PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 2011
Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to maintain no fewer than 1,350 full-time equivalent positions in the Federal Protective Service inspector force, who shall be fully trained federal law enforcement officers. Directs the Secretary to classify the positions in the following categories: (1) Federal Facility Security Officers, responsible for security assessment; and (2) law enforcement officers, responsible for physical law enforcement and investigations. Directs the Secretary to establish: (1) the Federal Protective Service contract oversight force; and (2) minimum training and certification standards for security guard services at facilities protected by the Service.
Expresses the sense of Congress that specified security standards for federal facilities established by the Interagency Security Committee should be implemented for all federal facilities for which they were issued.
Directs the Secretary, through the Director of the Federal Protective Service, to: (1) commence a one-year pilot program to research the advantages of converting guard positions at the highest-risk federal facilities protected by the Service from contract guard positions to positions held by federal employees; and (2) establish and hire individuals for a federal facility security guard position.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Comptroller General to: (1) periodically review and report to Congress on the performance by federal facility security guards under the pilot program, and upon its completion submit a final report evaluating whether or not the performance of individuals in such positions was satisfactory (if so, directs the Secretary to replace contract guards at all highest risk facilities protected by the Service with federal employees); and (2) submit a review of the fee-based funding system in use by the Service and issue any recommendations for alternative approaches.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] · D–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.176 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.176 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.176 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.176 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.