go to work for us. 

It is just difficult getting them through the funnel. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We keep harping on the fact that since FPS 

staff has decreased by about 20 percent with further reductions expected until Congress mandated a minimum number of FPS employees. I keep thinking that FPS wasn’t given the attention it 

needed and it is unfortunate that Congress had to step in to indicate that. 

How many FPS employees and how many contract employees do 

you believe are needed to meet the FPS mission? Not just the number of contract employees, but how about FPS employees? And do 

you agree with staffing recommendations contained in the 2006 

workforce assessment? In terms of succession planning, do you 

agree that 1,200 is the right number to get the job done or is it 

more than that or less than that? 

17 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I think 1,200 is a good baseline to start with. 

One of the things that our customers have asked for and what we 

kind of term as a FPS-light situation is having inspectors available 

who are stationed in nearly every Level 4 building or Level 4 complex of buildings. That would be slightly higher than the 1,200 

number that would be required, but then again that would have to 

roll back to determine what would be expected on that basic security fee. An increase—a substantial increase—would be required to 

support the kind of language that is in the FPS-GSA Memorandum 

of Agreement right now. But 1,200 is a good starting point, and to 

get to that frequent visibility and presence in Level 4 buildings 

would require several hundred more. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have a current strategic human capital plan? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. We do, sir, and we are depending on several of 

those systems that are coming online this year, in principal the 

RAMP system and the Computer Aided Dispatch. We have made 

the improvements to our daily operations log at our mega-centers, 

which does our dispatching and accounts for our personnel and location that GAO recommended back in 2004. I think once we are 

able to actually capture that data, as Mr. Goldstein mentioned, I 

think we will be able to provide you some very accurate numbers 

as to what the appropriate number to support the kinds of expectations that are necessary. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You underscored the difficulty in getting 

people through the system. One of the things that Senator Akaka 

and I are trying to do is get rid of some of the clogs in the system 

so that we can bring people into the Federal Government. Would 

you like to share with us your frustrations and why is it you are 

having such a tough time hiring individuals to FPS? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. We are able to attract people. Our HR systems 

are very good. But as so many agencies, we are dependent on outside, or other agencies to process beyond the job—even to make it 

a job announcement, I am sorry. As a result, we are just another 

group inside another group of priorities and everybody has got a 

priority. It gets bogged down primarily at the medical side on the 

medical evaluations, anything that we can do to expedite that 

piece. We are getting fairly good at the background investigations 

because we do a lot of our background investigation. We do them 

all for GSA and for our people and for all our security guards, so 

we are able to assist in that. But it is beyond the offer stage that 

it becomes excruciatingly painful. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So it is medical. How about security clearances? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Security clearances, we are doing fairly well in. 

Again, that is probably because we own a piece of that, so we are 

able to control it and expedite it when necessary. 

Senator VOINOVICH. To issue a posting of FPS jobs, you have got 

to do that through OPM? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. No, sir, we go through CBP on that, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. So it is posted. Then you have your applicants. Then you review them and then you do the investigation 

and the health part of this? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Correct. Once we review—— 

18 

Senator VOINOVICH. Who runs the health? Where do you have to 

send people? Where do they get the health thing? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. It is a contract, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you have contract people that do that 

work for you? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Through Customs and Border Protection. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Can that part of the process be sped up a 

bit. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. It could probably use a little—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. How long does it take you to get a security 

clearance? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. We have got it down to roughly—well, for our applicants, because they require a ‘‘Secret’’ clearance, it will take approximately 30 to 45 days. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Goldstein, performance metrics provide 

a clear picture of whether or not agencies are meeting their mission requirements and are being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. FPS plans to implement the Data Management System to 

support performance management by 2011. It seems to me that 3 

years is a long time to develop that system given the technology 

currently available. Are there actions you would recommend FPS 

to take to acquire this capability more quickly? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There may be some off-the-shelf applications 

that they can use, some best practices from other agencies that 

they might review. I think FPS recognizes that it has an issue and 

it is taking some steps to remedy that situation. I do think it can 

take a couple of years. 

But I think if they were to take a look at other agencies that 

have effective practices in place to help understand how they can 

improve the kinds of outcome performance measures that they 

need to gauge the effectiveness of their mission, I think that would 

be very useful. There are many other Federal agencies and private 

sector organizations that are leaders in this field and they can 

probably learn from them in the meantime so that by the time they 

are ready to get their system fully underway, they will have some 

meaningful measures that they could deploy. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So they could probably look at some other 

areas in order to speed this up a bit? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. I think so. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Mr. Schenkel, you are a member of the 

Senior Executive Service? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you are not one of the political appointees over in the Department? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. No, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How difficult was it for you to come into the 

position that you are in? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. To be hired or just take on the responsibility? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, one of the problems that we noticed is 

it is very difficult to get people to come into the Federal Government. If you look at the number of people that are coming in at 

the level you came in, there aren’t that many of them. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I applied September 9, 2006, and was hired April 

1, 2007. 

