[Senate Hearing 115-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-436
TSA MODERNIZATION:
IMPROVEMENTS TO AVIATION SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Chairman MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 28, 2017............................... 1
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 18
Letter dated November 8, 2017 to Hon. James M. Inhofe from
Michael R. White, Vice President, Government and Industry
Relations, Cargo Network Services Corp..................... 20
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 21
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 22
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 26
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 28
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 31
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 33
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 35
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 37
Witnesses
Brian C. Weiler, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, Springfield-
Branson National Airport....................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association; and
Chairman, Aviation Security Advisory Committee, TSA............ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Sissy Pressnell, Vice Chairman, Security Manufacturers Coalition. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Michael White, Vice President, Government and Industry Relations,
Cargo Networks Services Corporation, International Air
Transport Association.......................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Brian Weiler................................................. 39
Response to written questions submitted to Stephen Alterman by:
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 39
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 40
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Sissy Pressnell.............................................. 40
Michael White................................................ 41
TSA MODERNIZATION:
IMPROVEMENTS TO AVIATION SECURITY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Blunt [presiding], Thune, Fischer,
Sullivan, Inhofe, Capito, Gardner, Young, Cantwell, Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Booker, Baldwin, Duckworth, and
Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Senator Inhofe has pointed out that we have
a vote at 10:30, so he's right, and we will start, and we'll
work our way through that. I think it's just one vote, and if
we do that, we'll do that in a way that we don't disrupt the
hearing.
So let's call the hearing to order. We certainly had an
earlier hearing in February of this year, where we had a number
of the stakeholders come in and talk about what needed to
happen at TSA. I'll say before we get well started with this,
when I talk to anybody about air travel, whether they're
running an airline or running the TSA agency or running an
airport, I usually say there are two items that every member of
the Senate thinks they're an expert on. One is politics, and
two is air travel, and we do this about as much as anybody, so
you'll have to kind of acknowledge our predisposition there to
think we know more than we very well may know about the
challenges you face.
But, certainly, the TSA obligation, the TSA challenges are
significant. Everyone knows that the airports, the airlines,
the transportation that's involved in tourism as well as the
daily business of the country--critically important on what
happens at airports and how we do that. The TSA challenge is
obviously formidable. In 2016, TSA officers screened 738
million passengers, more than 2 million a day. In addition, TSA
screened 466 million checked bags and over 24 million airport
employees. So to get that right and to get it right every time
is a huge challenge, and I think there is a lot of appreciation
for just how hard this job is.
In our February hearing and as a result of the events of
the baggage claim area at Fort Lauderdale Airport that had
happened just before that and the bombing at the public
terminal in Brussels, Belgium, we have become well aware of the
various security challenges at airports themselves in addition
to getting people on and off airplanes in a safe way.
We know that we need to speed up technology evaluation and
deployment of the best technology. We need to improve
communication with the traveling public on wait times; identify
how to leverage the PreCheck program; not be afraid to get
creative and test new ways of doing things, such as one of the
things we're going to talk about today, the idea of automating
the exit line and impacting in a positive way the bottom line.
I'm pleased that Chairman Thune, myself, Ranking Member
Nelson, and Senator Cantwell have a bill that we are looking at
today. We're pleased to have the witnesses that I'll introduce
in a moment with us here today, and I'd like to turn to Senator
Cantwell for her comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this important hearing about improving security in the
aviation system. I'd like to thank our distinguished panelists
as well. They deal with aviation security on a daily basis, and
I look forward to the opportunity to hear from them about those
issues.
I was also glad for the opportunity to discuss the TSA
Modernization bill, which was just introduced, as the Chairman
of the Subcommittee just said, by Chairman Thune, Ranking
Member Nelson, and Senator Blunt and myself. The bill lays out
what I believe is a strong framework for TSA to continue
modernization and technology procedures to improve security and
to keep the traveling public moving. I look forward to working
with our colleagues on that.
In my home state, Sea-Tac Airport has been one of the
fastest--wait a minute--the fastest growing large airport in
the country for three consecutive years. So I can guarantee you
this is a very daily issue for us. I want to thank then
Administrator Neffenger for paying close attention to this, and
I hope that Administrator Pekoske will also make improvements.
The bill that we introduced yesterday gives them the
opportunity as an agency to develop testing and deployment of
new technologies to improve security and efficiency for our
traveling public. The airports and airlines deserve credit for
their security work that they often do at their own expense.
But we need to keep making improvements as we move forward. Our
bill would give airports more flexibility to adapt to their own
needs. The TSA Modernization Act would give airports the
ability to train and deploy canine teams, some of the most
effective tools that we have in making sure that our airports
work in a secure and safe and efficient manner.
Under the new language, large airports that do not have
their full complement of TSA passenger canine screenings would
be able to train dogs through improved third-party
certification programs working with TSA. While the flexibility
is a vital tool for fast growing airports like Sea-Tac, it is
also important to note that we are giving airports the ability
to increase TSA resources and to help make sure that we are
making improvements to the team.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
these vital issues, and I thank the Chairman for this important
hearing about technology and security.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
We have our panelists with us today: Brian Weiler is the
Director of Aviation at my hometown airport, the Springfield-
Branson National Airport; Steve Alterman, the President of
Cargo Airlines Association, Chairman of the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, and Mr. Alterman was with us in February,
and we're glad that you were able to come back today; Sissy
Pressnell, the Vice President of Strategic Business Development
and Stakeholder Relations, Smith Detention, and Vice Chairman
of the Security Manufacturers Coalition; and Mr. Michael White,
Vice President, Government and Industry Relations, Cargo
Network Services Corporation, International Air Transportation
Association.
So, Mr. Weiler, if you'll start, and we'll limit each of
you to 5 minutes, and you don't have to take all that time if
you don't want, and then we'll come to questions.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN C. WEILER, A.A.E., DIRECTOR OF AVIATION,
SPRINGFIELD-BRANSON NATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Weiler. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Blunt,
Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to discuss security modernization
efforts at the Springfield-Branson National Airport where I
serve as Director.
My airport is the third largest in the state of Missouri,
serving a million passengers with 30 daily flights by four
airlines. We also house a military base, air cargo operation,
college flight training program, airline maintenance base, and
Customs port of entry. The airport's 10-gate terminal was built
in 2009, and the TSA security checkpoint configuration is two
standard lanes with AIT equipment and one PreCheck lane.
The City of Springfield owns and operates the airport as an
enterprise fund, which means we receive no local tax support,
and all revenue generated needed to run the airport must be
from user fees and rents. We focus on maximizing non-
aeronautical revenue to keep our airline fees low. Airline
passengers have increased more than 30 percent in five years at
my airport by adding routes, frequency, and using larger
aircraft. While this growth is good, it has, though, put a
strain on our infrastructure, personnel, and financial
resources.
FAA grants have become increasingly hard to get, and the
Federal cap on local PFCs at $4.50 has not been increased in 17
years. We recently had to borrow $2 million to purchase
specialized snow equipment to meet new FAA requirements, and we
are making emergency pavement repairs to a primary taxiway that
we were unable to get an FAA grant to fix. It is a constant
challenge to maintain development of the airport to meet the
growing public needs but with very limited resources.
Security is a shared responsibility, and it is absolutely
imperative that TSA, airport operators, and our industry
partners collaborate, communicate, and remain focused on the
critical roles that each of us play. On exit lane staffing,
Congress has set in law that this is a TSA responsibility, and
we appreciate that the bill continues funding to meet this
obligation. My terminal has one exit lane that is staffed 14
hours a day by TSA when the checkpoint is open and then 6 hours
by the airport until the last arrival.
