[House Report 114-283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-283
======================================================================
AIRPORT ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015
_______
October 6, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCaul, from the Committee on Homeland Security, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3102]
The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
to reform programs of the Transportation Security
Administration, streamline transportation security regulations,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 4
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 4
Hearings......................................................... 6
Committee Consideration.......................................... 7
Committee Votes.................................................. 7
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 8
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 8
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 8
Duplicative Federal Programs..................................... 9
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 9
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 9
Preemption Clarification......................................... 9
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 9
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 9
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 9
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 11
Additional Views................................................. 16
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Access Control Security
Improvement Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. AVIATION SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title XVI of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 1602. RISK-BASED SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES AT AIRPORTS.
``(a) Screening Model.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
establish a risk-based, intelligence-driven model for the
screening of employees at airports based on level of access and
employment positions at domestic airports. Such screening model
shall--
``(A) ensure that only those individuals authorized
to have access to the secure areas of a domestic
airport are permitted such access;
``(B) ensure that an individual is immediately denied
entry to a secure area when such individual's access
authorization for such secure area is withdrawn; and
``(C) provide a means to differentiate between
individuals authorized to have access to an entire
secure area and individuals authorized access to only a
particular portion of a secure area.
``(2) Factors.--The Administrator shall consider the
following factors when establishing the screening model
described in paragraph (1):
``(A) Whether and how often employees at airports
require employment-related access to Secure
Identification Display Areas, Airport Operations Areas,
or secure areas.
``(B) The ability of each airport operator to reduce
employee entry and exit points to a mutually agreed
upon minimum number of such entry and exit points
necessary to maintain airport operations.
``(C) In consultation with airport operators, the
ability of the Administration to create a randomization
plan for screening at the defined operational minimum
entry and exit points at airports which maximizes the
deterrent effect of screening efforts.
``(b) Disqualifying Offenses.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, labor organizations representing aviation,
ground, and cabin crew workers, and the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, shall conduct an aviation security risk-
based review of the disqualifying criminal offenses codified in
sections 1542.209 and 1544.229 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, to determine the appropriateness of such offenses
as a basis for denying to an employee a credential that allows
unescorted access to Secure Identification Display Areas of
airports. Such review shall consider the following:
``(A) The adequacy of codified disqualifying offenses
to address the current aviation security threat
environment, particularly the terrorism insider threat.
``(B) If such codified disqualifying offenses should
be tailored to address the current aviation security
threat environment, particularly the terrorism insider
threat, by excluding or including other offenses.
``(C) The potential security benefits, drawbacks, and
challenges associated with identifying patterns of
misdemeanors or of other non-disqualifying offenses
that could jeopardize aviation security.
``(D) The feasibility of integrating similar
departmental eligibility requirements for access to
Secure Identification Display Areas of airports.
``(E) If the ten year look-back period for
disqualifying offenses is appropriate, in light of the
current aviation security threat environment,
particularly the terrorism insider threat.
``(2) Waiver.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall provide an
adequate redress process for an employee who is subject to an
adverse employment decision, including removal or suspension of
such employee, due to a disqualifying offense referred to in
paragraph (1), that is consistent with the appeals and waiver
process established for applicants for commercial motor vehicle
hazardous materials endorsements and transportation workers at
ports under section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code.
``(3) Notice.--Any changes to the Secure Identification
Display area badge program, such as changes considered pursuant
to subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1) shall
be subject to notice of proposed rulemaking.
``(4) Briefing to congress.--Upon completion of the aviation
security risk-based review required under paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall brief the Committee on Homeland Security of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the
results of such review.
``(c) Credentialing.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, shall review the auditing
procedures for all airport-issued identification media. Such review
shall determine the following:
``(1) The efficacy of the auditing program requirements at
domestic airports to ensure the integrity, accountability, and
control of airport-issued identification media.
``(2) The feasibility of including biometrics standards for
all airport-issued identification media used for identity
verification and badge verification.
``(3) The feasibility of integrating other departmental
programs' eligibility requirements for access to secure areas
of airports.