19 

Senator VOINOVICH. Repeat that again. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I applied September 2006 and was hired April 1, 

2007. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It took a while. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Mr. Schenkel, you testified that moving to an inspector-based 

workforce, eliminating the FPS police officer position but expecting 

inspectors to do building patrol and other law enforcement functions is useful because inspectors were stretched too thin when 

they were 55 percent of the FPS workforce. Now, they are 80 percent of the smaller FPS workforce. If inspectors were stretched too 

thin to do accurate, complete, and timely building assessments, 

why were you moving forward with further reducing FPS staff? If 

you had more employees, would you need them to cover such a 

broad range of tasks? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I believe so, sir, because of our small numbers. 

We are expected to do a great number of different kinds of activities. Having an inspector or a LESO law enforcement security officer, I have a certified police officer. I have a sworn officer, guntoting, badge-wearing individual that can also concentrate on his or 

her core competency and the expectation from our customer agencies. 

We are in the protection business as well as in the law enforcement business. By having an inspector-based or a Law Enforcement Security Officer-based force, it gives me complete flexibility 

to move those people around to where the threat is the greatest or 

when the risk changes. If I only have half of my force available to 

do that, I am going to end up in the exact same situation Mr. Goldstein described in his report. The 9 of 10, if you will, or certainly 

90 percent of the comments made by the GAO all circled around 

our inability to provide the protection mission, and the 1 percent 

or the one piece was a proactive patrol. I can take an inspector or 

a Law Enforcement Security Officer and put him or her on patrol. 

I cannot take a police officer and assign him or her a Building Security Assessment. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Goldstein, do you have any thoughts on 

whether the problem of inspectors being stretched too thin reflects 

a need to move to an inspector-based model rather than a need to 

hire more inspectors? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We did hear many concerns, Mr. Chairman, 

from inspectors in the field that they were sort of overworked and 

overwhelmed by their job responsibilities and police officers were 

very concerned that inspectors would not be responding in a timely 

way when there were law enforcement situations because of the 

other responsibilities that they had. Inspectors are responsible for 

the oversight of contract guards, for Building Security Assessments, for contracting officer technical representation duties, for 

law enforcement response, criminal investigations, collecting contract guard time cards, and they also run the Building Security 

Committees, which is the organization of tenants in each building 

that represent security needs and interface with FPS. 

20 

So that is quite a lot of responsibilities and many of the people 

we talked to felt that not only that were they overwhelmed by 

those responsibilities, but there might not always be a timely response, and there were several examples that were provided to us 

where inspectors did not respond in a timely way when they were 

called by police officers for assistance. 

Senator AKAKA. If FPS converts its police officers to inspectors, 

is there a danger that the agency will lose some specialization and 

focus on its law enforcement functions? Mr. Schenkel. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I don’t believe so, because I think by having that 

100 percent flexibility, it gives the regional directors, the district 

commanders, the autonomy and the authority to address the risks 

as they change. If we concentrate on absolutely just one thing, we 

can only protect so many buildings from being hit by airplanes. The 

threat could change literally tomorrow, and it does. Whatever kind 

of threat there is that we are able to provide an adequate countermeasure for, the enemy, if you will, will always find some low-tech 

means of countering that. I think we have to remain flexible and 

I think that by proper management and leadership down at the 

district and area level, we don’t lose that law enforcement expertise 

any more than we would lose our physical security or our protection mission abilities. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Goldstein, do you have any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think when we did our review, we looked at 

this as sort of a three-legged stool. You have the protection provided by the FPS itself in terms of its people, its inspectors and its 

police officers. You have the countermeasures of Magnetometers 

and X-ray machines and cameras and the like. And then you have 

the local police forces that can respond if and when they have a 

good working relationship with FPS. And it seems to me that you 

need all three of these for effective security of Federal property and 

that currently there are certainly challenges that FPS faces in providing effective protection in all three of these areas. And so I 

think the view is that you need to be able to assure that you can 

work effectively in providing security through all three of these 

components. 

I do agree that flexibility for an inspector would be useful, provided that there are sufficient resources in terms of the inspector 

workforce as well as to ensure that having enough of them would 

allow for some level of proactive patrol that has been demonstrated 

to be an effective countermeasure to surveillance and other kinds 

of criminal activities. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Schenkel, I understand that FPS night coverage was reduced as staffing declined. Most major cities do not 

have a single FPS employee on duty throughout the night. How 

many cities currently have a FPS employee on duty during night 

hours, and do you plan to expand overnight coverage? 

