Building Security: Interagency Security Committee Has Had Limited Success in Fulfilling Its Responsibilities
Released: 2002-09-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The federal government owns or leases more than 3.2 billion square feet of space in 12 categories, such as office, housing, and storage space. Office space is the largest of the 12 categories, representing about 23 percent of the total, or about 758 million square feet. The three largest holders of owned and leased office space are GSA, with about 292 million square feet; defense agencies, with about 191 million square feet; and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), with about 190 million square feet. In addition to these three agencies, over 30 other executive branch organizations have some level of authority to purchase, own, or lease office space or buildings. (See app. II for a listing of these organizations.) In general, agencies are responsible for the security of the buildings they own or acquire. GSA assigns space to many federal agencies in GSA-owned or -leased space; for example, postal facilities are sometimes located in GSA space. GSA sometimes delegates the security responsibility for assigned space to the agency occupying that space.

Federal agencies provide security with their own police force or security personnel; by contracting with the private sector for security; or by using another agency to provide security, which in turn may provide security with federal employees or contract guards. Within GSA, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), which is currently a component of the Public Buildings Service (PBS), is responsible for primary security for GSA- owned or -leased properties. FPS may delegate this responsibility to agencies assigned space in a GSA building. The bills currently being considered by Congress to create DHS would transfer FPS and its functions from GSA to DHS. It is unclear whether FPS’s responsibilities would remain the same under DHS or would be expanded to include more than just GSA-owned or -leased properties, although H.R. 5005, as passed by the House of Representatives, would specifically give DHS the responsibility to protect buildings and grounds and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the federal government, including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership government corporation. In addition, the U. S. Secret Service provides security for the White House complex and certain other executive branch buildings. The Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police provide security for the Supreme Court; however, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) U. S. Marshals Service (USMS) and GSA provide security for other federal courts, which may be located in federal office buildings that house several federal agencies. The U.S. Capitol Police are responsible for the security of the Capitol complex, including the Capitol and House and Senate office buildings; but GSA is responsible for the security of office space it provides to Members in their home states or districts.

According to an FPS official, FPS had a staff on board of approximately 1,135, consisting of approximately 574 uniformed officers, 108 physical security specialists, and 453 administrative and other personnel. FPS’s fiscal year 2002 budget is $362.1 million, of which about $207 million is spent on contract guard services. Additionally, GSA is slated to spend over $300 million more from its reimbursable program for contract guard services, according to the official. This total of over $500 million for contract guard services will fund approximately 7,300 contract guards according to the FPS official.

The day after the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building, the president directed DOJ to assess the vulnerability of federal office buildings in the United States, particularly to acts of terrorism and other forms of violence. On June 28, 1995, DOJ issued a report entitled Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities. In this report, DOJ included security levels designated I through V for office buildings (see app. III for the definitions of these security levels), minimum security standards for office buildings, and, as one of its recommendations, the creation of ISC to provide a permanent body to address continuing governmentwide security concerns.

Prior to 1995 there were no governmentwide standards for security at federal buildings. On October 19, 1995, Executive Order 12977 established ISC to develop, among other things, such standards for buildings and facilities occupied by federal employees for nonmilitary activities. The committee was to be made up of the Administrator, GSA; representatives from the 14 department-level agencies; EPA; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); OMB; the Director, USMS; the Assistant Commissioner, FPS, GSA; the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; the Director, Security Policy Board. The executive order specified that the GSA Administrator or his designee was to chair the committee. The President reserved the right to appoint other federal employees to the committee. FPS was designated to provide administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services for ISC to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Also subject to these provisions, other executive departments and agencies were charged with helping to support ISC.

