PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 27, 2000
Federal Protective Service Reform Act of 2000 -Redesignates special policemen of the General Services Administration (GSA) as police officers.(Sec. 3) Empowers such police officers, while on duty, to: (1) carry firearms; (2) petition Federal courts for and execute arrest and search warrants; (3) make arrests without a warrant; and (4) conduct investigations, on and off the property, of offenses on such property. Authorizes the GSA Administrator to enter into agreements with State and local governments to obtain authority for police officers appointed under the Act to exercise, concurrently with State and local law enforcement authorities, such powers in areas adjacent to U.S. property under the charge and control of the Administrator.(Sec. 4) Increases the maximum penalty for violations of any rules or regulations with respect to Federal property.(Sec. 5) Empowers special agents with the same authority outside Federal property as police officers have.(Sec. 6) Directs the Administrator to establish the FPS as a separate operating service of GSA. Provides for the FPS to be headed by a Commissioner who: (1) shall be appointed by and report directly to the Administrator; and (2) has at least five years of professional law enforcement experience in a command or supervisory position. Requires the Commissioner to: (1) assist the Administrator; (2) serve as the U.S. law enforcement officer and security official with respect to the protection of Federal officers and employees in such property (other than buildings and areas that are secured by the United States Secret Service), except as otherwise prohibited by law; (3) render assistance to other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies upon request; and (4) coordinate his or her activities with those of the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service.(Sec. 7) Requires the pay and benefits for any FPS employee who maintains active law enforcement status to be determined in accordance with a pay and benefits package established by the Administrator that is equivalent to the pay scale and benefits package applicable to United States Capitol Police.(Sec. 8) Requires there to be at least 730 full-time police officers in the FPS one year after the enactment of this Act. Prohibits any reduction in such number of officers unless specifically authorized by law.Directs the Comptroller General to study and report on the feasibility of merging all building security forces of the executive branch within and under the FPS's supervision.(Sec. 9) Directs the Commissioner to prescribe minimum standards of suitability for employment to be applied in the contracting of security personnel for Federal property.(Sec. 10) Authorizes appropriations from the Federal Buildings Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Traficant, James A., Jr. [D-OH-17] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5198-5199)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5198-5199)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 809.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5198-5201)
Mr. LaTourette moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 379.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-676, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-676, Part I.
Mr. LaTourette asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation have until midnight on April 6 to file a report on H.R. 809. Agreed to without objection.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation.
Rereferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E353-354)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E253-254)
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.809 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.809 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.809 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.809 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.