We have wanted to automate the exit lane for years, really
to save money for both TSA and us, but the $300,000 cost was
outside of our reach. The bill includes a new pilot program to
implement and evaluate automated exit lane technology at small
and non-hub airports. We see this win-win approach as a
meaningful step forward and are pleased with the proposed
robust Federal cost-share to make it attainable for smaller
airports.
My airport has its own police department with 10 officers.
We are one of 300 airports that utilize the LEO reimbursement
program, but I can testify that the current reimbursement rate
only defrays a small portion of the actual cost to meet
security requirements. We have seen a 28 percent reduction in
LEO reimbursements since 2011, which currently covers 60
percent of the cost, and right now, it only covers 12 percent
of our police personnel budget.
We do appreciate the recognition and the importance of this
program and the provisions to increase funding, the number of
awards, and the funding per award. The commitment to enhance
Federal support is very important for airports.
The Springfield Airport has also seen a 25 percent increase
in our expedited screen rate for passengers since PreCheck was
first implemented. However, I continue to hear complaints from
my customers about a cumbersome enrollment process and
applicants waiting several months to get an appointment
interview with an authorized enrollment provider. We appreciate
your focus on enhancing enrollment and new provisions aimed at
increasing PreCheck participation.
In our view, TSA should publish its enrollment standards
and any private sector entity meeting IT standards be allowed
to submit applicant data for vetting by the TSA. This would
ensure new and easier means for enrolling potential
participants, including kiosks at airports and mobile device
platforms.
In conclusion, I want to again express my appreciation for
the opportunity to testify. I commend Senator Blunt and
subcommittee members for your work to provide airports and TSA
with additional tools to meet threats that continue to emerge.
As you move forward in the face of continued Federal budget
constraints, I urge you to recognize that we cannot neglect or
cut back on the TSA personnel or other resources needed to
maintain effective and efficient security screening at
airports, large or small, nor should the cost of this Federal
security burden be shifted to local airports with limited
budgets.
I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian C. Weiler, A.A.E., Director of Aviation,
Springfield-Branson National Airport
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss security
modernization efforts at the Springfield-Branson National Airport,
where I serve as airport director. I am also the immediate Past
President of the Missouri Airport Managers Association and have been
for over 20 years an accredited member of the American Association of
Airport Executives, which represents thousands of men and women across
the country who manage and operate our Nation's airports.
My airport is the third largest in the State of Missouri and
classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as a small hub
airport based on airline passenger volume. We will serve about a
million passengers in 2017 with four airlines (American, Delta, United,
and Allegiant) and nonstop service to 13 destinations, including an
average 30 daily flights to six major airline hubs. The airport also
houses a Missouri Air National Guard helicopter repair base, UPS/FedEx
air cargo operations, college flight training program, airline
maintenance base, and is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Port of
Entry for general aviation and corporate aircraft.
The airport's 10-gate, 275,000 square foot airline terminal was
built in 2009. The current three-lane TSA security checkpoint
configuration is two standard lanes with Advanced Imaging Technology
(AIT) equipment and one PreCheck lane with a metal detector. Baggage
operations are supported with two Explosive Detection System (EDS) CT80
equipment. TSA management for the airport also oversees security
operations at six non-hub commercial service airports in our area with
one Assistant Federal Security Director (AFSD) and three Transportation
Security Managers (TSMs). Recent security enhancements include
installation of new AIT equipment in 2014 and PreCheck in 2016. We are
scheduled to get a dedicated Known Crewmember Lane in November of this
year.
The City of Springfield owns and operates the airport as a
municipal enterprise fund department, which means it is run like a
business and receives no local tax support. All revenue needed to cover
operating costs is generated from user fees, rents, and charges. We
focus on generating as much non-aeronautical revenue as possible to
keep airline fees low and maintain an environment supporting airline
service growth, which is critical to our regional economy. Some
examples include operating the 23-county Foreign Trade Zone and
redevelopment of our former airline terminal into office space for over
1,000 employees. The airport houses some 40 businesses, employees over
2,000 people, and generates an estimated $500 million annually in
economic impact for Southwest Missouri.
Airline passengers handled by the airport have grown more than 30
percent over the last five years, which is more than twice the national
average annual growth rate of 2-3 percent. Working with our airline
partners, we have added multiple routes, increased frequency, and are
transitioning to larger aircraft from the 50-seat regional jets that
were primarily serving our markets. While this growth is good and
reflects a strong local economy, it has put a strain on airport
infrastructure, personnel, and financial resources.
FAA Airport Improvement Program grants have become increasingly
hard to get, and the Federal cap on local Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs) of $4.50 has not been increased in 17 years to even keep pace
with inflation. Our airport recently had to borrow $2 million from a
local bank to replace three pieces of 35 year old specialized snow
removal equipment needed to comply with new FAA runway condition
reporting requirements. We are also in the process of making emergency
pavement repairs to a primary taxiway that we are unable to get an FAA
grant to rebuild. It is a constant challenge to maintain and develop
the airport to meet growing public needs within very limited resources,
which is why we continue to ask Congress for more local flexibility
with the PFC.
I am pleased to say that airport management enjoys an excellent
working relationship with and has the highest regard for TSA managers
and personnel who work at the Springfield-Branson National Airport.
This was also confirmed with the public in a recent passenger
satisfaction study that scored efficient/friendly TSA personnel and
clean restrooms as our two highest attributes. We all take our jobs
seriously and partner together daily to maintain a high level of
security for the traveling public in a customer service environment.
Security is a shared responsibility at my airport and every other
commercial service airport across the country. It is absolutely
imperative that TSA, airport operators, and our industry partners
collaborate, communicate, and remain keenly focused on the critical
roles that each of us play in ensuring that airport facilities are as
safe, secure, and efficient as possible to protect and serve the
traveling public.
This background leads to current efforts underway to improve
aviation security and my input on four areas within the proposed
legislation that the subcommittee may soon consider.
Exit Lane Technology and Staffing: Congress has established in law
that exit lane staffing is clearly a TSA responsibility. My terminal
has a fairly simple design with one exit lane, which is staffed by TSA
about 14 hours a day (4:00am--6:00pm) when the checkpoint is open; then
by airport staff for an additional six hours after the last departure
at about 6:00pm until the last arrival around midnight. The airport has
wanted to automate our exit lane for years, but with no Federal cost-
share program currently available, the approximate $300,000 cost is
outside of our financial ability. Since TSA and the airport staff our
exit lane during different times of the day, both would benefit and
save money by automating our exit lane.
The draft legislation includes a pilot program to implement and
evaluate automated exit lane technology at small and non-hub airports
under a new Federal cost-share program. While not for every airport,
such a program would give airports like Springfield the ability to work
with TSA to automate our exit lane and save money/personnel resources
for both agencies. We strongly support this win-win approach to
resolving this issue, but ask that the program be implemented at an 85
percent federal/15 percent local cost-share so it is attainable for
smaller airports that are budget constrained.
Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Grant Program: The
Springfield airport has its own Airport Police Department with 10 sworn
officers and a wide area of responsibility over 3,300 acres of
property, including providing law enforcement support to the TSA
security checkpoint. We are one of approximately 300 airports that
utilize the LEO reimbursement grant program, but can testify the
current reimbursement rate of $20/hour only defrays a small portion of
our costs to meet security requirements. We have experienced a 28
percent reduction in LEO reimbursement since 2011. Our current
reimbursement of $104,000 covers about 60 percent of the $172,000 it
costs to provide law enforcement support to the TSA checkpoint and is
just 12 percent of our annual police personnel budget.
While we appreciate the inclusion of language continuing the LEO
reimbursement program at the current funding level of $45 million, the
legislation also proposes to significantly broaden LEO responsibilities
beyond those covered by existing security requirements. This includes
increasing officer presence in public areas like baggage claim, ticket
counters, and nearby roads. While these are certainly worthy goals,
adding program responsibilities while keeping funding stagnant creates
a significant unfunded mandate on airport operators. This would be
difficult for small airports, especially those that utilize local law
enforcement (County Sheriff or City Police) to meet these new
requirements without hiring additional officers and incurring
additional costs.
PreCheck: The Springfield airport has seen a 25 percent increase in
our expedited screen rate of our passengers since PreCheck was first
implemented at our airport in 2016. We see this as significant progress
and support further expansion of the program. However, while TSA
continues to slowly grow participation in PreCheck, I continue to hear
complaints from my customers about a cumbersome enrollment process and
applicants waiting several months to get an appointment interview with
an authorized enrollment provider, which there is only one serving my
regional area. Just last week, one of my staff checked and the first
available appointment was almost three months out.
We suggest that TSA should publish its enrollment standards and
that any private sector entity that meets information technology
standards to connect into the Federal Government be allowed to submit
applicant data for vetting and eligibility approved by TSA. This would
ensure that there are numerous, creative, and easier means for
enrolling potential participants, including using kiosks at airports,
mobile devices, or other mobile enrollment platforms. Many airports
would be willing to host PreCheck enrollment fairs and leverage
existing resources, including the ability to facilitate fingerprint
based background checks.
Security Checkpoint Wait Times: The average security checkpoint
wait time at my airport is approximately 13 minutes, which many
travelers find to be acceptable. However, as the airport continues to
grow, we are seeing significantly longer wait times more often during
peak season and peak times during the day. We support the requirement
for TSA to make the length of airport wait times at each security
checkpoint available to the public within one year. However, we suggest
you consider adding more specificity to this requirement.
One area is in the definition of ``wait time.'' TSA will say this
time begins when the traveler enters the checkpoint line until they
present their information to the travel document checker. TSA's
definition does not include the time a passenger waits to place their
personal items in bins to go into x-ray equipment or when they are
screened for threat objects. The traveling public would likely define
``wait time'' as starting when they enter the line until they retrieve
their screened items at the end of the checkpoint. Including a clear
definition in the bill would help ensure there is no confusion as to
what is being measured.
In conclusion, I want to again express my appreciation for the
opportunity to testify today regarding aviation security, which is
something that I and my fellow airport executives focus on and
prioritize every day. I commend you, Senator Blunt and members of the
subcommittee, for your work in trying to provide airports and TSA with
additional tools to meet the challenges and threats that continue to
emerge through your work on the legislation that is the subject of
today's hearing.
As you move forward with this and other potential legislation, I
urge you to recognize that we cannot neglect or cutback on the TSA
personnel and other resources needed to maintain effective and
efficient security screening of passengers/baggage at airports across
the country, large or small. Nor should the costs of this Federal
security burden be shifted to local airports with limited budgets. Air
travel is projected to grow significantly in the years ahead and my
airport colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to partner with TSA to
enhance security throughout the airport environment.
I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Weiler.
Mr. Alterman?
And if you're listening to the pounding here, welcome to
the Russell Building. It has been this way--they've been
working on our side of this hallway since January, and it's
like that every day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt. And the air conditioning won't switch off.
Mr. Alterman.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT,
CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; AND CHAIRMAN,
AVIATION SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TSA
Mr. Alterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. Good morning. My name is Steve Alterman, and I'm
President of the Cargo Airline Association. I also have the
honor of currently serving as the Chair of the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee at TSA.
When I testified before you in February, I mentioned
several issues involving security policy that were having a
significant impact on either the air cargo industry or on the
work of ASAC. These issues included the use of third-party
canines to screen air cargo, the need for a fixed five-year
term for the TSA administrator, and the activity of ASAC in a
number of areas. Much has happened since February, but the
issues remain basically the same.
To put today's comments on these issues and your proposed
legislation into context, I'd like to take a minute or two to
describe the events that have happened since February. First of
all and perhaps most significant, we have a new Administrator,
and I can tell you that from the ASAC perspective, it's really
nice to have a permanent Administrator there. I've had six
bosses since 3 years ago taking over the Chair of ASAC, and
it's nice to have an Administrator who I hope will be there for
the long term.
The ASAC has continued its work schedule, including but not
limited to the submission of its report on the Checkpoint of
the Future to both TSA and Congress. We had new recommendations
from our General Aviation Subcommittee on how to modify and
enhance these security programs for the general aviation
community, and we continue to monitor the implementation of
recommendations relating to airport worker screening.
In addition, TSA is now moving forward to develop a program
that would allow the third-party canine screening of air cargo.
This program is not yet finalized, and the devil is always in
the details, but there has been significant movement. And, of
course, the House of Representatives has passed its version of
a DHS authorization bill. It's against this background that
today's comments are submitted.
The proposed Senate TSA bill is a much needed piece of
legislation. We urge that it be passed as soon as possible and
that any differences between the House and Senate version be
quickly resolved. We are particularly encouraged by the
provision to give the TSA Administrator a fixed 5-year term of
office. The instability caused by a rapid turnover at the top
of the agency creates internal chaos and inhibits the ability
to plan strategically for the challenges ahead. We also support
wording in the proposed legislation that would make the 5-year
term applicable to the current Administrator. I would think
that's very important.
The bill also contains several separate provisions related
to the activities of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee.
On behalf of the members of ASAC, I want to thank you for your
confidence in our work. We look forward to working with TSA to
implement any provision in the proposed legislation that
requires our assistance, and I do note there are four or five
of those in the bill and we look forward to working with you on
them.
From the air cargo perspective, perhaps the most
significant provisions in the legislation relate to the use of
third-party canines to screen air cargo. As noted on numerous
previous occasions, the members of the all-cargo air carrier
industry strongly support this program, and we thank the
Committee for including a third-party canine provision in the
proposed legislation.
We believe that the proposed Section 234 relating to the
screening of air cargo by third-party canines contains the
appropriate elements and succinctly lays out the process to be
followed by TSA. While, as noted previously, TSA is in the
process of moving in the direction of adopting the elements
described, legislation is needed to ensure that the program is
made permanent and not subject to future personnel changes
within the agency.