ISC was established to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security in and protection of buildings and facilities in the United States that are occupied by federal employees for nonmilitary activities, and to provide a permanent body to address continuing governmentwide security for federal facilities. ISC’s responsibilities are to: establish policies for security in and protection of federal facilities; develop and evaluate security standards for federal facilities, develop a strategy for ensuring compliance with such standards, and oversee the implementation of appropriate security measures in federal facilities; and take such actions as may be necessary to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security and protection of federal facilities, including but not limited to: encouraging agencies with security responsibilities to share security- related intelligence in a timely and cooperative manner; assessing technology and information systems as a means of providing cost-effective improvements to security in federal facilities; developing long-term construction standards for those locations with threat levels or missions that require blast-resistant structures or other specialized security requirements; evaluating standards for the location of, and special security related to, day care centers in federal facilities; and assisting the GSA Administrator in developing and maintaining a centralized security database of all federal facilities.

The order also directs the GSA Administrator, through FPS, to be responsible for monitoring federal agencies’ compliance with ISC’s policies and recommendations.

ISC Has Made Limited Progress Implementing Its Responsibilities

ISC has carried out some elements of its responsibilities, but it has made little progress on several other responsibilities given to it by the executive order. ISC has issued two formal products. The first, ISC Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects (ISC Security Design Criteria), was issued in May 2001. This document contains physical security–design and construction criteria and standards for federal buildings. The second product, issued in July 2001, is Minimum Standards for Federal Building Access Procedures. In 1997 ISC disseminated information on entry security technology for buildings with high security designations to member agencies for their consideration and implementation, if applicable; and it developed a draft report on preparedness for nuclear, biological, and chemical events. ISC also has been a forum for federal agencies to discuss security-related issues and share information and ideas. However, for a number of reasons, it has not accomplished several elements of its responsibilities. ISC has no governmentwide data on the extent to which it has enhanced the quality and effectiveness of federal facility security since its inception, although this was one of its major objectives. Consequently, several ISC participants believe it has not been very effective or has not lived up to its potential.

ISC records show that ISC established 13 working groups between December 1995 and April 2002, but 11 of 13 working groups were inactive in July 2002. At its initial meeting in December 1995, 9 working groups were established within ISC. Eight of these working groups addressed the various responsibilities identified in Executive Order 12977; the ninth group was to focus on funding issues. In 1996, an existing working group was split into 2 groups; the new working group was called “information systems and centralized database,” and it became the tenth working group. A new working group, the eleventh, was also formed to focus on protective forces at federal facilities. Further, as the result of congressional testimony we delivered on security breaches, the twelfth working group was established in 2000 to develop guidelines to improve building access procedures. Finally, in April 2002, ISC established its thirteenth working group to focus on the security of leased space.

Table 1 shows the areas of responsibility, the working groups established, and products drafted or issued in each area. As the table indicates, two products were issued by ISC and two draft products, one addressing entry security technology and the other preparedness for nuclear, biological, and chemical events, were not officially issued by ISC. However, ISC disseminated the product on entry security to participating agencies for implementation, if appropriate. GSA’s ISC records do not indicate what happened to the other product.

ISC members and participating agencies have identified various strengths and weaknesses with the way in which ISC is structured and has operated. As examples of ISC’s strengths, several representatives from agencies that attend ISC meetings identified the coordination, communication, and sharing of information among agencies on security issues; the ability to bring together diverse security and related expertise to address problems; and the ability to interface with the private sector.

The reported weaknesses could help explain why ISC has made limited progress toward meeting some of the responsibilities given to it by the executive order. Agency representatives identified several weaknesses, including a lack of consistent and aggressive leadership by GSA and inadequate staff support and funding, that they said have limited ISC’s effectiveness. GSA’s lack of aggressive leadership and support were illustrated by the following: No charter or operating procedures been issued. The ISC perceived the need for a charter and operating procedures, and ISC meeting minutes in 1997 indicated that a charter was ready for the GSA Administrator’s signature and that GSA would draft standard operating procedures to implement the charter. Nevertheless, we found no record of an approved charter or any operating procedures. Several ISC participants expressed concerns about ISC’s decisionmaking. These concerns included their perception of ISC’s difficulty in making decisions, the lack of agreed-upon policies and procedures on voting and decisionmaking, and the limited amount of influence given to smaller agencies as compared with the larger ones.

