Security Protection

From fiscal years 1997 through 1999, 42 executive branch positions at 31 executive branch agencies--including all 14 Cabinet secretaries, four deputy or under secretaries, and 24 other high-ranking officials (mainly heads of agencies)--had security protection. Personnel from 27 different agencies protected them: 36 officials by their own agencies or departments and six from other agencies or departments, such as the Secret Service and the Marshals Service. Protective personnel increased 73 percent from fiscal year 1997 through 1999. Funding rose from $19.1 million in 1997 to $28.5 million in 1999, largely due to increased travel. Only the Secret Service and State Department have specific statutory authority to protect executive branch officials. Agencies reported that their officials received different levels and frequency of protection and that protection was needed to respond to possible and actual threats. Most agencies favored establishing a repository of protective intelligence to facilitate sharing of threat information about their officials. Also, agencies reported that their protective personnel received different amounts of protection training and from different sources. Field staff received less training than did the agencies' full-time personnel based in Washington. Most agencies favored establishing a standardized protection training program. Most agencies opposed centralizing security protection under one agency. No single agency or official is responsible for handling issues relating to routine protection of executive branch officials. This fragmentation has serious implications because 14 of the protected officials are in the line of presidential succession. Moreover, the lack of thorough threat assessments documenting the level of protection needed makes it difficult to determine the basis for and reasonableness of protection being given. This testimony summarizes the July 2000 report, GAO/GGD/OSI-00-139.

GAO noted that: (1) from fiscal years 1997 through 1999, agency security officials said that security protection was provided to officials holding 42 positions at 31 executive branch agencies; (2) these officials included all 14 cabinet secretaries, 4 deputy or under secretaries, and 24 other high-ranking officials (mainly heads of agencies); (3) the 42 officials were protected by personnel from 27 different agencies; (4) 36 officials were protected by personnel from their own agencies or departments, and 6 officials were protected by personnel from other agencies or departments, such as the Secret Service and the Marshals Service; (5) agencies reported that the number of full-time protective personnel increased by 73 percent in fiscal years 1997 through 1999; (6) the 27 agencies also reported spending a total of at least $73.7 million to protect the officials holding the 42 positions during that 3-year period; (7) only two agencies--the Secret Service and the Department of State--had specific statutory authority to protect executive branch officials; (8) the other agencies relied on a variety of other authorities in providing protection to officials, such as having their protective personnel deputized by the Marshals Service to provide them with law enforcement authority; (9) agencies reported that their officials received different levels and frequencies of protection and that protection was needed to respond to possible and actual threats; (10) the agencies reported that their protective personnel received different amounts of protection training and from different sources; (11) the issue of centralizing security protection governmentwide has many implications, including who would decide who is to be protected and the level of protection to be provided, who would provide the services, whether Congress would need to grant statutory authorities, and whether centralization would be a more cost-efficient and effective way of providing these services than the current decentralized approach; (12) GAO contacted protected officials in its review to ask them for their views about their protection and about security protection standardization issues; and (13) those officials who responded to GAO's queries generally said that they were satisfied with their protection and would like to continue with the current arrangements.