[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE ``FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT AND 
                      ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015''

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 29, 2015

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing 
legislation to reform the Federal Protective Service (FPS).
  The ``Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act 
of 2015'' seeks to improve FPS' ability to carry out its mission to 
protect the 1.4 million Federal employees and visitors that access more 
than 9,500 Federal facilities across the nation.
  After the 1995 domestic terrorist attacks on the Alfred P. Murrah 
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, there was broad recognition that 
Federal buildings, which are symbols of our democracy, must be 
protected against terrorist attacks while remaining accessible to 
citizens.
  In recent years, the increasing number of terrorist plots against 
diverse U.S. government facilities in Illinois, Washington State, and 
New York City as well as attacks on government buildings in other 
western democracies, such as Canada and Norway, has brought into focus 
the need to strengthen U.S. Federal building security.
  Unfortunately, the primary agency responsible for providing such 
security--the Federal Protective Service--has a range of longstanding 
administrative challenges that, to my mind, raise questions about its 
ability to provide adequate Federal building security.
  To ensure that FPS makes progress on its fundamental challenges, my 
legislation calls for immediate attention to address staffing, 
training, and contractor oversight challenges that the Government 
Accountability Office has identified as problematic.
  It also directs FPS to not only put in place uniform minimum training 
and certification standards for all guards, regardless of whether they 
are contract guards or Federal employees, but develop and implement a 
strategy for using covert testing to improve performance of security 
screening at FPS-protected facilities.
  Importantly, my legislation recognizes that though FPS is responsible 
for security, the Interagency Security Committee, comprised of Federal 
agencies that are tenants, has a major role to play in ensuring that 
risk-based security practices are in use.
  Specifically, my bill requires DHS to assess the degree to which the 
consensus standard for risk management, which was developed by the 
Interagency Security Committee, has been adopted at non-military 
Federal facilities.
  My legislation also is forward-looking.
  It directs DHS to implement a one-year pilot program to research the 
advantages of converting guard positions at the highest risk FPS-
protected facilities from contract guard positions to Federal 
positions.
  Additionally, my legislation requires DHS to take a hard look at 
whether the fee-based system under which FPS currently operates 
provides adequate resources to cover the actual costs that FPS incurs.
  Since October 2014, when terrorists attacked government sites in 
Canada, FPS' has been operating at an enhanced level, at the direction 
of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.
  The resulting increased tempo FPS' security operations has 
necessitated the deployment of more law enforcement to higher-
sensitivity facilities, increases in the frequency of visitor and 
vehicle screening, and enhancements to explosive canine detection and 
patrol operations.
  Each time that FPS is directed to heighten security operations, new 
costs are incurred. FPS has no choice but to absorb those costs, often, 
I suspect, at the expense of addressing longstanding administrative 
challenges.
  GAO, since 2009, has identified weaknesses in FPS' oversight of 
contract guards as an issue.
  Now is the time, from a security and a taxpayer perspective, to have 
a long overdue discussion about whether FPS' fee model is designed to 
not only cover surges in protective activities but also to cover the 
costs of implementing core oversight and administration reforms that 
GAO has repeatedly recommended.
  That discussion must include looking at whether some combination of 
appropriations and fees need to be part of the equation.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge Members to cosponsor the ``Federal 
Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2015''.

                          ____________________