Although ISC has met 14 times since its inception in 1995, no meetings were held for an approximately 18 month period, from November 1998 to June 2000.

GSA assigned one FPS staff member to support ISC for the past several years, and this individual supported ISC only on a part-time basis, in addition to his other duties. According to this individual, ISC had no independent funding. According to a former GSA official involved with ISC, the lack of sufficient staff support and budget have adversely affected ISC’s success.

Some ISC representatives point to the long time it took GSA to issue security design criteria as an example of GSA’s lack of leadership and support. Although the design criteria were unanimously approved by ISC (including GSA) in 1998, they were not officially released until May 2001. The former GSA official who delayed issuance of the security design criteria said that although he did not know whether he had the authority to delay issuance, he did so because he believed that the criteria were too prescriptive and would adversely affect GSA’s ability to obtain properties. According to this official, GSA also did not establish clear lines of authority within GSA concerning ISC, and did not try hard enough to make ISC work. In 1997, ISC agreed to seek full membership for the USPS and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The ISC Chairman agreed to initiate the process of formally accepting these two as new members. Although representatives from the USPS and SSA served on working groups, they could not vote on ISC issues because the executive order creating ISC did not specify these agencies as members. Although a GSA official told us that this issue was discussed with OMB, he said that GSA did not follow through on having the executive order changed to add new members because GSA perceived it as a long, drawn-out process.

Although ISC issued annual reports for 1996 and 1997 discussing such matters as security enhancements at federal buildings and the status of various ISC working groups, it has not issued annual reports for the years after 1997—limiting information about ISC efforts. Furthermore, we found no evidence that ISC has established performance goals or measures that would enable it to determine the extent to which one of its major objectives—enhancing the quality and effectiveness of federal facility security—has been achieved.

We found no records, and, when asked, GSA was unable to provide any documents indicating that either GSA or ISC monitored federal agency compliance with ISC’s policies and recommendations, even though both had been charged with this responsibility.

More recently, under GSA’s leadership, ISC has recognized that its success had been constrained by a number of factors; it has been working to revitalize the committee to meet its responsibilities in light of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At a December 2001 conference and in a December 2001 follow-up letter, a GSA official stated that GSA is committed to reinvigorating ISC. On April 26 and June 27, 2002, ISC had the first two business meetings in its revitalization effort. At these meetings, ISC identified the need to address general ISC issues, such as a charter, voting protocol, and a new membership process. It also discussed ISC operating procedures and agreed to meet quarterly unless an emergency meeting were needed. GSA announced that it was seeking a full-time staff person to plan and coordinate ISC’s efforts.

On the programmatic side, in December 2001, GSA, ISC and the American Institute of Architects participated in a conference entitled Better Security-Better Design. At its April and June 2002 business meetings, ISC established a working group to develop security standards for leased space, and GSA and the State Department agreed to share their alert systems with the other agencies; ISC representatives also discussed a number of topics, such as creating one document that would provide security criteria for new buildings, existing buildings, child care centers, and leased space, and reducing duplication of effort between ISC and other groups in the government looking at security issues.

Implications of the Creation of DHS on ISC

The creation of a DHS would have significant implications for ISC and its responsibilities. While the need for ISC, or an organization like ISC, would likely continue with the creation of a DHS, leadership responsibility for ISC could shift from GSA to DHS, and ISC’s responsibilities, role, membership and operation could change.

Concerning ISC’s continued existence, the need for an organization like ISC would likely continue for several reasons. The proposed legislation by the President and both houses of Congress calls for DHS’s mission to include security for and protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Over 30 federal agencies have authority to own or acquire real property for which they have security-related responsibilities. Various agencies, such as the Departments of the Treasury (Treasury) and Veterans Affairs (VA), have independent police forces. It would be difficult for DHS to develop and implement policies and standards for the security of federal facilities without the participation and assistance of the federal organizations that own and occupy the facilities, given their large number, their variety, and their dispersion.

