Shift of Federal Protective Service to DHS called 'lethal'

House lawmakers have expressed concern that the Federal Protective Service's placement in the Homeland Security Department might have caused budget and staffing problems resulting in dangerous security gaps.

The Government Accountability Office presented to lawmakers on Wednesday a report on the ability of FPS to meet its mission to protect 9,000 federal facilities. It stated the agency's management of dwindling budget and staffing levels "diminished security at facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks." Formerly a component of the General Services Administration, FPS became part of DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau when the agency was created in 2003.

The report's author, Mark Goldstein, GAO's director of physical infrastructure issues, told the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management that virtually everyone auditors interviewed said the Federal Protective Service should not be a part of ICE because it wasn't getting its fair share of resources. Recommendations for proper placement varied, he said, but included returning the agency to GSA or moving it to another sector of Homeland Security, such as the Office of Infrastructure Protection.

Goldstein said FPS officers told GAO that the treatment they received was inferior to that of others law enforcement officials at ICE.

"There seems to be a bit of a second-class system, if you will, between ICE officers and FPS officers, according to various people in the field," Goldstein said. "They felt they're not being treated commensurate with other ICE officers in terms of pay, in terms of training and opportunity, and those kinds of things."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., chairwoman of the subcommittee, called the transfer of FPS to ICE "perhaps a fatal placement," which caused a "cosmic change" in terms of both staffing and funding management. She was especially concerned with disparate treatment of law enforcement officers within ICE.

"It's truly lethal to put police forces together, then make those distinctions," Norton said.

Goldstein said GAO was planning a systematic review of why FPS was placed within ICE, and the second phase of its investigation will focus in part on whether it should be moved.

The second phase also will include a review of the contract guard program, Goldstein said. The report showed that oversight of the 15,000-strong contract force was lacking, and some guard posts were inspected as infrequently as every 12 to 18 months.

The investigation of the contract guard program will include a review of liability issues. GAO reported that some contract guards refused to use their authority to detain individuals at federal facilities due to liability concerns, but Goldstein told the subcommittee he was unsure of the viability of these concerns or the legal ramifications for contract guards who exercised their authority.

FPS Director Gary Schenkel said the agency was making strategic shifts to improve its ability to fulfill its mission. He highlighted the move to workforce made up exclusively of inspectors rather than law enforcement officers and inspectors.

Schenkel said the shift will allow the agency to retain law enforcement authority while completing other responsibilities such as building security assessments and oversight of the contract guard program.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia will hold a hearing on Thursday to review the GAO report and hear witness testimony.