Mr. SCHENKEL. I am going to have to get back with you on the 

first question, but on the second question, I can answer yes, most 

definitely, we intend to return to our 24-hour patrols wherever they 

were before based on risk. The situations may have changed and 

may have shifted to other locations, but will return to the 24-hour 

patrol. 

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wright appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

Senator AKAKA. Any questions, Senator Voinovich? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have a vote 

at 3:30 and I have other questions, but I think we ought to get Mr. 

Wright on so we can hear his testimony. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank the first panel for your testimony. They will certainly help us with what we are trying to do. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHENKEL. Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. At this time, I would like to welcome to the Subcommittee David Wright, President of the American Federation of 

Government Employees Local 918, which represents Federal Protective Service employees. 

As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear all 

witnesses, so please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Let the record note that 

the response was in the affirmative. 

I want you to know that while your oral statement is limited to 

5 minutes, your entire written statement will be included in the 

record. Will you please begin with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID WRIGHT,1 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 918, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Voinovich, my name is David Wright and I am President of AFGE 

Local 918, the Federal Protective Service Union. I have been a FPS 

law enforcement officer for the past 22 years, to include time in 

management. 

In the 7 years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, I have 

watched with growing frustration and outrage amongst my fellow 

workers as the Federal Protective Service has been allowed to deteriorate and drift like a rudderless sinking ship. Mr. Chairman, 

every American should be shocked and frightened by the GAO testimony we heard here today. The sole Federal agency charged with 

the critical mission of protecting thousands of Federal buildings 

and millions of people from terrorist and criminal attack has had 

its core mission challenged, its funding cut by $700 million since 

September 11, 2001, its employee pay reduced by 10 percent, and 

its law enforcement ranks nearly depleted. 

If one of our local unions had performed in such a manner with 

respect to carrying out its mission and responsibilities, it would 

have been put into trusteeship. It is clear to us that we need Congress to act as a trustee for the Federal Protective Service. 

It has only been through the intervention of this and other committees of Congress that we have stopped this dangerous and irresponsible trend. Meanwhile, in fiscal year 2008, FPS is projected to 

have 1,200 personnel with a budget of approximately $238 million 

22 

nationwide for operational purposes while there are over 1,600 

Capitol Police budgeted at $281 million to protect the Capitol and 

Congressional offices in a 12-block area of Washington, DC. The 

Secret Service has over 1,300 officers in its Uniformed Division to 

protect its assigned facilities in Washington, DC. The Veterans 

Health Administration has over 2,500 police officers to protect their 

154 medical centers nationwide. I should also add that all these 

agencies use extensive proactive patrol by police officers to detect 

and deter attack, the very critical activities that GAO found missing in FPS. 

The questions we need to answer today are, why was this allowed to happen to FPS and what needs to be done? My written 

testimony answers both of these questions in detail and I appreciate them being placed in the record. 

I want to make four key points here this afternoon. Regardless 

of why this agency has been allowed to ‘‘twist in the wind,’’ as the 

Senate DHS appropriations report put it last year, we need to continue to rapidly rebuild the FPS. A comprehensive review and assessment of manpower needs and requests for sufficient personnel 

to perform the mission must be produced by the agency as quickly 

as possible and as recommended by GAO. In the interim, Local 918 

is asking Congress to increase the current level of 1,200 personnel 

by about 400 in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill. 

Two, the GAO pointed to the importance of the uniformed Federal law enforcement presence surrounding Federal buildings as an 

essential security requirement to detect and deter attack. It is an 

approach embraced by all law enforcement agencies across the 

country, yet this is precisely the component of FPS activity that 

DHS and ICE have worked so hard to eliminate. The union believes that eliminating police officers and maintaining a depleted 

all-inspector workforce is a dangerous mistake. While inspectors 

can and do perform law enforcement jobs, they also have a very different set of responsibilities on a day-to-day basis—overseeing the 

contract guard workforce, performing Building Security Assessments, to name several. In the performance of these duties, it is 

less likely inspectors will uncover criminal or terrorist activity. 

Three, in the post-September 11, 2001 world of today, it makes 

virtually no sense to rely upon a square footage-based fee to entirely determine funding for the FPS. While the union does not oppose the continued funding of some optional FPS services through 

this mechanism, we strongly believe that most activities, to include 

operations of FPS, can and should be funded through annual appropriations. I want to make it very clear, the current funding formula is one of the two root causes of the problems here at FPS and 

it is in desperate need of reform. 