The President’s DHS proposal as well as the DHS bills being considered in Congress would move FPS from GSA to DHS. With respect to the ISC’s leadership, such a move would likely mean that the ISC chairmanship would shift from GSA to DHS if FPS were moved, since GSA would no longer have the security role of FPS. Should this occur, DHS could decide to seek a change in ISC’s role, or the law creating DHS could necessitate changes in ISC’s role. The President’s proposal and S. 2452 did not specifically address whether DHS’s security responsibilities for facilities would include more than just buildings that are GSA-owned or -occupied. However, H.R. 5005, as passed by the House of Representatives, provides that the DHS Secretary “shall protect the buildings, grounds and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed- ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.” This could include facilities controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), Congress, and the Judiciary. Thus, if such a provision were included in the legislation that is enacted, DHS would have significantly greater authority and responsibility than GSA currently has for federal property security, and the nature of the relationship between the ISC Chair and ISC member agencies would change. This is because the GSA Administrator currently does not have direct authority or responsibility for security for federal property that GSA does not own or acquire by lease; under H.R. 5005, the DHS secretary would have direct authority and responsibility for security governmentwide. Moreover, the DHS Secretary, in consultation with the GSA Administrator, could issue and enforce policies and standards governmentwide; the GSA Administrator needs the auspices of ISC to do this for buildings not under GSA’s control.

It appears that ISC’s role after DHS is established would depend largely on the role that DHS’s authorizing legislation assigns to DHS for federal facility security, which differs in pending legislation, as well as how DHS would decide to use the ISC or groups similar to ISC. For example, if DHS were given direct overall responsibility for the full range of federal security functions, it would appear that ISC or a similar group would play more of an advisory/information-sharing role. On the other hand, if DHS were directly responsible for security only for GSA-owned and -leased space, then the ISC or a similar group might continue to make decisions for other owned or leased space. In addition, the specific nature of the responsibilities given to DHS would affect the ISC. For example, DHS’s responsibilities for federal facility security could include one or more of the following: policymaking, standard setting, decisionmaking, training, planning, information/intelligence sharing, providing day-to-day security protection, and oversight. The challenge of having DHS be directly responsible for all of these functions for all federal facilities would have to be considered. For those functions given to DHS, it would have to decide which functions it would perform, which ones it might delegate to the organization previously responsible, and which ones would be appropriate for an organization like the ISC. The specific language of the final legislation creating DHS and how it addresses this issue would obviously affect ISC’s future role.

Another possible responsibility ISC could have under a newly established DHS would be to assist DHS in carrying out the initiatives contained in the July 2002 Office of Homeland Security’s National Strategy for Homeland Security as they relate to critical infrastructure. For example, ISC could assist in performing and maintaining a complete and accurate assessment of the nation’s critical federal facilities and related infrastructure and in developing a national infrastructure protection plan for federal facilities. According to the strategy, this would include establishing standards and benchmarks for infrastructure protection and providing a means for measuring performance as related to federal facilities. In addition, the ISC could have a role in assisting DHS to carry out its intelligence-related responsibilities, including the sharing of threat and risk information, as they relate to federal facilities.

Still another responsibility that could be considered for ISC is the security protection that is provided to executive branch officials. In July 2000, we reported that responsibility for this was divided among many agencies, and no single agency or official was responsible for handling issues related to the routine protection of these officials. We said that from fiscal years 1997 through 1999, agencies reported that personnel from 27 different agencies protected officials holding 42 executive branch positions in 31 executive branch agencies. The problems we found included lack of specific statutory authority to provide protection, lack of standardized threat assessments and training, and lack of a federal organization responsible for overseeing this function on a governmentwide basis. We recommended that the OMB Director, in consultation with the President, designate an official or group to assess issues related to security protection for executive branch officials. In early 2002, an OMB representative told us that OMB had not yet acted on our recommendation and that the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) might be the appropriate organization to handle this issue. Thus, this could also be an appropriate responsibility for DHS and ISC.

