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