STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 2000
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today to testify on H.R. 809, the Federal Protective Service Reform Act of 2000. I would especially like to thank Congressman Traficant for taking the time to come to this hearing to discuss his bill.

In Panel II, I would like to welcome Mr. Bob Peck, Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the General Services Administration (GSA); Mr.~Joel Gallay, Deputy Inspector General of GSA; and, in Panel III, I would like to welcome the Honorable Jane Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals located in Wilmington, Delaware; and Mr. Steven Bellew, Vice Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Protective Service Labor Committee.

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been a part of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) of the GSA since 1949. The Public Building Service provides work environments for over one million federal employees nationwide, and serves as a builder, developer, lessor and manager of federally owned and leased properties - properties currently totaling more than 280 million square feet of office, storage and special space. The Public Building Service provides a full range of real estate services, property management, construction and repairs, security services, property disposal and overall portfolio management.

The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995 was a tragic wake-up call as to the need to enhance security at federal office buildings in the United States. Shortly after the incident in Oklahoma City, the President directed the Department of Justice to assess the vulnerability federal office buildings, particularly to acts of terrorism and other forms of violence. A number of other federal entities participated in this process which resulted in a number of recommendations to upgrade security at federal facilities nationwide. These recommendations were described in the Department of Justice's final report issued on June 28, 1995 entitled "Vulnerabilities Assessment of Federal Facilities." Included in the report was the recommendation that consideration should be given to elevating the FPS to a different level within GSA.

The bill we are discussing this morning, H. R. 809, would essentially codify that recommendation by creating a separate service within GSA for the Federal Protective Service. This separate FPS would have its own Commissioner who would have direct command and control authority over the FPS Regional Directors in each of the 11 geographic regions of the GSA.

Currently, the Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Protective Service does not have line authority over the FPS Regional Directors. Rather, the FPS Regional Directors report to the Assistant Regional Administrators for the Public Building Service. The Assistant Regional Administrators in turn report to the Regional Administrators who are responsible to the GSA Administrator directly.

I believe H.R. 809 addresses a serious problem with the current organizational structure in GSA; mainly, the line of command. Although the current Assistant Commissioner of FPS has nearly three decades of law enforcement experience, he can only issue guidance and has no authority over the FPS in the regions.

Also, the FPS Regional Directors often do not have law enforcement experience and they report to a PBS Assistant Regional Administrator or a PBS Regional Administrator who, in all likelihood, do not have law enforcement experience either.

The bill requires that the newly-created Commissioner of the Federal Protective Service and the FPS Regional Directors meet minimum requirements for law enforcement experience.

While creating the Federal Protective Service as a free standing service within GSA, as would occur under H.R. 809, is one way to address this line of command problem, I do not believe this is necessary or prudent. First, I think it is important to clarify that FPS currently performs two functions: security and law enforcement. However, the security function of FPS cannot be easily separated from the real estate function of the Public Building Service. For example, the security function-which includes such activities as the placement of security equipment and technology, building design and operations - should be fully integrated with the building management activities of PBS.

Second, I believe the line of command problem can be best addressed without breaking the link between PBS and FPS. I believe this objective can be achieved by improving the organizational structure of PBS to provide a clear linkage of authority between the Assistant Commissioner of FPS with the Regional Dire actors. However, I do agree that the Assistant Commissioner and Regional Directors should meet certain minimum requirements in terms of law enforcement experience.

I am pleased to see that PBS has undertaken several initiatives to improve the effectiveness of FPS. For instance, I understand that PBS has created a new "Law Enforcement and Security Officer" position which is designed to be uniquely suited to meet the security and law enforcement needs for protecting federal buildings. I would like to hear whatever thoughts our witnesses may have on this initiative.

I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning on how we can provide top-notch security for our federal buildings and whether H.R. 809 accomplishes this goal. In addition, I hope our witnesses will be concise as to what provisions of this bill Congress could conceivably enact in the short time remaining before adjournment. Again, I thank you for coming today and I look forward to your testimony and responses to any questions that may follow.