``(d) Vetting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
``(A) establish a program to allow airport badging
offices to utilize the employment eligibility
confirmation system established under section 404 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note;
commonly referred to as `E-Verify') to determine the
eligibility to work in the United States of all
applicants seeking access to secure areas of airports;
``(B) establish a process to transmit applicants'
biometric fingerprint data to the Office of Biometric
Identity Management's (OBIM's) Automated Biometrics
Identification System (IDENT) for vetting; and
``(C) conduct a data quality assessment to ensure
that credential application data elements received by
the Administration are complete and match the data
submitted by the airport operators.
``(2) Briefing to congress.--Upon completion of the
responsibilities specified in paragraph (1), the Administrator
shall brief the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate on the results of such
completion.
``(e) Reporting of Violations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
establish a nationwide program for the anonymous reporting of
violations of airport security.
``(f) Centralized Database.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, shall--
``(1) establish a national database of employees who have had
either their airport or aircraft operator-issued badge revoked
for failure to comply with aviation security requirements;
``(2) determine the appropriate reporting mechanisms for
airports and airlines to submit data regarding employees
described in paragraph (1) and to access the database
established pursuant to such paragraph; and
``(3) establish a process that allows individuals whose names
were mistakenly entered into such database to have their names
removed and have their credentialing restored.
``(g) Updated Review.--Not later than April 8, 2016, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee, shall conduct an updated and thorough review of airport
access controls.
``(h) Employee Screening Study.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee,
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate, and the Comptroller General
of the United States a cost and feasibility study of a
statistically significant number of Category I, II, and X
airports, that ensures that all employee entry and exit points
that lead to secure areas of such airports are comprised of the
following:
``(A) A secure door utilizing card and pin entry or
biometric technology.
``(B) Surveillance video recording, capable of
storing video data for at least 30 days.
``(C) Advanced screening technologies, including at
least one of the following:
``(i) Magnetometer (walk-through or hand-
held).
``(ii) Explosives detection canines.
``(iii) Explosives trace detection swabbing.
``(iv) Advanced imaging technology.
``(v) X-ray bag screening technology.
``(2) Contents.--The study required under paragraph (1) shall
include information related to the employee screening costs of
those airports which have already implemented practices of
screening one-hundred percent of employees entering secure
areas of airports, including the following:
``(A) Costs associated with establishing an
operational minimum number of employee entry and exit
points.
``(B) A comparison of costs associated with
implementing the requirements specified in paragraph
(1), based on whether such implementation was carried
out by the Administration or airports.
``(3) Comptroller general assessment.--
``(A) In general.--Upon completion of the study
required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General
of the United States shall review such study to assess
the quality and reliability of such study.
``(B) Assessment.--Not later than 60 days after the
receipt of the study required under paragraph (1), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report
to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the
results of the review required under subparagraph
(A).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1601 the following new item:
``Sec. 1602. Risk-based screening of employees at airports.''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 3102 is to amend the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 to reform programs of the Transportation Security
Administration, streamline transportation security regulations,
and for other purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
This legislation is the culmination of multiple
Subcommittee hearings and briefings on the issue of airport
access controls, as well as a review of the recommendations
issued by the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC). The
Subcommittee's oversight, as well as the ASAC's review, was an
outgrowth of the number of recent arrests of airport workers.
An estimated 950,000 employees of airlines, airports, vendors,
and officials have access to sterile areas of airports
nationwide, at approximately 18,000 access points.\1\ Recent
incidents such as a gun smuggling case at the Atlanta airport;
a Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA) inspector who flew with
a gun in his carry-on bag; an airline employee misusing his
badge to avoid screening before boarding a flight, and drug
smuggling cases at the Dallas and Oakland airports highlight
security weaknesses that could be further exploited in the
future if left unchecked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Carey, Susan. ``Closing an Airport Security Gap: Employee
Screening.'' The Wall Street Journal. 27 January 2015. http://
www.wsj.com/articles/closing-an-airport-security-gap-employee-
screening-1422396346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between May and December 2014, a Delta Air Lines employee
allegedly smuggled 153 firearms, including AK-47 assault
weapons, on 17 Delta flights between Atlanta and New York.
