Federal Protective Service: Cut staffing, raise rates

[error]

House panel questions plan to trim federal guards

By Brittany R. Ballenstedt
bballenstedt@govexec.com

Members of a House committee on Wednesday expressed concerns over a proposal to cut Federal Protective Service staffing and increase fees charged to agencies using FPS' security services.

The plan, discussed at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, is part of President Bush's fiscal 2008 budget proposal. Administration officials recommended cutting the number of FPS law enforcement officers and full-time civilian employees by more than 25 percent, from 1,295 to 950.

Lawmakers noted that this marks the twelve-year anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City. "It reminds us of the extraordinary role of the FPS," said Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the committee.

Michael Jackson, deputy secretary of the Homeland Security Department, said the administration's plan will result in a "refocused workforce" composed mainly of inspectors. Jackson said more responsibilities would be shifted to contract security guards.

"Security at federal facilities will not diminish," Jackson said. "Those services, offered through a contract guard force, will be strengthened with the emphasis on an inspector workforce and a strong contract guard program."

FPS has faced funding challenges since it moved from the General Services Administration to the Homeland Security Department in 2003. In the transition, FPS lost $139 million in subsidies from GSA and now relies on user fees.

Jackson said the proposal will not involve layoffs, but instead will provide employees with opportunities in FPS' parent agency, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, and with DHS at large. They also may be offered voluntary retirement, he said.

"I appreciate that [the proposal] does not involve layoffs in a workforce that has already been thinned enormously," said Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, D-D.C.

But representatives from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Fraternal Order of Police argued that implementing such a plan would leave federal buildings and the nation vulnerable.

Chuck Canterbury, president of NFOP, said shifting officer responsibilities to contractors would significantly hinder security, largely because contractors do not have as much training or experience as FPS officers.

Four FPS officers questioned at the hearing affirmed that contractors have only one week of training and have the same authority as a private citizen to make an arrest. FPS officers, however, are required to undergo rigorous training at one of the four Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in the United States as well as an extensive screening process, Canterbury said.

Committee members also expressed concern that a reduction in FPS police officers would transfer the responsibility of responding to calls from federal agencies to local law enforcement officers.

"Federal funding for local law enforcement programs has been slashed by more than $2 billion," Norton said. "To now ask these same local officers to assume additional federal responsibilities for protecting federal property is adding insult to injury."

Also included in the budget proposal is a plan to increase the user fee agencies pay FPS to supply them with law enforcement officers in their buildings from 39 cents to 57 cents per square foot. This is intended to help FPS recover the estimated costs for providing basic security services.

But Jackson acknowledged that agencies have indicated the higher fee would be a burden, and as a result, committee members questioned whether FPS should be changed from a fee-based organization to one with its own budget.

Jackson said it is much easier for the agency to charge the fees than to rely on one large appropriation. "There are many places in DHS where we are fee-funded," he said. "That's a legitimate way to do business, and it works."

[error]

Lawmakers skeptical of planned Federal Protective Service cuts

By Brittany R. Ballenstedt
bballenstedt@govexec.com

Members of a House committee on Tuesday questioned a proposal to eliminate 249 police officers from the Federal Protective Service.

At a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, lawmakers expressed concern that the Homeland Security Department's plan to establish a "refocused workforce" at FPS, composed mainly of inspectors and contract security guards, would leave federal facilities more vulnerable.

Lawmakers asked FPS Director Gary Schenkel for assurance that the proposal would enable the service to effectively protect federal buildings, even amid the budget shortfalls the agency has faced since moving from the General Services Administration to DHS when it was established in 2003. In the transition, FPS lost $139 million in subsidies from GSA and now relies entirely on fees collected from customer agencies.

Shenkel told committee members the department can effectively protect federal buildings with the proposed workforce. Contract guards "will deter and provide an effective means for responding to immediate situations," he said, "but they still will require the services of a sworn law enforcement officer."

The FPS chief argued that the contract guards, who hold no more authority than an average citizen to make an arrest, would be the first line of defense, while inspectors, who hold officer status, would remain on site at facilities deemed high risk.

But according to David Wright, president of an American Federation of Government Employees local representing FPS employees, inspectors are responsible for conducting studies and making minor repairs to security systems, and have little time for the patrol duties of an FPS officer.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., agreed that inspectors have a much different role than FPS officers, who are responsible for interrogating suspects, preventing crimes, arresting offenders and assisting police during emergency situations.

Lawmakers also stressed their concern about oversight of contractors. DHS Deputy Inspector General Jim Taylor noted reports from his office and the Government Accountability Office that found numerous deficiencies with contract guard qualifications and FPS oversight of these guards.

The audit reports concluded that some of the guards were working without current suitability determinations or with expired certifications. Some lacked the appropriate security clearances and others were noncitizens who did not have work cards with them, Taylor said.

"Inadequate contractor oversight can result in the government paying for services it did not receive, loss of monies resulting from contract deductions due to nonperformance, and placing FPS-protected facilities, employees and facility visitors at risk," Taylor said.

Schenkel said the lack of oversight was largely due to staffing problems, and assured the committee that FPS was making the necessary improvements to ensure its contract security guards met all of the appropriate requirements.

Meanwhile, FPS' proposal also includes a plan to increase the user fee charged to client agencies from 39 cents to 57 cents per square foot, in an attempt to recover estimated costs for providing basic security services. At a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing last month, lawmakers questioned whether FPS should be changed from a fee-based organization to one with its own budget.

Wright recommended that appropriators provide an additional $38 million for FPS in fiscal 2008. He also recommended that the appropriations committees initiate a reprogramming request to DHS that would stop attrition by adequately funding FPS through the end of fiscal 2007.

"The administration has said more times than I can count that we are doing all we can to protect the nation against terrorists and terrorism," Wright said. "I doubt anyone could honestly call this FPS plan 'doing all we can.'"