And, finally, while I'm on the subject of air cargo
security, we also strongly believe that TSA needs a more
centralized focus on the air cargo supply chain. At the present
time, TSA policies that focus on air cargo are not centralized,
but rather are spread across the agency in a somewhat
uncoordinated manner. This structure, or lack of structure, has
often led to confusion and an uncoordinated application of
security standards.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I'd
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alterman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline
Association; and Chairman, Aviation Security Advisory Committee, TSA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good Morning. My name is Steve Alterman and I am the President of
the Cargo Airline Association, the nationwide organization representing
the interests of the all-cargo segment of the aviation community.\1\ I
also have the honor of currently serving as the Chairman of the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), the Federal committee
established by Congress to advise the TSA Administrator on issues
relating to all areas of aviation security. Thank you for inviting me
to testify today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Association members include direct air carriers ABX Air, Atlas
Air, Federal Express Corporation, Kalitta Air and United Parcel Service
Co., as well as Associate Members Amazon, DHL Express, Memphis Airport,
Louisville Airport, Ft. Wayne Airport, Columbus (OH) Airport, Spokane
Airport and the Alaska Airport System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I testified before you in February, I mentioned several issues
involving security policy that were having a significant impact on
either the air cargo industry or on the work of ASAC. These issues
included the use of third-party canines to screen air cargo; the need
for a fixed five-year term for the TSA Administrator; and the activity
of ASAC in a number of areas. Much has happened since February, but the
basic issues remain the same.
To put today's comments on these issues and your proposed
legislation into context, I would like to take a minute or two
describing the significant events that have taken place between
February and today:
We have a new Administrator at TSA.
The ASAC has continued its work schedule, including, but not
limited to, the submission of its report on the Checkpoint of
the Future to TSA and Congress, and the continued monitoring of
the implementation of recommendations relating to airport
worker screening.
TSA is now moving forward to develop a program that would
allow the third-party canine screening of air cargo. This
program is not yet finalized, and the devil is always in the
details, but there has been significant movement.
The House of Representatives has passed its version of a DHS
Authorization bill (H.R. 2825) that includes provisions similar
to those in the Senate's proposed bill.
It is against this background that today's comments are submitted.
The proposed Senate TSA bill is a much-needed piece of legislation.
We urge that it be passed as soon as possible and that any differences
between the Senate and House versions be quickly resolved. We are
particularly encouraged by the provision to give the TSA Administrator
a fixed five-year term of office. The instability caused by a rapid
turnover at the top of the Agency creates internal chaos and inhibits
the ability to plan strategically for the challenges ahead. We also
support wording in the proposed legislation that would make the five-
year term applicable to the current Administrator without the need for
a re-nomination and confirmation.
The bill also contains several separate provisions related to the
activities of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. On behalf of
the members of ASAC, I want to thank you for your confidence in our
work. We look forward to working with TSA to implement any provision in
the proposed legislation that requires our assistance.
From the air cargo perspective, perhaps the most significant
provisions in the legislation relate to the use of third-party canines
to screen air cargo. As noted on numerous previous occasions, the
members of the all-cargo air carrier industry strongly support this
program and we thank the committee for including a third-party canine
provision in the proposed legislation. We believe that the proposed
section 234 relating to the screening of air cargo by third-party
canines contains the appropriate elements and succinctly lays out the
process to be followed by TSA. While, as noted previously, TSA is in
the process of moving in the direction of adopting the elements
described, legislation is needed to ensure that the program is made
permanent and not subject to future personnel changes within the
Agency.
And finally, while I am on the subject of air cargo security, we
strongly believe that TSA needs a more centralized focus on the air
cargo supply chain. At the present time, TSA policies that focus on air
cargo are not centralized, but rather are spread across the Agency in a
somewhat uncoordinated manner. This structure (or lack of structure)
has often led to confusion and an uncoordinated application of security
standards.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Ms. Pressnell.
STATEMENT OF SISSY PRESSNELL, VICE CHAIRMAN,
SECURITY MANUFACTURERS COALITION
Ms. Pressnell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Blunt,
Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee, on
behalf of the eight members of the Security Manufacturers
Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to share collective
industry priorities and key recommendations for modernizing and
improving aviation security.
My name is Sissy Pressnell, and I'm the Vice Chair of the
Security Manufacturers Coalition and also serve as the Chair of
its Policy Committee. The SMC is the unified voice of leading
security technology companies with manufacturing operations and
offices in 10 states. The SMC generates 7,000 direct and 20,000
indirect jobs in everything from research and development to
engineering and advanced product manufacturing. The companies
have certified equipment deployed around the world.
The SMC recognizes that Congress must deal with substantial
funding constraints and demands on its limited resources in an
attempt to meet the needs of competing stakeholders. When
considering aviation security, the lack of adequate funding and
ever-changing priorities impedes long-term innovation at a time
when threats against the system continue to evolve and present
potential adverse effects on international travel and commerce.
TSA must embark on a requirements-driven, multi-year
program that will immediately accelerate the development,
testing, and deployment of next-generation technology as well
as the initiation of system upgrades for all checkpoint and
checked baggage technology with new software and detection
algorithms. The SMC recommends ending the diversion of a
portion of the passenger security fee that is now dedicated for
deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint development and
deployment of new technology enhancements. In the longer term,
we support a multi-year approach that includes a checkpoint
equipment capital fund similar to the checked baggage program
to provide consistent availability of resources for technology
acquisitions.
Industry needs more information and more direction from TSA
to ensure that manufacturing as well as research and
development investment plans are truly aligned with technology
capability gaps and actual government acquisition needs. For
technology manufacturers, as you know, the path to technology
acquisition is a very long one. It takes an average of 3 to 5
years and sometimes up to 10 to deploy technology capabilities
at the airports.
Congress must direct DHS and TSA to develop a plan to
completely reconstitute the equipment test and evaluation
process with a target goal of reducing the time-frame to no
more than one year from the date of laboratory certification.
This should start with a formal review of the test and
evaluation process and the addition of resources dedicated to
hiring additional testing experts to manage the transition to
next-generation equipment. Additional efficiencies can also be
realized by establishing a formal third-party test and
evaluation process requiring TSA to actually accept the results
at the conclusion of an authorized third-party test.
SMC members are global technology companies who manufacture
security screening equipment that is tested and certified to
meet internationally recognized standards that are often more
strict than those in the United States. Industry supports the
recommendations contained in the recent Aviation Security
Advisory Committee report titled ``Improving Checkpoints at
U.S. Airports.'' The ASAC recognizes TSA's efforts to
coordinate the sharing of information with international
partners to jointly define requirements and develop new
security screening equipment that is capable of detecting
explosives and other new threats to aviation.
The SMC supports the acceleration of efforts to develop
common detection testing and certification protocols with
international regulators and encourages TSA to accept the large
amounts of data that are captured during testing and deployment
at international airports to strengthen security screening both
in the United States and abroad. This will help to improve
security by creating common screening protocols and encouraging
reciprocity between international partners and also to improve
the passenger experience.
And, finally, the SMC strongly supports the work and the
efforts of the Innovation Task Force. Since it was formally
unveiled in 2016, the ITF has engaged with industry
stakeholders to identify and demonstrate next-generation
technology solutions to improve both security and operational
efficiency at selected airports. In order to build upon recent
successes and to clearly establish a process for developing a
program of record for approved technologies, Congress should
formally authorize and fund the work of the ITF.
Congress should direct the TSA to establish a framework and
a formal requirements process that serves as a roadmap for
industry engagement. At the same time, Congress should direct
TSA to provide annual updates on the effectiveness of the ITF
in improving the overall security equipment process.
The Security Manufacturers Coalition appreciates the
opportunity to share our views and our recommendations with
your committee today. These recommendations share broad and
unanimous support within our industry, and many are already
endorsed by the ASAC, which represents a broad spectrum of
aviation stakeholders. The SMC appreciates the work of this
committee and professional staff for its diligent and inclusive
efforts in drafting the TSA Modernization Act. We strongly
support this legislation, and we look forward to working with
you in the future.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pressnell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sissy Pressnell, Vice Chairman,
Security Manufacturers Coalition
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the eight members of the Security
Manufacturers Coalition (SMC), thank you for the opportunity to share
our collective industry priorities and key recommendations for
modernizing and improving aviation security.