Authorities say that the Delta employee would go through
standard security screening and then receive the guns from a
Delta baggage handler, who was not subjected to standard
security screening, on the sterile side the airport, before
boarding flights to New York's John F. Kennedy International
Airport. The investigation was a months-long collaborative
effort between authorities in New York and Atlanta, as well the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Delta Air Lines.\2\ In the
wake of the gun smuggling case, Secretary of Homeland Security
Jeh Johnson visited Atlanta to review airport security. While
there, he announced enhanced security measures by TSA at
airports across the country, including stepped up
countermeasures to mitigate the insider threat from those with
access to sterile areas of airports. These countermeasures
include increased screening of airport and airline personnel at
employee access points and an immediate review of existing
security protocols and potential security solutions by the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sharkey, Joe. ``Gun Smuggling on Plane Reveals Security
Oversight.'' The New York Times. 29 December 2014. http://
www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/business/gun-smuggling-on-plane-reveals-
security-oversight.html?_r=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ASAC airport access control working group--consisting
of a broad cross-section of industry experts and government
entities--was asked to analyze the adequacy of existing
security measures and providing recommendations to address
security loopholes. TSA has already implemented five short-term
initiatives to address some of the problems that were
identified in the ASAC report. Overall, the final report
included 28 separate recommendations in the following five main
areas:
Security Screening and Inspection;
Vetting of Employees and Security Threat Assessment;
Internal Controls and Auditing of Airport-Issued
Credentials;
Risk-Based Security for Higher Risk Populations and
Intelligence; and
Security Awareness and Vigilance.
This bill codifies many of those recommendations such as
reviewing the list of Security Identification Display Area
(SIDA) badge disqualifying criminal offenses and extending the
look-back period, and creating and maintaining a national
database of airport employees with revoked credentials.
Additionally, on January 16, 2015, an inspector for the FAA
was arrested at New York's LaGuardia Airport after a TSA
screener detected a firearm in his carry-on luggage. This
discovery was only after the inspector traveled to New York
from Atlanta, where he used his SIDA badge to bypass security
screening. The individual flew in the cockpit of the aircraft
from Atlanta to New York. The FAA has since suspended its
program allowing personnel to bypass airport security until it
can implement mandatory retraining to prevent further such
incidents.\3\ Lastly, TSA has informed the Committee that on
Saturday, January 24th, an airline employee in Atlanta used his
SIDA badge to gain entry to the sterile area of the airport and
bypass screening, before boarding a flight to Paris, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Schabner, Dean. ``Federal Safety Inspector Arrested After
Allegedly Flying with Fun in Bag.'' ABC News. 17 January 2015. http://
abcnews.go.com/US/federal-agent-arrested-allegedly-flying-gun-bag/
story?id=28295458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
No legislative hearings were held on H.R. 3102, however the
Committee held the following oversight hearings:
On February 3, 2015, the Subcommittee on Transportation
Security held a hearing entitled ``A Review of Access Control
Measures at Our Nation's Airports.'' The Subcommittee received
testimony from Mr. Mark Hatfield, Acting Deputy Administrator,
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Mr. Doug Perdue, Deputy Assistant Director,
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice; Ms. Sharon L. Pinkerton, Senior
Vice President, Legislative and Regulatory Policy, Airlines for
America; and Mr. Miguel Southwell, General Manager, Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The Subcommittee on Transportation Security continued its
hearing on April 30, 2015, with a hearing entitled ``A Review
of Access Control Measures at Our Nation's Airports, Part II.''
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Melvin J.
Carraway, Acting Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Jeanne M.
Olivier, A.A.E., Assistant Director, Aviation Security and
Technology, Security Operations and Programs Department, The
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, testifying on behalf
of The American Association of Airport Executives; and Mr.
Steven Grossman, Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director,
Jacksonville International Airport, Jacksonville Aviation
Authority, testifying on behalf of The Airports Council
International, North America.
On June 16, 2015, the Subcommittee on Transportation
Security held a hearing entitled ``How TSA Can Improve Aviation
Worker Vetting.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Hon.