After ISC’s future role and responsibilities are determined, such issues as membership, operating procedures, and funding and support needs would have to be assessed. These could entail looking at the factors and issues that we and the agency representatives had identified as contributing to limited progress by ISC as it has existed prior to DHS, to see whether the actions initiated by GSA addressed them sufficiently or needed to be modified or enhanced. These include ISC’s charter, operating procedures, decisionmaking process, membership, meeting schedule, funding and support, and performance goals and measures. For example, if DHS becomes responsible for all the facilities provided in H.R. 5005, it may be appropriate to add other organizations besides the USPS and SSA to ISC, including government corporations. For another example, GSA has said that it was seeking a full-time staff member to support ISC. DHS would have to determine whether one person would be sufficient to meet DHS’s objectives and schedule for ISC.

Another important responsibility that would have to be considered is integration between security and the facility management functions. Under DHS proposals, DHS would be responsible for property security, but GSA and other agencies with authority to own or acquire space would retain their responsibilities for such functions as choosing facility locations and building design and operation. In addition, agencies will still have to ensure that each property adequately and effectively supports the mission of the occupying agency or other government entity and that any security systems, procedures, or devices implemented at a facility do not materially hamper the ability of the entity to carry out its mission effectively.

We and a GSA official have both testified that security is a key facilities management function: security needs to be integrated into decisions about location, design and operation of federal facilities. Further, in testifying on a proposal to make FPS a separate service within GSA, GSA stated that such an action would divorce security from other federal facility functions. According to GSA, separating FPS from PBS would create an organizational barrier between protection experts and the PBS asset managers, planners, and other staff who set PBS budgets and policies for GSA’s building inventory. GSA said that FPS’s budget, personnel actions, and operational focus have been centralized to yield results that are better than if FPS were separate. Additional concerns were raised about security and the facilities management function in a November 1999 Symposium on Security and the Design of Public Buildings, which was jointly sponsored by GSA and the Department of State (DOS) in cooperation with the American Institute of Architects. Presenters concluded that public building design processes must find innovative ways to improve security and protect American values without creating a fortress image. Thus, if DHS becomes responsible for the security of federal facilities, DHS would likely not only need a mechanism like ISC to work with GSA and other federal entities on security-related matters; it would also need a way to ensure that building security and other facility management functions are integrated. An organization like ISC that comprises the affected entities could serve to promote such integration.

Finally, in commenting on a draft of this report, DOS’s Senior Advisor in DOS’s Office of Diplomatic Security raised another issue he believed would be relevant for DHS’s creation. This issue related to the existing delegations of authority from GSA to various agencies that enable them to provide their own facility protection. He believes that these delegations are important elements of the government’s efforts to protect its facilities that ISC and DHS need to consider.

Conclusions

Although ISC has carried out some of its responsibilities, it has made little progress on others, and several participants believe that its progress has been limited. Agency officials and ISC participants identified factors and issues in areas such as membership, leadership, charter, operating procedures, decisionmaking processes, meeting frequency, and staffing and funding support that they believe have limited ISC’s progress. We also noted that ISC lacks performance goals and measures. GSA has acknowledged the lack of consistent and aggressive leadership by GSA, inadequate staff support and funding for the ISC, and ISC’s difficulty in making decisions and has initiated efforts to address them. However, it is too early to tell whether these efforts will be sufficient.