Four, just within the past 2 years, FPS police officers and other 

law enforcement officers have seen their pay cut by 10 percent. 

Many have been told their jobs were being eliminated and we have 

watched as the agency’s core mission has been threatened by a 

misguided attempt of non-law enforcement bureaucrats to eliminate critical FPS law enforcement activities. I can tell you, we have 

lost many talented, experienced officers as a result. As you can 

imagine, morale is in the tank. Your FPS Federal law enforcement 

officers have borne the brunt of recent FPS budget reductions. We 

23 

need Congress to step in. Restoration of retention pay and provision of law enforcement retirement benefits are two changes that 

should be implemented as part of any FPS rebuilding process. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the state of FPS right now is a little different from that of the airline industry security prior to September 

11, 2001. There, a reliance on poorly-trained, unmonitored contract 

guards with no law enforcement authority, security implementation 

by conflicting entities, an unworkable funding structure, and a perception of security through inspections instead of protection by 

boots on the ground Federal officers proved disastrous. It should 

not have happened then and it should not be allowed to happen 

now. 

I am available for your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. 

FPS’s spending restrictions harmed employees’ morale over the 

last couple of years. Repairing that damage will take time. Do you 

have any thoughts on what FPS needs to do to improve morale 

within the agency? You mentioned the word ‘‘reform’’. If you can be 

specific on what you mean by reform and on your thoughts specifically on improving the morale within the agency? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Correct. I would like to reiterate that I have been 

with FPS for 22 years. We have always had our problems, and in 

my opinion, we have always been treated as second-class citizens. 

That just became magnified as we came into ICE. 

As far as reform, there is a culture in FPS. We have 11 different 

regions. I like to call them 11 different kingdoms. I know that 

headquarters does their best to pass the word on and unify the regions with uniform processes, but this doesn’t happen. Improving 

morale—we have always been the boots on the ground. We have always been the first responders. Yet we do not have law enforcement coverage. We do not have the benefits afforded other Federal 

law enforcement officers. That would be a great start. 

Senator AKAKA. The GAO report contained some troubling accounts of poor work on Building Security Assessments, including 

copying and pasting information from old BSAs into new ones. 

Workers often get the blame for these types of problems, but they 

may be a symptom of inadequate staffing or training. Are the FPS 

inspectors you represent being pressured to conduct BSAs too 

quickly, and are they receiving all of the training they need? 

Mr. WRIGHT. It has been my experience that training is nonexistent after the physical security training program, or Physical 

Security Academy, as we call it. There is tremendous pressure to 

conduct these assessments. It is seen as our bread and butter. It 

is seen as the major service that we provide, at least in the eyes 

of the agency. 

What is happening here this year is a good indication. We have 

a 12-year, or a 12-month cycle. It has effectively been reduced to 

6 or 9 months for inspectors across the Nation. I can tell you that 

here in a major municipality on the East Coast, I was speaking to 

an individual, myself and an officer having lunch together. He was 

one individual responsible for a patrol zone, a very large patrol 

zone where he had to travel about 45 miles between calls for service. He was the only individual on duty and the inspectors were 

tucked away in a room conducting their assessments. So these 

24 

timeliness issues of assessments, unfortunately corners get cut, tremendous pressure by first-level management to get these things 

done. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Wright, you recommend that FPS officers be 

granted the enhanced pension benefits that other Federal law enforcement officers receive. Could you tell us more why you believe 

FPS officers deserve these benefits and how the benefits might affect recruiting and morale? 

Mr. WRIGHT. As we all know, these benefits are commonly referred to as 6c/12d, early retirement age, more benefits. Most police 

agencies out there at this point, CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE, are 

actively hiring. DRO is actively hiring. We are competing for these 

officers and when they look at FPS and they see that the benefits 

are not there that they can obtain in other agencies, then they are 

likely to go elsewhere. 

As far as deserving, we are the boots on the ground. We are the 

first ones on the scene. I think that has always been a fault in the 

law that first responders are basically not included in law enforcement benefits. The history shows that those benefits were aimed 

towards investigators and have since been tweaked to include detention, transportation of criminals, and protection of Federal officials, whereby the first responder does not receive those benefits. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You were here to hear the questions that I 

asked the other two witnesses and one of the major questions I 

asked was looking at this from an objective perspective, and based 

on cutting the budget and a few other things, and now you are 

talking about comparable fringe benefits, do you think we would be 

better off taking the FPS and bringing it back under the General 

Service Administration? 