John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Ms. Stacey Fitzmaurice, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Ms. Jennifer Grover, Director,
Transportation Security and Coast Guard Issues, Homeland
Security and Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
112th Congress
On May 16, 2012, the Subcommittee on Transportation
Security held a hearing entitled ``Access Control Point
Breaches at Our Nation's Airports: Anomalies or Systemic
Failures?'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. John
P. Sammon, Assistant Administrator, Office of Security Policy
and Industry Engagement, Transportation Security
Administration, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Charles K.
Edwards, Acting Inspector General, Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. Mark Crosby, Chief of Public Safety & Security,
Portland International Airport, testifying on behalf of the
American Association of Airport Executives; Captain Sean P.
Cassidy, First Vice President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International; and Mr. William Swift, Chairman, Airport
Minority Advisory Council.
Committee Consideration
The Committee met on September 30, 2015, to consider
H.R.3102, and ordered the measure to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The
Committee took the following actions:
The following amendments were offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr.Katko
(#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote.
A Substitute for the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (#2); was WITHDRAWN by
unanimous consent.
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 3102 offered by Mr. Katko (#1A); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
Page 3, strike ,line 7 though page 5, line 5, and insert a new
subsection entitled ``(b) Disqualifying Offenses.''
The Subcommittee on Transportation Security met on July 23,
2015, to consider H.R. 3102 and reported the measure to the
Full Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, by
voice vote.
The following amendment was offered:
An Amendment by Mr. Katko (#1); was AGREED TO by voice vote.
Page 3, line 15, strike ``mutually agreed upon''.
Page 4, line 22, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 4, beginning line 22, insert the following:
``(2) ``Waiver.-Not later than 180 days after 2 the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall provide an adequate
redress process for an employee who is subject to an adverse employment
decision, including removal or suspension of such employee, due to a
disqualifying offense referred to in paragraph (1), that is consistent
with the appeals and waiver process established for applicants for
commercial motor vehicle hazardous materials endorsements and
transportation workers at ports under section 70105(c) of title 46,
United States Code.''.
Page 7, line 13, strike ``for cause'' and insert ``for failure to
comply with aviation security requirements''.
Page 7, line 13, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 7, beginning line 19, insert the following:
``(3) establish a process that allows individuals whose names were
mistakenly entered into such database to have their names removed and
have their credentialing restored.''.
Page 7, line 20, insert ``the Administrator, in consultation with
the'' before ``the Aviation Security''.
Page 7, line 20, after ``Committee'' insert a comma.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto.
No recorded votes were requested during consideration of
H.R.3102.
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
3102, the Airport Access Control Security Improvement Act of
2015, would result in no new or increased budget authority,
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, a cost estimate provided by the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 3102 contains the following
general performance goals and objectives, including outcome
related goals and objectives authorized.
H.R. 3102 requires the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration to provide a briefing to the relevant
Congressional committees on the results of an aviation security
risk-based review of the disqualifying criminal offenses that
are a basis for denying a credential to access Secure
Identification Display Areas of airports. The Administrator is
also required to brief relevant Congressional committees on the
establishment of a program that allows airport badging offices
to utilize the E-Verify system, the establishment of a process
to transmit applicants' biometric fingerprint data to the
Office of Biometric Identity Management for vetting, and the
results of a data quality assessment to ensure that credential
application data elements received by the Administration are
complete and match data submitted by airport operators.
This legislation also requires the Administrator to submit
a cost and feasibility report of a statistically significant
number of airports ensuring that all employee entry and exit
points that lead to secure areas of airports meet certain
requirements specified in the legislation to the relevant
Congressional committees and the Comptroller General of the
United States. Furthermore, the Comptroller General of the
United States must assess the quality and reliability of the
Administrator's aforementioned study and report the results of
the assessment to the relevant Congressional committees within
60 days of receipt of the study.
Duplicative Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII, the Committee finds
that H.R. 3102 does not contain any provision that establishes
or reauthorizes a program known to be duplicative of another
Federal program.
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule
XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Preemption Clarification
In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or
joint resolution to include a statement on the extent to which
the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State,
local, or Tribal law, the Committee finds that H.R. 3102 does
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that H.R. 3102 would require no
directed rule makings. However the bill does allow the
Administrator to engage in the rule making process if
determined to be necessary upon completion of the review
required under section 2.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that bill may be cited as the
``Airport Access Control Security Improvement Act of 2015''.
