Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2008

Floor Speech

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3068) to prohibit the award of contracts to provide guard services under the contract security guard program of the Federal Protective Service to a business concern that is owned, controlled, or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3068.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?

There was no objection.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068. The bill is the result of two oversight hearings held by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management that examined the role of the Federal Protective Service in providing security to our Nation's public buildings.

There was evidence and serious allegations of wrongdoings, chaos and irregularities in the contracting and employment of private security guards who protect Federal employees and facilities. This legislation intends to preserve the security of the country's most sensitive buildings.

The Senate amendment supports the principles of the House bill and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to devise regulations that prohibit contracts for the provision of guard services to any business owned or controlled by a convicted felon. In addition, the Senate amendment provides some limited flexibility for the contract officer to identify serious felons and create guidelines for the contracting officer to assess mitigating factors and the risks associated with previous convictions.

I urge all Members to vote for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068, the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2008.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate that the House has gotten to this bill before we adjourn. This bill arose from oversight, and I think emphasizes the importance of oversight. Essentially it eliminates proxy ownership of vital FPS contracting operations. As a result of oversight and reports from workers and sometimes from unions, we learned that there were unpaid contract guards. As a result of the hearings, upon learning of these reports, we found that there was a contractor who was a felon, had spent 5 years in jail for money laundering and fraud.

What we discovered was sometimes there were unpaid guards working out of, of all places, the Department of Homeland Security, and that at other times the money had been received, as in the case of the proxy ownership, and had not been paid.

Security guards have grown to overwhelm the Federal Protective Service which is the official service that guards these buildings. The decrease in the Federal Protective Service is itself a hazard. But with 15,000 Federal security guards, that means hundreds probably of contractors, because many of them are small businesses. As the number of security guards and therefore contractors has grown, it is important that our vigilance of the contract operations also increases.

I was particularly concerned because these reports came in, from all places, the Nation's capital and the national capital region. This is the region at the top of the list of places where we are always on the alert against terrorism.

We want to particularly compliment the workers who continued to work even though they were unpaid. I want to give some credit to ICE because in the hearings where we followed up to see that this matter was corrected while this bill was pending, we worked closely with ICE which had jurisdiction over the Federal Protective Service and now has an ombudsman for security guard contracts; it centralized contracting operations so that prompt payment and monitoring of the invoices can occur. We gave them a deadline to cure that backlog, and they cured that backlog by August of last year.

What this bill does is to now shut the door with legislation that was clearly required after the discovery of proxy ownership by a felon who had, essentially, the responsibility for guards' guarding vital buildings in the Nation's capital and perhaps elsewhere.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source