Mr. WRIGHT. No. General Service Administration was a different 

situation. I look at it as GSA is the government’s landlord. I look 

at it as being in an agency dealing with real estate, realty professionals managing a law enforcement force, in effect, tantamount to 

having a mayor or someone being over a police force. There is not 

enough separation there. A separate division within GSA may be 

possible. We would have to be pretty much a sovereign entity within GSA if that happened. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Looking at it from a management point of 

view, if I have responsibility for the oversight of the building and 

other additional responsibilities, I believe one of the most important ones is security. So, you are saying that when GSA had FPS, 

you don’t think GSA gave enough attention to the security aspect 

of this? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is my opinion. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you think you are better off where you 

are at? 

Mr. WRIGHT. It is a really tough spot, two different circumstances. The placement within ICE is—it is a terrible fit. I am 

not sure what the solution is. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would be interested in what you 

think the solution is. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Personally, I think the solution is a stand-alone 

agency within DHS. We have responsibility for 9,000 properties, 

25 

millions of employees and visitors on a yearly basis. We have our 

authority issues. We have jurisdiction issues. And I think the 

placement of FPS going into ICE and being placed in a turf battle 

of Immigration versus Customs and we are low guy on the totem 

pole, that is a problem. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, and that—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. My opinion—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Is that the reason why you think you have 

gotten the back of the hand or short shrift, because in terms of priorities, they don’t think that what you are doing is as important 

as some of the other responsibilities? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Absolutely. The fee funding structure and the lack 

of respect for the FPS mission are the cause of our problems today. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Based on your observations, following up on 

the question that I asked the other witness, Mr. Schenkel, what is 

your evaluation of the relationship between the FPS and local law 

enforcement agents around the country, and to your knowledge, do 

you participate in these task forces that we have throughout the 

country where we get the various law enforcement agencies together to talk about sharing of information and so forth? Are there 

strategic plans in place, for example, if something would happen at 

one of your buildings to bring in the local law enforcement agencies 

to enhance your ability to deal with some of these things? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I can speak for Kansas City, Missouri, where I 

spent the majority of my career. We have an informal relationship 

with Kansas City PD. As far as the strategic plan, no. We know 

who to call. We ask them to assist and they generally assist. But 

as far as a plan, no. My experience from—coming from my counterparts across the Nation is there is a lack of reciprocity, that local 

police departments will respond to our situations, but when it 

comes to us assisting the locals, say we have a canine bomb detection team and they could use that team for a couple of hours, these 

local departments are turned down. 

Senator VOINOVICH. They are turned down from using the equipment that you have to enhance the job that you are doing? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Wow. Why are they doing that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We have a management structure that is stuck in 

the 1970s. They all believe that FPS does not have the authority 

to assist other agencies, say, for example, a bomb threat call to a 

school. I mean, that is the main consideration. That is not GSA 

property. You can’t go. You cannot assist. We have had instances 

in Kansas City where the police department has requested our 

presence at major functions and without that agency compensating 

FPS, we do not respond. So it is a reciprocity thing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, here is the question I asked Mr. 

Schenkel. I want a report back about the number of task force relationships there and the strategic plans in place in the event that 

would happen. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am going to be real selfish about it. I want 

you to start in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. WRIGHT. OK. 

26 

Senator VOINOVICH. I was mayor in the State of Ohio, and I was 

governor, and I want to know what is really going on in my home 

town and where we have our Cleveland offices in that Celebrezze 

Building. We will use that kind of as a model to find out just where 

we are at. 

Is one of the things that we had hoped would happen when the 

Department of Homeland Security was created was that we were 

going to try and compare the various responsibilities that law enforcement had. Within Homeland Security, you have FPS and a lot 

of other groups. Has any effort, to your knowledge, been made to 

look at the respective responsibilities that various law enforcement 

personnel have and fringe benefits that accrue so you don’t end up 

having people shopping from one agency to another? 

Mr. WRIGHT. No. I don’t know of any such study. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would 

like to have that question answered because from what I understand, your fringe benefits are different than some of the other 

Federal law enforcement entities. And your folks feel like you are 

maybe second-class citizens within ICE. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. CBP just got 6c law enforcement coverage. 

ICE and DRO get law enforcement coverage. We are law enforcement officers in one agency and we are being treated disparately. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Following up on the Senator’s request, I would like to ask that 

you respond to that, if you can do that in writing, as well. 