Section 2. Aviation security
This section requires the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration to, within 180 days,
create a risk-based model for the screening of employees that
will ensure that only authorized individuals have access to the
secure area, ensure that an individual is denied entry to a
secured area when a person's access authority is withdrawn and
provide a means to differentiate between individuals authorized
to have access to an entire secured area and individuals with
authorized access to only a particular portion of a secure
area. This section also requires the Administrator to consider
the following factors when establishing this risk-based
screening model: whether and how often an employee requires
access to specific areas, the ability of an airport to reduce
access points to a mutually agreed upon operational minimum,
and the ability to create a randomization plan.
This section also requires the Administrator, in
consultation with the Director of the FBI, labor organizations
representing aviation, ground and cabin crew workers, and the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, to conduct a review of
the disqualifying offenses to determine the appropriateness of
such offenses as a basis for denying employee credentials
within 180 days of enactment. Such review shall consider the
following: The adequacy of codified disqualifying offenses to
address the current aviation security threat environment; if
such codified disqualifying offenses should be tailored to
address the current aviation security threat environment by
including or excluding other offenses, potential security
benefits, drawbacks and challenges associated with identifying
patterns of misdemeanors or of other non-disqualifying offenses
that could jeopardize aviation security; the feasibility of
integrating similar departmental eligibility requirements for
access to secure areas; and a determination as to whether the
look-back period for disqualifying offenses should be extended
or modified.
The Administrator is also required to provide an adequate
redress process for an employee who is subject to an adverse
employment decision, including termination or suspension, due
to a disqualifying offense as defined above within 180 days of
enactment. The process must be consistent with the appeals and
waiver process established for applicants for commercial motor
vehicle hazardous materials endorsements and transportation
workers at ports.
A notice of proposed rulemaking for any changes made to the
Secure Identification Display area badge program as a result of
the review is required pursuant to this section. This section
also requires the Administrator to brief the relevant
Congressional committees on the results of this review.
This section requires the Administrator, in consultation
with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, to review the
auditing procedures for all airport-issued identification media
within 120 days of enactment. The review shall determine the
efficacy of the auditing program requirements, the feasibility
of including biometric standards for airport issued
identification media, and the feasibility of integrating other
DHS eligibility requirements for access.
Section 2 would require the Administrator within 180 days
of enactment to establish a program to allow airport badging
offices to utilize E-Verify to determine the eligibility to
work in the U.S., to establish a process to transmit applicants
biometric fingerprint data into the Office of Biometric
Identity Management's Automated Biometric Identification System
(IDENT) for vetting and to conduct a data quality assessment to
ensure that credential application data elements are complete
and match data that was submitted by airport operators. Upon
completion of these responsibilities, the Administrator is
required to brief the relevant Congressional committees on the
results.
This section requires the Administrator within 180 days of
enactment to establish a Nationwide program for the anonymous
reporting of violations of airport security protocols.
It also requires the Administrator within 180 days of
enactment, in consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee, to establish a national database of employees who
have had either their airport or aircraft operator-issued badge
revoked for failure to comply with aviation security
requirements and to determine the appropriate reporting
mechanisms for airports and airlines to submit data and to
access the database. Additionally, this section requires the
establishment of a process that allows individuals whose names
were mistakenly entered into such a database to be removed and
have their credentialing restored.
This section also requires the Administrator in
consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee to
conduct an updated and thorough review of airport access
controls by April 2016. In addition, this section would require
the Administrator within 180 days of enactment, in consultation
with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee to conduct a cost
and feasibility study of a statistically significant number of
Category X, I and II airports, that ensures that all airport
employee access points that lead to secure areas of those
airports are comprised of a secure door utilizing card and pin
entry or biometric technology, surveillance video recording
capable of storing video for at least thirty days, advanced
screening technologies, including, but not limited to, a
magnetometer (walk-thru or hand-held), explosive detection
canines, explosive trace detection swabbing, advanced imaging
technology or x-ray bag screening technology.
Finally, section 2 also requires that the study shall
include information related to the employee screening costs of
those airports which have already implemented practices of
screening one-hundred percent of employees entering secure
areas of airports, and costs associated with establishing an
operational minimum number of employee access points, and a
comparison of costs associated with implementing the
requirements outlined earlier, based on whether the
implementation was carried out by TSA or the airports.
