Congressman Doyle Calls for Review of Homeland Security Screening Process

Congressman Doyle Calls for Review of Homeland Security Screening Process

Washington, DC - August 3, 2006 - U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) called today for Congressional review of the process that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security uses to screen people who work in federal buildings.

"It seems to me that Homeland Security should use more common sense and treat Americans with more consideration," Congressman Doyle said today in releasing these letters. "Instead, it appears that DHS has taken the dictum ‘shoot first and ask questions later' a little too much to heart."

Two of Congressman Doyle's constituents, Judith Miller and Mary Broughton, after having both worked for decades in the William S. Moorhead Federal Building cafeteria, were deemed "unsuitable for employment in a federal building" by the Department of Homeland Security several weeks ago. Congressman Doyle and his staff worked successfully with these women to file an appeal with the Department of Homeland Security and have their "unsuitable" determinations promptly overturned.

"After seeing what Judy Miller and Mary Broughton went through, I want to make sure that the DHS security screening process works better in the future," Congressman Doyle observed. "That's why I've written to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee with jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security and asked that they review the way these background checks are conducted."

"These ladies clearly posed no threat to security at the federal building, and a single phone could have cleared up the questions arising from their background checks," Congressman Doyle said. "But what happened? They were told they couldn't work there anymore and escorted out of the building. In the blink of an eye, they lost their livelihoods - and only after my office intervened did they get their jobs back."

"These ladies lost two weeks' pay before they were reinstated," Congressman Doyle observed. "Needless to say, Homeland Security didn't compensate them for their economic loss or the embarrassment and frustration they suffered as a result of this incident. I want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security treats decent, hardworking Americans more fairly in the future."

The full text of these letters follows:

I wanted to make you aware of the recent experiences that two of my constituents have had with the Department of Homeland Security -- and ask you to make sure that decent, hardworking Americans are being fairly treated by DHS when it conducts security background checks on them.

Judith Miller and Mary Broughton have each worked in the cafeteria of the William S. Moorhead federal building in downtown Pittsburgh for decades. They are excellent employees and are clearly no threat to national security. Nevertheless, on July 5, they were informed that the Federal Protective Service had deemed them "unsuitable" to work in a federal building. They were escorted from the building and told they could no longer work in the cafeteria. They were given a letter informing them that they could appeal the decision and that if they wanted to do so, they could call a phone number at the FPS.

Over the next several days, these women called that number several times and left messages, but no one returned their calls. We subsequently learned that the person at that phone number was on vacation. These women, like many other Americans who might find themselves in similar situations, live paycheck to paycheck, and having to wait several days to begin the appeals process caused them serious financial loss.

After several days, when they didn't receive any response from DHS, they contacted my office and asked for help in filing their appeals. My staff contacted the DHS congressional liaison office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and received a very brusque response. The Congressional liaison staffer handling the case seemed offended that a Member of Congress would have the effrontery to act as an ombudsman for one of his constituents. He refused to provide my staff with any information about the appeals process, and only told my staff repeatedly that the women would have to file an appeal. Not satisfied with this response, and with no one yet answering the phone at the number the women had been given, I personally called the DHS Congressional liaison for ICE. I received a much more positive and helpful response from DHS than my staff did. DHS staff offered to look into the case and monitor the progress of the appeals process. From this point on, my staff's treatment by DHS personnel improved markedly, and the women's appeal was processed and satisfactorily resolved within a week.

My constituents have had their "unsuitable" determination overturned, and they have returned to work. Their employer has decided to pay them their back wages. They are being made whole -- not counting, of course, the distress that this episode caused them over the last two and half weeks. The attached articles provide additional information about this case.

I am deeply concerned, however, that many other decent, hard-working Americans may find themselves in a similar situation, not think to ask for Congressional assistance, and end up losing their jobs. I was dismayed by my constituents' treatment in this affair -- especially since a single phone call to each woman could have cleared up the concerns that FPS had about their backgrounds. This experience has left me with the strong impression that FPS should revise its procedures for conducting background checks on people who work on federal property. I would greatly appreciate it if the Homeland Security Committee would review this process, determine whether problems like those experienced by my constituents are widespread, and take appropriate measures to make this process less of an ordeal for the millions of Americans who may go through it in the future.

While these background checks and the appeals process may seem routine and unexceptional to the people at FPS who conduct them, they often appear quite mysterious and intimidating to people who don't spend their lives dealing with secretive bureaucracies. Moreover, the consequences of an adverse determination can be devastating.

I don't think that a Member of Congress should have to intervene in order for DHS to treat American citizens fairly. At the very least, I would think that DHS would give Americans the courtesy of a phone call before it denies them their livelihoods. In addition, since many of these people can ill afford to miss even one week's pay, it seems to me that FPS appeal information lines should always be staffed during the regular work week. FPS might also consider providing all of the information and forms necessary to file an appeal with each letter identifying someone as unsuitable for employment on federal property. In addition, given that the financial impact that even a week out of work would have on many workers, Congress might want to look at how long it is taking FPS to process such appeals. Finally, it appears that FPS might want to encourage its employees to treat other Americans with a little courtesy and respect. A thoughtful review of this process would probably suggest other reforms that are called for as well.

In closing, I want to reiterate my strong concern that the FPS background check system as it is currently operating may be causing an unacceptable level of "collateral damage." On behalf of my constituents and an unknown number of Americans who have seen their lives disrupted and damaged by an arbitrary and unresponsive government agency, I urge you to carefully review this matter. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

http://www.house.gov/doyle/newsrel/060803_screening.htm