Mr. WRIGHT. OK. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Wright, as you know, contract security 

guards do not have arrest powers. They may detain people who are 

suspected of committing a crime, but according to the GAO, some 

do not because they fear liability. GAO reported numerous troubling incidents in which guards stood by as they witnessed security 

incidents. You have worked for many years for FPS and its predecessors. In your experience, how widespread is this problem? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I have seen and heard of numerous incidents. I 

think just about every FPS law enforcement officer can tell you at 

one time or another about an incident in which contract guards 

have released individuals or failed to pursue individuals. The problems with contract security is, and I am not anti-free enterprise 

here, but they do work for a company, so they do have that added 

pressure of liability towards themselves and the company. They are 

also basically at will employees. An individual can be removed from 

a Federal security contract with no rights at all. So you have individuals that have these concerns and they are basically working a 

day-to-day job without a career. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Wright, FPS inspectors oversee contract security guards, but they are not able to spend much time inside Federal buildings. Do contract security guards generally have a supervisor from the contracting company on site? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. When the agency pays for that supervisor, they 

can be provided on site, the proviso being that they are being paid 

for their hourly wage and contract cost. Otherwise, it has been my 

experience that at least the major companies that I have worked 

with have a roving supervisor that go from one property to another. 

27 

But as far as a supervisor on post, yes, the FPS does pay a premium to have a contract supervisor on post. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Wright, although contract security guards 

are not sworn law enforcement officers, many of them are armed. 

Is FPS able to ensure that contract security guards are well 

trained and vetted before coming on board? Have there been any 

security incidents that you know of involving contract security 

guards? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I think the most notorious security incident was a 

theft of FPS weapons by a contract security guard, and consequently transported to another State for sale. I do know that 

they are vetted. I do know that we do background checks. But as 

I say, these are individuals. When they walk into these jobs, these 

are not really careers. These are day-to-day jobs in which they earn 

a good wage and things happen. I could research on more incidents. 

I just fail to recall any more at this point. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Wright, as you know, very few cities have 

any FPS officers on duty at night and on weekends. Why is night 

and weekend coverage valuable, and how many cities should have 

it? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Night and weekend coverage is valuable. These are 

the times that it is known that surveillance of properties take place 

by criminal or terrorist elements. No one is on duty to watch. Of 

course, we had the recent pipe bomb explosion at the San Diego 

Federal Courthouse. There were no FPS officers on duty at that 

time. That may have been averted by just the patrol or the surveillance. We will probably never know. 

I know of two major cities that have 24/7 patrol, and even at 

that, it is very minimal at this point. As far as the number of cities, 

I have seen several different breakdowns. I think the union recognizes a cut-off of about 22 major cities that need 24/7 coverage. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, FPS plans to move to an inspectorbased workforce, eliminating the police officer position but expecting inspectors to do more law enforcement functions. Could this 

model work if FPS was staffed at the level that inspectors had adequate time for their traditional duties as well as for law enforcement functions, or is there a danger of losing focus on law enforcement activities regardless of the staffing level? 

Mr. WRIGHT. For an all-inspector workforce to work, I think the 

given average now is an inspector could probably work 20 percent 

of his time on law enforcement patrol and response. At least that 

is the agency’s stance. I don’t agree with that. I know that I can 

spend my 40 hours in a week on physical security duties. It would 

be a matter of process. It would be a matter of procedures, getting 

all the regions online, mandating inspectors to go on patrol at certain times, maybe a semi-yearly basis changing duties. It is tough 

to be sitting there conducting physical security duties and then 

have your call for service and respond in that mindset. It is not a 

good mix. 

The original intent of the inspector was you had your police force 

that provided primary law enforcement patrol and response. They 

were out there 40 hours a week. You have your inspectors that are 

conducting assessments, conducting physical security, protecting 

the properties by implementing countermeasures and procedures, 

28 

and then be available when that unexpected demonstration hits, or 

to be available when that bomb threat comes out. 

I would be much more satisfied with a large number of police officers conducting their patrol. I would be much more comfortable 

with that model, but that being said, I guess if you give me 3,000 

or 4,000 inspectors, we could work that out. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you. 

Senator Voinovich, do you have any final questions? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Again, I would go back to my home 

town, and it would be interesting to know how many people actually are doing policemen’s work and how many are doing the inspection work. I would just be interested. 

Who does the threat assessment on these buildings? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Inspectors do threat assessments. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So, somewhere in DHS or FPS, there is a 

file that talks about all the buildings around the country that you 

are responsible for and there is a threat assessment in regard to 

those as to what needs to be done or does not need to be done? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Generally, an inspector is given a list of buildings 

to be responsible for. While I was actively in FPS in Kansas City, 

I had a list generally of 18 to 20 buildings. That seemed to be the 

average for Region 6, although I have heard of regions where individuals are responsible for 60 buildings. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK, but the fact of the matter is that initially, there is somewhere an evaluation of where buildings are located and the threat assessment. I think you would start from 

there. Then is there any kind of a dynamic updating of that on a 

periodic basis to review it, again to determine the threat that 

might be likely there? Can you answer that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We are basically working off the DOJ security assessment, or Department of Justice Federal Building Security Assessment that was accomplished in June 1995. Level 4 is to be inspected every 2 years. Level 3 is to be inspected every 3 years—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. You mean to say that there hasn’t been an 

update to the system since September 11, 2001? My logic tells me 

that somebody would look out across the country at the buildings 

and do another threat assessment. 

