Senators seek probe of Federal Protective Service budget issues
Lawmakers ask GAO to look into the service’s placement, and its ability to manage contract guards.
Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate budget shortfalls and other management challenges at the Homeland Security Department division responsible for protecting federal facilities.
In a Feb. 20 letter requesting the review, lawmakers noted a July 2004 GAO report on difficulties the Federal Protective Service faced following its transfer to DHS from its previous home, the General Services Administration. They said in some areas, the problems identified "appear to have worsened" since 2004.
They pointed to the budget shortfalls in particular. The Homeland Security Department reported to the Senate Appropriations Committee last year that FPS faced a shortfall of $42 million. Multiple agency sources confirmed that the amount has since grown to more than $80 million.
The protective service, which is housed within DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, has a staff of about 1,500 federal employees, and also manages about 15,000 contract security guards. Agencies reimburse FPS for its services through fees, and late payments are among the causes of the budget shortfall. Some have suggested the fees should be raised.
In addition, lawmakers requested that GAO determine whether it was appropriate to place FPS within ICE, an investigative agency responsible largely for enforcing immigration laws. They also asked if FPS was equipped to fulfill its mission, including whether it was able to manage its large contingent of contract guards.
The letter was signed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the committee; Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking member; Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of a subcommittee on the federal workforce; and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, ranking member of that subcommittee.
GAO and ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is not the only panel that has targeted FPS for additional oversight and investigations. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee places FPS among the oversight priorities listed on its Web site. Multiple sources confirmed that committee is pursuing separate projects to review FPS.
The transportation committee's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management placed a statement on the Web site saying members were "concerned that FPS' placement in [ICE] within DHS will not utilize FPS' capabilities to the fullest." The statement, not endorsed by any particular lawmaker, noted specific concerns "that placing FPS, a fee-for-service account, within ICE's appropriated account, has contributed to financial confusion and potential mismanagement."
The House subcommittee will monitor FPS' management, policies and requirements for security at public buildings, the committee Web site said.
FPS' budget issues have raised concerns about a possible downsizing. Voluntary retirement packages offered last year failed to entice as many employees to leave as hoped, multiple agency sources said, and it is possible that FPS will eliminate hundreds of its police jobs in the coming fiscal year. ICE officials have said FPS workers whose jobs are targeted for elimination will have opportunities to work elsewhere within ICE.