Upon completion of the study, this section requires the
Comptroller General of the United States to review and evaluate
its quality and reliability and report to the relevant
Congressional committees within 60 days.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is
as follows:
* * * * * * *
TITLE XVI--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Subtitle A--General Provisions
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1602. Risk-based screening of employees at airports.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XVI--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Subtitle A--General Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1602. RISK-BASED SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES AT AIRPORTS.
(a) Screening Model.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the
Administrator shall establish a risk-based,
intelligence-driven model for the screening of
employees at airports based on level of access and
employment positions at domestic airports. Such
screening model shall--
(A) ensure that only those individuals
authorized to have access to the secure areas
of a domestic airport are permitted such
access;
(B) ensure that an individual is immediately
denied entry to a secure area when such
individual's access authorization for such
secure area is withdrawn; and
(C) provide a means to differentiate between
individuals authorized to have access to an
entire secure area and individuals authorized
access to only a particular portion of a secure
area.
(2) Factors.--The Administrator shall consider the
following factors when establishing the screening model
described in paragraph (1):
(A) Whether and how often employees at
airports require employment-related access to
Secure Identification Display Areas, Airport
Operations Areas, or secure areas.
(B) The ability of each airport operator to
reduce employee entry and exit points to a
mutually agreed upon minimum number of such
entry and exit points necessary to maintain
airport operations.
(C) In consultation with airport operators,
the ability of the Administration to create a
randomization plan for screening at the defined
operational minimum entry and exit points at
airports which maximizes the deterrent effect
of screening efforts.
(b) Disqualifying Offenses.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, labor organizations
representing aviation, ground, and cabin crew workers,
and the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, shall
conduct an aviation security risk-based review of the
disqualifying criminal offenses codified in sections
1542.209 and 1544.229 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, to determine the appropriateness of such
offenses as a basis for denying to an employee a
credential that allows unescorted access to Secure
Identification Display Areas of airports. Such review
shall consider the following:
(A) The adequacy of codified disqualifying
offenses to address the current aviation
security threat environment, particularly the
terrorism insider threat.
(B) If such codified disqualifying offenses
should be tailored to address the current
aviation security threat environment,
particularly the terrorism insider threat, by
excluding or including other offenses.
(C) The potential security benefits,
drawbacks, and challenges associated with
identifying patterns of misdemeanors or of
other non-disqualifying offenses that could
jeopardize aviation security.
(D) The feasibility of integrating similar
departmental eligibility requirements for
access to Secure Identification Display Areas
of airports.
(E) If the ten year look-back period for
disqualifying offenses is appropriate, in light
of the current aviation security threat
environment, particularly the terrorism insider
threat.
(2) Waiver.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Administrator
shall provide an adequate redress process for an
employee who is subject to an adverse employment
decision, including removal or suspension of such
employee, due to a disqualifying offense referred to in
paragraph (1), that is consistent with the appeals and
waiver process established for applicants for
commercial motor vehicle hazardous materials
endorsements and transportation workers at ports under
section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code.
(3) Notice.--Any changes to the Secure Identification
Display area badge program, such as changes considered
pursuant to subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) of
paragraph (1) shall be subject to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
(4) Briefing to congress.--Upon completion of the
aviation security risk-based review required under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall brief the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the
results of such review.
(c) Credentialing.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee,
shall review the auditing procedures for all airport-issued
identification media. Such review shall determine the
following:
(1) The efficacy of the auditing program requirements
at domestic airports to ensure the integrity,
accountability, and control of airport-issued
identification media.
(2) The feasibility of including biometrics standards
for all airport-issued identification media used for
identity verification and badge verification.
(3) The feasibility of integrating other departmental
programs' eligibility requirements for access to secure
areas of airports.