The SMC is the unified voice of leading security technology
companies with manufacturing operations and offices in ten states. The
SMC generates 7,000 direct and 20,000 indirect jobs in everything from
research and development to engineering and advanced product
manufacturing. The companies have certified equipment deployed around
the world.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) have been diligently working to make
long-term improvements to aviation security at the checkpoint and
beyond. The SMC and its member companies share the government's concern
about new and evolving threats, and remain committed to delivering
first-rate threat detection and screening equipment to improve security
for the traveling public.
My testimony today will focus on shared industry priorities and
recommendations for TSA modernization that will enable TSA to remain
prepared and stay ahead of its adversaries to deter, detect, and
disrupt any threat to aviation while also being able to meet the
growing demands of air travelers.
Funding to meet current future needs
The SMC recognizes that Congress must deal with substantial funding
constraints and demands on its limited resources in an attempt to meet
the needs of competing stakeholders. When considering aviation
security, the lack of adequate funding and ever-changing priorities
impedes long-term innovation at a time when threats against the system
continue to evolve and present potential adverse effects on
international travel and commerce. To that end, TSA must embark on a
focused, requirements-driven, multi-year program that will immediately
accelerate the development, testing, and deployment of next generation
technology as well as the initiation of system upgrades for all
checkpoint and checked baggage technology with new software and
detection algorithms. Making long-term technology investments takes
planning and significant resources. In the short-term, the SMC
recommends ending the diversion of a portion of the Passenger Security
Fee that is now dedicated for deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint
development and deployment of new technology enhancements. Longer term,
we support a multi-year approach that includes a checkpoint equipment
capital fund, similar to the checked baggage program, to provide
consistent availability of resources for technology acquisitions.
Authorize and Fully Fund the Innovation Task Force
The SMC strongly supports the work and the efforts of the
Innovation Task Force (ITF). Since it was formally unveiled in 2016,
the ITF has engaged with industry stakeholders to identify and
demonstrate next generation technology solutions to improve both
security and operational efficiency at selected airports. In order to
build upon recent successes and to clearly establish a process for
developing a program of record for approved technologies, Congress
should formally authorize and fund the work of the ITF. Congress should
direct the TSA to establish a framework and a formal requirements
process that serves as a roadmap for industry engagement and to further
encourage industry collaboration and participation. At the same time,
Congress should direct TSA to provide annual updates on the
effectiveness of the ITF in improving the overall security equipment
development and acquisitions process.
Enacting Acquisition Reform and Improving the Test & Evaluation Process
The passage of the Transportation Security Reform Act (TSARA--P.L.
113-245) was an important legislative achievement and a key milestone
for security technology manufacturers. For the first time, TSA was
required to develop a five-year technology acquisition plan and share
its contents with industry. This document provides a valuable framework
for industry resource planning. However, industry needs more
information and more direction from TSA to ensure that future
manufacturing as well as research and development investment plans are
truly aligned with technology capability gaps and actual government
acquisition needs.
For technology manufacturers, the path to technology acquisition is
a long one. It takes an average of three to five years, and sometimes
up to ten, for new technology capabilities to navigate the test and
evaluation process before being deployed at airports. Congress must
direct DHS and TSA to develop a plan to completely reconstitute the
equipment test and evaluation process with a target goal of reducing
the time-frame to no more than one year from the date of laboratory
certification. This should start with a formal review of the test and
evaluation process conducted to establish a new and more streamlined
process. The SMC recommends additional resources be dedicated to hiring
additional testing experts to manage the transition to the next
generation of equipment. Additional efficiencies can also be realized
by establishing a formal third party test and evaluation process, and
requiring TSA to accept the results at the conclusion of an authorized
third party test.
International Harmonization
SMC members are global technology companies who manufacture
security screening equipment that is tested and certified to meet
internationally-recognized standards that are often more strict than
those in the United States. Industry supports the recommendations
contained in the recent
Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) report titled,
``Improving Checkpoints at U.S. Airports''. The ASAC recognizes TSA's
efforts to coordinate the sharing of information with international
partners to jointly define requirements and develop new security
screening equipment that is capable of detecting explosives and other
new threats to aviation. The SMC supports the acceleration of efforts
to develop common detection testing and certification protocols with
international regulators, and encourages TSA to accept the large
amounts of data that are captured during testing and deployment at
international airports to strengthen security screening both in the
United States and abroad. This will help to improve security by
creating common screening protocols and encouraging reciprocity between
international partners to improve the passenger experience. It will
also drive down the cost of next generation advanced technology by
making it more affordable and available to everyone while increasing
manufacturing certainty.
Closing
The Security Manufacturers Coalition appreciates the opportunity to
share our views and recommendations with the Committee today. These
recommendations share broad and unanimous support within our industry,
and many were also endorsed by the ASAC, which represents a broad
spectrum of aviation stakeholders. The SMC appreciates the work of this
Committee and professional staff for its diligent and inclusive efforts
in drafting the TSA Modernization Act. The SMC strongly supports this
legislation and looks forward to working with you and the TSA to
improve the security of the traveling public.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Ms. Pressnell.
Mr. White.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITE, VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY RELATIONS,
CARGO NETWORKS SERVICES CORPORATION,
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
Mr. White. Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
participate in today's hearing on modernizing the TSA. My name
is Michael White. I'm the Vice President of Government and
Industry Relations for Cargo Network Services, a company of the
International Air Transport Association, IATA.
IATA's mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline
industry. Our members comprise some 280 airlines in over 117
countries, carrying 83 percent of the world's passengers and
cargo traffic by air. IATA greatly appreciates the opportunity
to testify on the need to modernize the TSA. Every day, the
policies of the TSA have a direct impact on the majority of the
120 IATA members flying to, from, and within the United States
on a regularly scheduled basis.
The TSA is, indeed, a critical component of the security of
the international aviation system. As with any organization, we
do believe there are a number of areas that could be improved
in order to enable the agency to continue its important mission
as effectively and efficiently as possible. Given that the TSA
has never been reauthorized in its history, we applaud the
Subcommittee for its efforts on this bill that would bring
about changes to the agency in a thoughtful and responsible
way. We would like to comment on the following issues addressed
in the Subcommittee's draft proposal.
A Five-year Term of the TSA Administrator. We strongly
support a 5-year term for the TSA Administrator. The agency has
been challenged in the past when faced with disruptive
transitions between numerous administrators.
The TSA Organization. We believe that TSA management should
be reflective of the global nature of commercial air
transportation and avoid treating domestic different than
international travel. TSA should align its domestic and
international operations with International Civil Aviation
Organization, ICAO, security policies and standards to promote
global harmonization.
Biometrics Expansion. IATA strongly supports the use of
biometrics in improving the passenger facilitation process. We
note with some concern that the TSA is currently pursuing a
biometric solution using fingerprints, while CBP is testing
facial recognition biometric capture in its entry and proposed
exit system. We encourage the TSA and CBP to coordinate their
efforts in this regard and utilize biometric capture technology
that minimizes negative impacts on passenger flows.
Third Party Canines. IATA supports the use of third party,
TSA-approved canines for both public passenger areas and for
air cargo. Canines have proven to be the most efficient means
to screen passenger and cargo in a timely, cost-effective
manner. We urge the TSA to move this program forward as
expeditiously as possible. We recommend that the TSA consult
with other Federal Government agencies for guidance and best
practices.