With the potential creation of a DHS, the need for ISC, or an organization like ISC, would likely continue. The creation of DHS would have significant implications for ISC and its responsibilities. ISC’s leadership, responsibilities, role, membership, and operation could change. To deal with these possible changes, the factors and issues that affected ISC’s progress prior to the creation of DHS should be considered, including the extent to which GSA has addressed these issues. DHS’s creation and assignment of responsibility for federal facility security would also necessitate the need to consider how best to integrate facility security and the other facility management functions. Further, DHS’s creation would raise the issue whether DHS and ISC should be given responsibility for security protection for executive branch officials. Finally, how Congress ultimately decides upon DHS’s role for federal facility security in any legislation to create DHS would have significant implications for ISC, DHS, and other federal agencies.

Recommendations for Executive Action

In the short term, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA work with ISC to ensure that actions are effectively implemented to correct the problems identified with ISC in this report. Furthermore, given that OMB is a current member of ISC and has been given responsibility for heading the government’s efforts to help establish DHS, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with DHS, GSA, and other appropriate entities to ensure that the issues our review has identified are addressed by the appropriate agency or agencies that will have the responsibility of overseeing the protection of federal facilities and executive branch officials.

Matter for Congressional Consideration

As Congress continues its deliberations on proposed legislation creating DHS, it may want to clarify DHS’s jurisdiction with respect to the federal organizations under its purview and the specific security-related functions for which it is responsible. Federal organizations under DHS’s jurisdiction could range from, exclusively, the federal buildings now under GSA’s control to all facilities owned, occupied, or secured by the federal government. Limiting DHS’s jurisdiction to exclusively GSA-controlled properties would leave out many nonmilitary facilities, while extending it to all property owned or occupied by the federal government would be an enormous undertaking. The functions for which DHS could assume responsibility could include policy and standard setting, training, information and intelligence sharing, planning and oversight, and the actual provision of security services. In deciding which security-related functions DHS should be responsible for providing, two factors for Congress to consider are the need for integrating the security function with the day-to-day management of the facility and the challenge that would be associated with providing day-to-day security for all federally owned, occupied, or secured facilities.

Scope and Methodology

To achieve our objective of determining whether ISC had fulfilled the duties and responsibilities established by the executive order, we reviewed Executive Order 12977, the minutes of ISC meetings, and available products developed by ISC. We also interviewed 17 of 21 members and participating nonmembers of ISC; FPS officials; and both current and former GSA officials. Further, we attended the December 2001 and the April and June 2002 ISC meetings. We did not interview the Central Intelligence Agency’s officials, because the agency declined to participate in our assignment. Also, we did not interview the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs because, being new to the position, this person had limited knowledge of ISC and its past efforts. Further, our report does not reflect any comments from OMB about ISC’s current or past operations, because an OMB official said that OMB had not attended meetings in the past several years and did not have time-relevant information to provide us on these matters. We did not interview the Director of the Security Policy Board because it has been abolished. Further, responses from several agencies were limited by the fact that ISC representatives were new or had not attended meetings in several years. Our review of ISC accomplishments was constrained by the lack of detailed ISC records after 1997 and by the turnover of agency personnel who participated in ISC activities. Thus, our reporting of accomplishments was based on available ISC records and the recollections of those persons whom we interviewed who had varying lengths of experience with ISC.

To determine the implications of the creation of DHS on ISC, we reviewed the President’s proposal to create DHS, proposed legislation that would create DHS, the OHS’s July 2002 National Strategy, Executive Order 13267, and our July 2001 report on security protection for executive branch officials. We also discussed this issue with representatives from OMB, GSA, and OHS.

We conducted our review of ISC between December 2001 and July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We received written responses from 3 agencies; oral or E-mail comments from 14 agencies; and 4 agencies did not respond. The comments are discussed in the following section.