Mr. WRIGHT. No. We have basically continued on from when that 

cycle began in 1995. The courthouse is evaluated every 2 years. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to get an 

answer to that question, to know just exactly what the threat assessment is with regard to respective buildings around the country. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I can say that immediately after September 11, 

2001, and it is always baffling how these things work, that a pile 

of money became available for countermeasures. So I do know that 

in the 3 months after September 11, 2001, I was asked what buildings of my building list do I have mandatory countermeasures recommended that I could not get paid for, and when I named those 

buildings and I named those countermeasures, I got them paid for. 

That was September 11, 2001 emergency funds. So there was that 

effort to look at countermeasures that were on record, recommendations that were on record. Beyond that, we have just continued that cycle. 

29 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Who goes out to determine whether or 

not the private contractor that has been hired, in fact, really is getting the job done in terms of securing the facility? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We are talking about contract security guards? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, you have got contract security guards 

that have been hired and your people are the interface—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. With them, but who determines 

whether or not they have an adequate number of people on the job, 

or better yet, where they are placed and other technology or barricades or whatever it is to try and make sure that the building actually is secure? 

Mr. WRIGHT. It is the inspector’s responsibility to come up with 

those recommendations, those lists, and then it is the inspector’s 

responsibility to go to the Building Security Committee, which normally is composed of building tenants, and say, we need a 24-hour 

guard here. We need five more cameras at these positions. We need 

hydraulic vehicle barriers at these doors. And then you—basically, 

you have to sell it to them, and then someone on that Building Security Committee has to come up with the funds somehow, and it 

doesn’t work. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So the money to take care of the problem, 

all that kind of equipment, say a hydraulic barricade like we have 

here for the Senate and all that kind of stuff, that is paid for by 

the General Service Administration? 

Mr. WRIGHT. The General Service Administration can generally 

front the money and then charge it back to the agency in the rent. 

The most successful I have been, besides September 11, 2001 emergency money, is to do an assessment, to do my recommendations, 

and to talk to this Building Security Committee year after year and 

say, it is upcoming on your budget process. It is important that you 

share this security assessment with your superiors. We need the 

funding for this. Beyond that, every agency pays, whether it is 

through the rent or they don’t pay. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So they get together, decide what to do, and 

then they say to their tenants—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. If you want this, then it is going 

to cost so much money. We will put it in and then you guys will 

amortize the cost over a period of time as a part of your rent. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And it is very convoluted and it does not work very 

well at all. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is why I am going back to the General 

Service Administration—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. In terms of if they had that responsibility, then maybe some of that would be more forthcoming. 

I have to tell you something. From what I have heard today, I 

have really got some real concerns about what is going on and I 

think, Mr. Chairman, we have to get some more information here. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, I express the fullest confidence in the officers, 

the employees that we have left. I have confidence in Mr. Schenkel. 

I will say that he and I do have an open line of communication that 

I do not use very often. I am very disappointed when it filters down 

30 

to the regional directors, because what I hear comes out from Mr. 

Schenkel absolutely does not filter down to the ground level. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, get together and talk about it. 

Mr. WRIGHT. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Wright, and each of our witnesses again 

for the time that you spent preparing and presenting this valuable 

testimony to the Subcommittee. Your work will help to improve the 

Federal Protective Service. 

It is clear that FPS must focus on rebuilding its relationship 

with its employees. I hope that FPS will continue to address its 

staffing, training, and morale problems. FPS has an obligation to 

act as a responsible employer. Just as importantly, these workforce 

problems can undermine the security of Federal buildings and put 

Federal workers and members of the public at risk. 

Additionally, I believe we need to begin to look more closely at 

the FPS’s heavy reliance on contract security guards. It is clear 

that FPS does not have enough staff to oversee the contract security guards. Moreover, it concerns me that even the most high-risk 

Federal buildings do not have a single sworn law enforcement officer on site most of the time. Often, having contract workers do Federal employee jobs saves little or no money and it creates very serious risks. I hope that GAO will look closely at this issue in the 

next phase of its review. 