Public Area Best Practices. IATA shares the Subcommittee's
support for sharing best practices for securing airport public
areas. IATA has worked closely with airports and government
agencies around the world to improve processes at airport
public acceptance areas and screening queues as well as with
general airport design. We are confident that the TSA would
benefit from the experiences of many of these airports.
TSA PreCheck Program. IATA supports the expansion of TSA
PreCheck Program, as we do with similar known passenger
programs around the world. We need to ensure that the
significant benefits of PreCheck are not lost by a reduction in
personnel managing those lines.
Passenger Security Fee Diversions. IATA strongly opposes
the diversion of aviation-related fees for non-aviation
purposes. Congress should end these fee diversions and allow
the funds already being collected to be used for their original
stated purposes. We also oppose any attempt to use fees paid by
aviation to cross-subsidize other modes of transportation. The
policy against cross-subsidization, long established in U.S.
air transport agreements, derives directly from principles long
championed by the U.S. within ICAO.
Known Shipper and Indirect Air Carrier Programs. The Known
Shipper and Indirect Air Carrier Programs need review. We
strongly support a review of both those programs for air cargo.
We believe a review of these programs will enable us to
identify ways to use technology to reduce risk and improve
cargo processing.
Last Point of Departure Airports and Security Directives.
We strongly support requiring the TSA Administrator to consult
with trade association representatives for affected air
carriers and airports. IATA and its 120 members who serve the
U.S. want to work closer to be partners with the TSA when it
comes to aviation security.
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to participate in
this important discussion on modernizing the TSA. IATA looks
forward to working with you and your staff on this bill and
further legislation in the future to enhance safety and
security of our aviation system.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael White, Vice President, Government and
Industry Relations, Cargo Network Services Corporation, International
Air Transport Association
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you
for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on modernizing the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
My name is Michael White and I am the Vice President of Government
and Industry Relations for Cargo Network Services Corporation, a
company of the International Air Transport Association, or IATA.
IATA's mission is to represent, lead and serve the airline
industry. Our members comprise some 280 airlines in over 117 countries,
carrying 83 percent of the world's passenger and cargo traffic by air.
IATA greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify on the need to
modernize the TSA. Every day, the policies of the TSA have a direct
impact on the majority of the 120 IATA member airlines flying to, from,
and within the United States on a regularly scheduled basis.
The Transportation Security Administration is indeed a critical
component to the security of the international aviation system. Since
its inception, the agency has grown into what is today a mature
organization that is well equipped to meet the ever-changing needs of
the aviation security environment. However, as with any organization,
we do believe there are a number of areas that could be improved in
order to enable the agency to continue in its important mission as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
Given that the TSA has never been reauthorized in its history, we
applaud the Subcommittee for its effort to draft the TSA Modernization
Act to help bring about changes to the agency in a thoughtful and
responsible way. We would like to comment on the following issues
addressed in the Subcommittee's draft proposal:
5-Year Term for the TSA Administrator
We strongly support a five-year term for the TSA Administrator. The
agency has been challenged in the past when faced with disruptive
transitions between numerous Administrators. We believe a 5-year term
will give an Administrator the time he/she needs to promote the
organization's mission in a consistent and coherent fashion. It is
consistent with the term of the FAA Administrator, whose agency faces
similar challenges on the safety side and has benefited from the
stability that has come with a 5-year appointment.
TSA Organization
We believe that TSA management should be reflective of the global
nature of commercial air transportation and avoid treating domestic
different than international travel. To that end, we believe there
should be greater alignment between the Office of Strategic Policy and
Industry Engagement (OSPIE), which normally addresses domestic
security, and the Office of Global Strategy (OGS), which normally
addresses international security matters. To the extent practical, TSA
should align its domestic and international operations with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) security policies and
standards to promote global harmonization.
Biometrics Expansion
IATA strongly supports the use of biometrics in improving the
passenger facilitation process. We note with some concern that the TSA
is currently pursuing a biometric solution using fingerprints while
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is testing facial recognition
biometric capture in its entry and proposed exit system. We encourage
the TSA and CBP to coordinate their efforts in this regard and utilize
biometric capture technology that minimizes negative impacts on
passenger flows.
Third Party Canines
IATA supports the use of third party TSA-approved canines for both
public passenger areas and for air cargo. Canines have proven to be the
most efficient means to screen passenger and cargo in a timely and
cost-effective manner. We urge the TSA to move this program forward as
expeditiously as possible. We recommend that the TSA consult with other
Federal Government agencies (State, DOD, CBP) for guidance and best
practices.
Public Area Best Practices
IATA shares the Subcommittee's support for sharing best practices
for securing airport public areas. IATA has worked closely with
airports and government agencies around the world to improve processes
at airport public acceptance areas and screening queues as well as with
general airport design. We are confident the TSA would benefit from the
experiences of many of these foreign airports.
TSA Pre3 Program
IATA supports the expansion of the TSA Pre3 program as we do with
similar known passenger programs around the world. We need to ensure
that the significant benefits of TSA Pre3 are not lost by a reduction
in personnel managing those lanes.
Passenger Security Fee Diversions
IATA strongly opposes the diversion of aviation-related fees for
non-aviation purposes. In 2013, Congress increased the TSA Passenger
Security Fee from $5.00 per segment to $5.60 per one-way trip and used
the surplus revenue as a pay-for. This is projected to raise $15.79
billion through Fiscal Year 2025 under the guise of aviation security
and diverted to the general fund. Congress should end these fee
diversions and allow the funds already being collected to be used for
their original stated purpose. We also oppose any attempt to use fees
paid by aviation to cross-subsidize other modes of transportation.
In addition to being bad public policy, these actions have the
potential to violate existing international agreements to which the
U.S. is a party. The U.S. Government has entered into bilateral
aviation agreements with over 100 countries, all of which include a
clear prohibition against governments imposing user fees that exceed
the costs of the services provided to commercial aviation. Further, the
policy against cross-subsidization--long established in U.S. air
transport agreements--derives directly from principles long championed
by the U.S. within ICAO.
Known Shipper and Indirect Carrier Programs Review
We strongly support a review of the Known Shipper and Indirect Air
Carrier programs. These programs were developed in the 1990s and
enhanced after 9/11. Since that time, we have much better data and
technology to secure and track cargo shipments. CBP has used the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system to collect trade data
both in and out of the United States for all modes of transportation.
Technology has also moved to a less paper-intensive environment for
most government agencies. The data collected offers the opportunity for
a more effective and efficient risk-based screening process. We are
hopeful this review will enable us to identify ways to use the
technology to reduce risk and improve cargo processing.
Last Point of Departure Airports; Security Directives
We strongly support requiring that the Administrator consult with
trade association representatives for affected air carriers and
airports. To that end, it is important to note that the majority of
passengers and air cargo arriving in the United States is flown on non-
U.S. carriers. The TSA often consults with U.S. carriers in advance of
the issuance of Emergency Amendments (EAs) and Security Directives
(SD), which enables those carriers to provide meaningful input into
that discussion and prepare their operations in advance to support
TSA's security needs. Unfortunately, these advance consultations have
not taken place on a regular basis with non-U.S. carriers, either
directly or through IATA. This has led to situations where the TSA's
mission has been undermined because of a lack of understanding for or
appreciation of the various operational, governmental, or fiscal
challenges facing carriers seeking to meet new requirements. While we
recognize that appropriate security clearances are needed for these
types of discussions, accommodations must be made in order to ensure
effective and timely implementation of these critical security
directives.