Agency Comments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the OMB Director, the Administrator of GSA, OHS’s General Counsel, and ISC agencies participating in our review. We received written responses on our draft report from the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and from SSA. HHS had no comments. HUD and SSA generally agreed with the report’s conclusions and recommendations. We received oral or E-mail responses on our draft report from GSA; the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC); DOD; DOJ; DOS; Treasury; VA; the Departments of Education (Education), Energy (DOE), Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), and Agriculture (USDA); OMB; and USPS. GSA, DOE, DOL, USDA, USPS, and VA concurred with the information in our report. AOUSC, Education, DOD, DOJ, DOT, and Treasury had no comments. OMB agreed with our recommendation and suggested technical changes that we have made. DOS raised several issues, which we discuss below. The DOC, Interior, EPA, and OHS did not provide comments on the report.

GSA’s Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service said that he concurred with our recommendation and our view that a full resolution of the ISC issues we identified depended on the mission and authorities given to DHS. He also said that GSA would seek ISC member comments on our report at its next meeting and would consult with OMB officials and the DHS transition planning office to address the future role of the ISC within the context of DHS.

SSA’s Commissioner raised two issues that SSA believes the ISC needs to consider. These are the role of the federal facilities building security committees and the need to integrate the term “force protection” into the ISC charter and operating procedures. While these issues may be reasonable for ISC to consider, we did not address them in our review and are not in a position to discuss them definitively. (See app. V.)

DOS’s Senior Advisor in the Office of Diplomatic Security raised a question about our discussion that the ISC assume some role in security protection of executive branch officials, considering the ISC’s responsibility for facility security. Our discussion on this issue related to both DHS and ISC. If DHS is created, a role in the protection of executive branch officials may be appropriate. He also suggested that we provide the basis for this discussion in this report. The basis is discussed in our report and relates to work we have previously reported on in a separate review. He also expressed concern about the lack of reference in our report to GSA’s delegation of authority to various agencies, to enable them to provide their own facility protection. Although our report pointed out these delegations, we have modified it to reflect his concern. He also recommended a technical change, which we have made.

DOS’s Director of the Office of Domestic Operations said that offices responsible for safety and security often have opposing views and that, in his opinion, any mechanism established to integrate security into federal facilities should include safety offices. We did not address this issue in our review and are therefore not in a position to comment on it. He also pointed out the there are other entities currently working on federal facility security issues, such as the Physical Security Working Group and the Protective Forces Working Group, which should be included under the DHS or ISC umbrella or should have a specific separate mandate. While we did not address the roles of these two groups, this appears to be a reasonable issue for DHS or ISC to address.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, other appropriate congressional committees, the Director of OMB, the Administrator of GSA, OHS, and other interested organizations. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact Ron King or me at (202) 512-2834. Major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Executive Order 12977 of October 19, 1995