Finally, FPS’s funding should be revised. FPS needs to review its 

rate structure to make it more equitable. I believe that Congress 

should consider an appropriation to cover some of FPS’s expenses 

to ensure that we are investing properly in Federal building security. GAO’s report was eye-opening. It is clear that there is an urgent need to address FPS’s management and operational challenges. This Subcommittee will work to address those challenges. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional 

statements or questions other Members may have. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

31 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

At today’s hearing we will examine challenges facing the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in its mission to protect 9,000 Federal buildings and 1 million Federal employees all across this country that have been detailed in a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and requested by this Committee last year. 

I have no doubt that the men and women working for the Federal Protective Service are dedicated individuals, however, as the GAO report details, the problems at 

FPS are serious. The agency has been forced to grapple with expanding responsibilities following the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the midst of funding shortfalls 

and a shrinking workforce. 

As the GAO report notes, staff levels have decreased by 20 percent since 2004, 

which inevitably contributes to diminished security and an increased risk of crime 

or terrorist attacks at Federal facilities. 

GAO also found that FPS oversight of its contract guard program has continued 

to lag, with some posts not having been inspected in over a year, and that funding 

challenges and poor financial management have handcuffed the FPS—by freezing 

hiring challenges and poor financial management have handcuffed the FPS—by 

freezing hiring and limiting training—and has led to declining morale and safety, 

increased attrition, and poor overall performance. 

Unfortunately, the Administration’s proposals to address the funding and financial management challenges facing the FPS only appear to make the problems 

worse. 

The proposal to eliminate all FPS officers—but not their duties—and move to an 

all inspector-based workforce with responsibilities for both inspection and law enforcement would further strain a workforce already stressed perilously thin. It’s 

hard to imagine how these employees could fulfill the agency’s patrol, response and 

physical security roles simultaneously. 

This plan is also likely to increase the burden on local law enforcement forced to 

respond to incidents at Federal facilities; something FPS seems to have spent little 

time discussing with local law enforcement. 

Some of the problems highlighted in the GAO report need to be addressed by the 

FPS’ customers—other Federal agencies. As the FPS continues to work to secure 

Federal property and personnel, by assessing the physical security of Federal facilities and recommending security countermeasures to address vulnerabilities, Federal 

agencies need to heed FPS’ advice and implement and maintain those countermeasures. 

However, it is also unacceptable that the FPS has allowed security countermeasures it controls, like cameras and metal detectors, to fall into disrepair. 

These problems have not sprung up overnight, and they can’t be fixed overnight, 

but I am committed to working with DHS and the FPS to address the challenges 

highlighted by GAO. 

We should begin by ensuring the agency has the support it needs to fulfill its mission. FPS’ increase of the basic security fee it charges agencies for its services is 

an important first step towards providing financial stability for the agency. 

Now the FPS needs to implement GAO’s recommendations, and develop and implement a strategy and staffing plan, clarify the roles and responsibilities of local 

law enforcement agencies, assess the agency’s methodology for charging fees for 

services, develop standards for measuring performance and improve its ability to 

collect and analyze relevant data. 

I look forward to reviewing the testimony of today’s witnesses: FPS Director Gary 

Schenkel, employees’ representative Inspector David Wright, and U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) representative Mark Goldstein. 

The Federal Protective Service is a crucial, but often overlooked, component of the 

Department of Homeland Security. The shortcomings highlighted by GAO are serious, and it’s important that Congress work with the agency to meet these challenges 

head on. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee, DHS and the 

FPS on these issues. 

32 


44118.001
33 


44118.002
34 


44118.003
35 


44118.004
36 


44118.005
37 


44118.006
38 


44118.007
39 


44118.008
40 


44118.009
41 


44118.010
42 


44118.011
43 


44118.012
44 


44118.013
45 


44118.014
46 


44118.015
47 


44118.016
48 


44118.017
49 


44118.018
50 


44118.019
51 


44118.020
52 


44118.021
53 


44118.022
54 


44118.023
55 


44118.024
56 


44118.025
57 


44118.026
58 


44118.027
59 


44118.028
60 


44118.029
61 


44118.030
62 


44118.031
63 


44118.032
64 


44118.033
65 


44118.034
66 


44118.035
67 


44118.036
68 


44118.037
69 


44118.038
70 


44118.039
71 


44118.040
72 


44118.041
73 


44118.042
74 


44118.043
75 


44118.044
76 


44118.045
77 


44118.046
78 


44118.047
79 


44118.048
80 


44118.049
81 


44118.050
82 


44118.051
83 


44118.052
84 


44118.053
85 


44118.054
86 


44118.055
87 


44118.056
88 


44118.057
89 


44118.058
90 


44118.059
91 


44118.060
92 


44118.061
93 


44118.062
94 


44118.063
95 


44118.064
96 


44118.065
97 

Æ 


44118.066