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you
again for inviting me to participate in this important discussion on
modernizing the TSA. IATA looks forward to working with you and your
staff as you craft legislation to enhance the safety and security of
our Nation's aviation system.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. White.
For the Members who arrived after we started, we'll try to
keep the hearing moving during the vote that's coming up, and
I'll stay for a little while and do that. I may get to
questions then.
So we'll start with Senator Cantwell and then we'll go to
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panelists being pretty endorsing--I guess is the right way to
say it--of the canine program included in the legislation that
was introduced. We're big believers in what TSA and Homeland
and everybody else has told us about the efficiency of these
dogs, both in detecting explosives as well as helping to move
fast-paced lines that are challenged in very congested airports
like I mentioned at Sea-Tac.
So, Mr. Alterman, you also believe that they have great
opportunity to help us in the cargo area. You mentioned the
supply chain. So what is it that you think will best help us in
the canine units and getting more canine units in our airports?
Mr. Alterman. Well, I think the legislation helps, because
it puts a shining light on the need for it. We've talked a lot
about technology on this panel, and that's absolutely
necessary. Dogs are sort of the low-tech solution, but a very
important one.
In the air cargo area, our businesses are expanding, our
requirements for screening freight are expanding, and at least
at the present moment, technology doesn't do the job. We don't
have the right technology. We absolutely need the canines to do
that, and in order to do that, we need a program that TSA is
currently working on that actually substantially mirrors the
language in this legislation.
We all wish it would move faster. The bureaucracy sometimes
moves a little too slowly for all of us. So we're looking
forward to that. I was hoping that by the time of this hearing,
I could tell you that they're in the process of implementing
that canine program. I expected to see something about 3 weeks
ago. We haven't seen it yet. You know, it's always tomorrow
that we're going to be doing this. So I am looking forward to
the program that TSA is developing. We just hope that there
aren't any glitches or deviations from what the proposed
legislation has in it.
Senator Cantwell. Any ideas about why that is moving
slowly? Do you know?
Mr. Alterman. It's a bureaucracy. Well, I actually do, and
at the risk of--well, let me say this first. Probably, the way
TSA works internally is none of my damned business. But that's
one of the problems. The problem is that, as in any
bureaucracy, there are various pieces of the agency with
various portions of this project, and they don't always get
along with each other that well. So I think that one of the
reasons that we do not yet have a canine program is the lack of
coordination between the various parts of TSA, and nobody seems
to be totally in charge that can bang heads together and
actually get it done, and I think that's simply a bureaucratic
problem.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you for illuminating it this
morning, and I find here that illuminating some of these things
does help us. The efficacy of the program is very important, as
you know, in making sure the dogs are trained and skilled for
this kind of detection, and making sure they meet that standard
is very important. But, obviously, probably everybody on this
committee has seen some pretty amazing things done by these
canine units--I mean just amazing things.
So on the cargo side, you're talking about a large scale
deployment or a targeted first?
Mr. Alterman. Well, the cargo industry is very diverse, and
so making one comment on that is very difficult. I think
different members of our industry would use the dogs
differently. I know that at least one company wants to use them
fairly extensively, and others just as a supplement to other
things.
I think the important thing is not to limit the program
initially, but rather let the marketplace take its form, and
let the people who want to use the dogs go and rent the dogs
from qualified people who have been trained by people who know
how to train them and have been certified by people that have
been certified by TSA, and then just let the marketplace take
care of it. I don't think one-size-fits-all in this program
works.
Senator Cantwell. Well, that is why we want the flexibility
in the program, particularly as it relates to passenger
screening at our airports, and we're so glad that you guys have
all supported that concept and we're going to get to move
forward on that. Our airports are showing that these dogs--and
I just go back to the horrible situations we've seen in Europe.
People tell us that the security--that they would have detected
somebody the minute they walked into the airport terminal. To
me, that is the kind of deterrence that we need, as well as the
expediting of the processing at our really very congested
airports. So thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, Mr. Alterman, that's one of the better
descriptions that I've heard of bureaucratic problems. I've
written it down.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. You know, I'm new to this committee, but
we've already had--you've been here as a witness before, and it
has been fascinating to me as we watch the successes and some
things that are working and aren't working. But it seems like
every time someone testifies, they come right back to the issue
of the canines, you know, the dogs are there, and I fail to see
what the problem is.
You know, first of all, you say that anyone who is training
these dogs has to be certified by the TSA. Is that correct?
Mr. Alterman. The way the program is going to work--and I
believe the language in the legislation--TSA would set the
standards for suppliers of the dogs to use. They would be
trained----
Senator Inhofe. You say would. Have they already done this?
Mr. Alterman. They are in the process of doing it. They've
already set the standards for their own dogs--the TSA dogs that
are currently operating. I haven't seen standards for the
third-party canine program for screening air cargo. But I can't
imagine those standards are going to be very different from
what they've already done. So my guess is that part of the
process has been done, but I haven't seen it, finally.
Senator Inhofe. I just don't see the problem with this,
because----
Mr. Alterman. Well, neither do we, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Well, what I'm saying is I've been the
ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have
the same problem right there in getting the adequate number of
dogs. The talent is there. People train--there are a number of
people who train them. But if they have to be certified by the
TSA, and they haven't yet done it, the question would be--and
you're not the TSA so I can't ask you, but I will ask the TSA--
why haven't they already done it?
And then guidelines, for example. What role do higher
education institutions play in this? Are they involved in this?
Mr. Alterman. They certainly can be. They're not
specifically involved in this. But, certainly, the educational
institutions--and there are several of them around the country
that are involved very intimately in the canine program.
Senator Inhofe. One of those is Oklahoma State University,
and yet when I went over to check, they don't actually get
involved in training the dogs. They're think tanks. They're
putting together programs--what do we want, what do--it seems
to me that we're beyond that point. So I think this Committee
could be helpful in trying to actually go out there and get
more dogs. I mean, there are lots of other issues here, but
that's one that consistently has come up.
So are you familiar with some of the programs like Oklahoma
State University?
Mr. Alterman. I'm familiar with some programs. Auburn has
one. Oklahoma State has one. There are several other
universities. I'm not intimately familiar with exactly what
they're doing. But they have a role in this. They clearly have
a role in this, and any help that they can be to the TSA, I'm
sure TSA would be glad to take.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Well, I just want to get to the point
where we actually get more dogs.
Now, all of you have talked about the 5-year term, which I
think would be consistent with the FAA and their five-year
term. Is this something that you all agree on? We were here and
we did go ahead and approve a Director, and I think we went
without a Director for about 8 months. So that is a hardship,
so we will pursue that.
I didn't realize my time has expired.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. I don't think your time had expired. You
have a minute.
Senator Inhofe. Oh, well, on my little clock, it said--OK.
Well, that's----
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Maybe that's a message just to me.
Senator Blunt. Maybe in the interest of time, we'll just
move on.
Senator Inhofe. No, let me ask one final question.
Mr. White, you mentioned the fee diversion that's taking
place. Tell us about these fee diversions. Are they with the
PFCs or what?
Mr. White. Well, the security charges don't always remain
at--for the purpose they were designed for. Some of the funding
does go into other agencies outside.