The President Interagency Security Committee By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security in and protection of buildings and facilities in the United States occupied by Federal employees for nonmilitary activities (‘‘Federal facilities’’), and to provide a permanent body to address continuing government-wide security for Federal facilities, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Establishment. There is hereby established within the executive branch the Interagency Security Committee (‘‘Committee’’). The Committee shall consist of: (a) the Administrator of General Services (‘‘Administrator’’); (b) representatives from the following agencies, appointed by the agency heads: (1) Department of State; (2) Department of the Treasury; (3) Department of Defense; (4) Department of Justice; (5) Department of the Interior; (6) Department of Agriculture; (7) Department of Commerce; (8) Department of Labor; (9) Department of Health and Human Services; (10) Department of Housing and Urban Development; (11) Department of Transportation; (12) Department of Energy; (13) Department of Education; (14) Department of Veterans Affairs; (15) Environmental Protection Agency; (16) Central Intelligence Agency; and (17) Office of Management and Budget; (c) the following individuals or their designees: (1) the Director, United States Marshals Service; (2) the Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Protective Service of the Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (‘‘Assistant Commissioner’’); (3) the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; and (4) the Director, Security Policy Board; and (d) such other Federal employees as the President shall appoint. Sec. 2. Chair. The Committee shall be chaired by the Administrator, or the designee of the Administrator. Sec. 3. Working Groups. The Committee is authorized to establish interagency working groups to perform such tasks as may be directed by the Committee. Sec. 4. Consultation. The Committee may consult with other parties, including the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to perform its responsibilities under this order, and, at the discretion of the Committee, such other parties may participate in the working groups. Sec. 5. Duties and Responsibilities. (a) The Committee shall: (1) establish policies for security in and protection of Federal facilities; (2) develop and evaluate security standards for Federal facilities, develop a strategy for ensuring compliance with such standards, and oversee the implementation of appropriate security measures in Federal facilities; and (3) take such actions as may be necessary to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security and protection of Federal facilities, including but not limited to: (A) encouraging agencies with security responsibilities to share security- related intelligence in a timely and cooperative manner; (B) assessing technology and information systems as a means of providing cost-effective improvements to security in Federal facilities; (C) developing long-term construction standards for those locations with threat levels or missions that require blast resistant structures or other specialized security requirements; (D) evaluating standards for the location of, and special security related to, day care centers in Federal facilities; and (E) assisting the Administrator in developing and maintaining a centralized security database of all Federal facilities. Sec. 6. Agency Support and Cooperation. (a) Administrative Support. To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Administrator, acting by and through the Assistant Commissioner, shall provide the Committee such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff and other support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions under this order. (b) Cooperation. Each executive agency and department shall cooperate and comply with the policies and recommendations of the Committee issued pursuant to this order, except where the Director of Central Intelligence determines that compliance would jeopardize intelligence sources and methods. To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, executive agencies and departments shall provide such support as may be necessary to enable the Committee to perform its duties and responsibilities under this order. (c) Compliance. The Administrator, acting by and through the Assistant Commissioner, shall be responsible for monitoring Federal agency compliance with the policies and recommendations of the Committee. Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government, and is not intended, and should not be construed, to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or its employees.

Appendix II: Federal Executive Branch Entities with Some Level of Independent Authority to Acquire Real Property

This information is from Facilities Location: Agencies Should Pay More Attention to Cost and Rural Development Act, GAO-01-805, July 31, 2001.

Appendix III: Definition of Security Levels I through V, from DOJ’s Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities

A level I facility has 10 or fewer federal employees. In addition, the facility likely has 2,500 or less square feet of office space and a low volume of public contact or contact with only a small segment of the population. A typical level I facility is a small storefront-type operation, such as a military recruiting office.

A level II facility has between 11 and 150 federal employees. In addition, the facility likely has from 2,500 to 80,000 square feet; a moderate volume of public contact; and federal activities that are routine in nature, similar to commercial activities. A typical level II building is the Social Security Administration Office in El Dorado, Colorado.

A level III facility has between 151 and 450 federal employees. In addition, the facility likely has from 80,000 to 150,000 square feet and a moderate to high volume of public contact. Tenant agencies may include law enforcement agencies, courts and related agencies and functions, and government records and archives. A typical level III building is the Pension building, a multitenant, historical building between 4th and 5th Streets on F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

A level IV facility has over 450 federal employees. In addition, the facility likely has more that 150,000 square feet; a high volume of public contact; and tenant agencies that may include high-risk law enforcement and intelligence agencies, courts, judicial offices, and highly sensitive government records. A typical level IV building is the Department of Justice Building on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.

A level V facility is a building such as the Pentagon or CIA Headquarters that contains mission functions critical to national security. A level V facility will be similar to a level IV facility in terms of number of employees and square footage.

Appendix IV: ISC Participant-Identified Strengths and Weaknesses

Table 2 shows the strengths identified by the participating agencies or by their representatives to ISC. Table 3 shows the weaknesses identified by the agencies or by their ISC representatives.

Appendix V: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Appendix VI: Major Contributors

Major contributors to this report include Ron King, Tom Keightley, Lisa Wright-Solomon, John Vocino, Shirley Bates, and Michael Yacura.