(d) Vetting.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the
Administrator shall--
(A) establish a program to allow airport
badging offices to utilize the employment
eligibility confirmation system established
under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1324a note; commonly referred to as
``E-Verify'') to determine the eligibility to
work in the United States of all applicants
seeking access to secure areas of airports;
(B) establish a process to transmit
applicants' biometric fingerprint data to the
Office of Biometric Identity Management's
(OBIM's) Automated Biometrics Identification
System (IDENT) for vetting; and
(C) conduct a data quality assessment to
ensure that credential application data
elements received by the Administration are
complete and match the data submitted by the
airport operators.
(2) Briefing to congress.--Upon completion of the
responsibilities specified in paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall brief the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate on the results of such
completion.
(e) Reporting of Violations.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator
shall establish a nationwide program for the anonymous
reporting of violations of airport security.
(f) Centralized Database.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee,
shall--
(1) establish a national database of employees who
have had either their airport or aircraft operator-
issued badge revoked for failure to comply with
aviation security requirements;
(2) determine the appropriate reporting mechanisms
for airports and airlines to submit data regarding
employees described in paragraph (1) and to access the
database established pursuant to such paragraph; and
(3) establish a process that allows individuals whose
names were mistakenly entered into such database to
have their names removed and have their credentialing
restored.
(g) Updated Review.--Not later than April 8, 2016, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, shall conduct an updated and thorough
review of airport access controls.
(h) Employee Screening Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee, shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the
Comptroller General of the United States a cost and
feasibility study of a statistically significant number
of Category I, II, and X airports, that ensures that
all employee entry and exit points that lead to secure
areas of such airports are comprised of the following:
(A) A secure door utilizing card and pin
entry or biometric technology.
(B) Surveillance video recording, capable of
storing video data for at least 30 days.
(C) Advanced screening technologies,
including at least one of the following:
(i) Magnetometer (walk-through or
hand-held).
(ii) Explosives detection canines.
(iii) Explosives trace detection
swabbing.
(iv) Advanced imaging technology.
(v) X-ray bag screening technology.
(2) Contents.--The study required under paragraph (1)
shall include information related to the employee
screening costs of those airports which have already
implemented practices of screening one-hundred percent
of employees entering secure areas of airports,
including the following:
(A) Costs associated with establishing an
operational minimum number of employee entry
and exit points.
(B) A comparison of costs associated with
implementing the requirements specified in
paragraph (1), based on whether such
implementation was carried out by the
Administration or airports.
(3) Comptroller general assessment.--
(A) In general.--Upon completion of the study
required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller
General of the United States shall review such
study to assess the quality and reliability of
such study.
(B) Assessment.--Not later than 60 days after
the receipt of the study required under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of the
United States shall report to the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate on the results of
the review required under subparagraph (A).
* * * * * * *
Additional Views
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON
I support enhancing access controls at our Nation's
airports. That was why I was pleased that then-TSA Acting
Administrator Melvin Carraway, on January 8th, 2015, requested
that the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), comprised
of aviation security stakeholders in the private sector, assist
TSA with efforts to evaluate airport employee screening and
identify gaps in airport security associated with access
control. As sponsor of legislation to authorize the ASAC (P.L.
113-238), I was pleased that the members of the ASAC's working
group on airport access control gave timely and thoughtful
attention to this homeland security challenge. On April 8th,
2015, the ASAC issued its report entitled the ``Final Report of
the Aviation Security Advisory Committee's Working Group on
Airport Access Control'' which recommended that TSA consider 28
actions to enhance security. Since the issuance of that report,
I understand that TSA has been making steady progress on
addressing the recommendations. Given the multifaceted and
complicated nature of the issue, implementation of reforms has
broad implications on airport operations, including ground
services and airport retail operations. While I do not embrace
all the provisions in H.R. 3102, I do see the value in
advancing it, insofar as it sends a message to TSA and
stakeholders about Congress' ongoing interest in raising the
level of security at our Nation's airports.
Finally, I would note that in advance of consideration of
H.R. 3102 by the Full Committee, I developed a substitute
amendment that made a number of changes to the bill.
Ultimately, I chose to withdraw my amendment when the bill's
sponsor, Mr. Katko, agreed to incorporate key language I
authored to ensure that the review of disqualifying offenses
under the SIDA program are reviewed, as required under the
bill, is carried out in a fair way and is focused on the
aviation security threat picture.
Bennie G. Thompson.
[all]