Senator Inhofe. Can you give some specific examples?
Mr. White. There are some that are used, for instance, for
ocean and the purpose of screening passengers on the ocean
side. There's other things that are being used to--for just in
general funds that are not for security purposes. I don't have
specifics, but we can give you a list of those.
Senator Inhofe. OK, for the record. I'd be interested in
knowing that.
Mr. White. We'll be glad to get those for you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Cargo Network Services Corp
Miami, FL, November 8, 2017
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Hearing--
TSA Modernization: Improvements to Aviation Security;
September 28, 2017
Dear Senator Inhofe:
This letter is in response to your request during the September 28,
2017 subcommittee hearing for specific examples of where Congress has
increased aviation-related user fees to pay for items unrelated to
aviation. Below are three of the most recent examples:
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) increased
the TSA Passenger Security Fee from $5.00 per segment to $5.60
per one-way trip and directed that a portion of those fees,
totaling $12.63 billion, in Fiscal Years 2014 through 2023 be
deposited into the general fund.
The Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice
Improvement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-41) extended the
authorization to divert a portion of the TSA Passenger Security
Fee increase through Fiscal Year 2025, adding another $3.16
billion to the general fund.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L.
114-94) indexed customs user fees beginning in Fiscal Year 2015
to increases in the Consumer Price Index and used the estimated
$5.7 billion revenue increase as a pay-for. Of this amount,
$932 million is estimated to come from aviation.
While CNS and IATA appreciate the funding challenges currently
facing the Congress, we strongly believe that any aviation-related user
fees should be used for their intended purpose and that airlines and
their customers should not be asked to fund other, unrelated government
programs. We appreciate your support and look forward to working with
you and your office on this important issue in the future.
Sincerely,
Michael R. White,
Vice President, Government and Industry Relations.
cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation--Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
Security
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar and then Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We had a
very good experience in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, which
is a major hub, by adding dogs. We had severe wait lines, and
then, at the time, TSA Administrator Neffenger came in and
brought more dog teams, including one team of dogs that,
unfortunately for them, got relocated from Maui to the Twin
Cities.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. But it made a huge benefit. So I would
just add what my colleagues, Senator Cantwell and Senator
Inhofe, have said about the value, not just for security, which
is key and the most important thing, but also for efficiency at
a very, very busy airport.
I thought I would ask about the TSA PreCheck program. It
increases efficiency and security. Mr. Weiler, from your
perspective from Missouri, what strategies have been effective
in promoting the program, and how are we assured, I guess, Mr.
White, that those benefits don't get taken away by longer lines
in the PreCheck? I've started to see longer lines in that like
the regular one. So let's talk a little bit about that.
Mr. Weiler. Sure. Thank you, Senator. We have seen an
increase in the use of it, and I think it's impacted our
general line, which is good. I think the more we can do to
highlight the program--and I really like how the bill sets
specific enrollment targets out there to increase that. But, as
I said, it's still somewhat clunky. You can get online. You can
complete your data to submit it. But when you have to do that
follow-up interview--at least, at my airport, we only have one
enrollment center, and it's nowhere near the airport. It's
functioning, but it takes months to do that.
So I think bringing the devices that we all now have,
having that technology and bringing those things, and opening
up more to more vendors to increase it would be very good.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you think a clear definition of wait
time would be helpful?
Mr. Weiler. We do, we do, as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. White.
Mr. White. On the issue of the lanes themselves, we're
seeing at some airports--and you've probably seen it here at
the Washington airports--where the PreCheck lines are getting
longer and longer. I think part of the issue you have to look
at is back to the data perspective as to how many passengers
are going to go through every day. Can we look at some of the
data that determines the actual movement of where the officers
and inspectors should be in a day? Are you going to have more
PreCheck passengers or not? Can you take your manpower flows
for those days and--so I think there's a lot of capability
based off the airline information and the airports' information
on helping rearrange where some of those lanes are.
The other thing, though, that we want--we do want more
people in PreCheck. It does reduce the time, and it does help
put the flow of passengers faster through the terminal. But
then you have the whole issue of the design of the airports and
such.
Senator Klobuchar. How about best practices for security at
airport public areas? We've seen in other countries, of course,
major issues there.
Mr. White. IATA has worked with other airports around the
world, because our security groups do work directly with
airports in many other parts of the world. So we look at time
studies. We do actual views of the flow of the passengers as
related to the security inside the terminal. So is that, you
know, the public area and some of the things like we found in
Fort Lauderdale?
Those are difficult challenges, in baggage claim areas and
others. We have to re-look at that, but I think that's where we
can take some of the studies that we've done on simplifying the
business product on the passenger side that we work with the
airlines on to see how we could put that into a security realm
better.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Alterman, you called for TSA to have a more centralized
focus on air cargo supply chain. How should TSA change in order
to focus on air cargo security?
Mr. Alterman. That's a tough one. But let me preface my
answer by saying once upon a time, TSA had an air cargo
division with scores of people. I think the numbers were about
40 people, and that whole division focused on air cargo
security, and it cut across lines. About 5 years ago--I believe
it was 2012--that whole air cargo division was disbanded, and
the people that were working on air cargo were spread
throughout the agency.
Since then, there hasn't been within the agency a
centralized focus on air cargo. So what we have is the OSO, the
operation security people, making some policy on it, and other
people making policy on other areas.
Senator Klobuchar. Could I just ask you one question? Maybe
you could finish that one in writing, since I'm out of time.
Mr. Alterman. Sure.
Senator Klobuchar. Would you like a 5-year term for the TSA
Administrator and Deputy Administrator for some more
continuity?
Mr. Alterman. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Excellent answer. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Weiler, I wanted to thank you for your testimony and
follow up a little bit on the realities of managing a small to
medium size airport. As a manager of a small airport, I would
expect--and your testimony certainly suggested--that you
struggle with some of the same security and funding challenges
that other such airports do, like the one in my City of
Manchester, New Hampshire.
As you know, the President's budget request eliminates the
TSA grants to reimburse state and local law enforcement for
their patrols of airports and the surrounding areas, and it
also dramatically cuts VIPR teams. When the budget came out
earlier this year, I asked then Secretary of DHS Kelly during a
Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing about why the
administration cut these programs, even though our aviation
system is facing increased threats?
Secretary Kelly's response to my question was that from
DHS' perspective, the state and local law enforcement would
have to shoulder more of the burden for securing the airport
and its surrounding areas, given that airports generate so much
revenue for states and municipalities. I reminded him at the
time that at least in my state of New Hampshire, budgets are
pretty slim and local property taxpayers aren't eager to
increase their property tax rates anymore.
So I understand from your testimony that your airport runs
on an enterprise fund and has its own 10 uniformed police
officers patrolling the airport. How much does maintaining that
force cost? And, additionally, does that police force--would
that be able to stay up and running if your local enforcement
grants are cut?
Mr. Weiler. Senator, it's a constant challenge. We cover a
large geographic area. Our airport is 3,300 acres. We do rely
heavily, as do the other 300 airports, on this law enforcement
officer program. Airports may be seen as a cash cow, but,
honestly, it's probably more in terms of the economic impact
that they generate. They don't really generate money for the
local entity.
So the bill does call for increased security in public
areas, baggage, around ticket checkpoints, things like that,
which we all agree are good. But at least the draft bill from
this committee also increases the funding for the LEO to
provide those resources, at especially small airports. There's
only so many places I can go, and the airlines that operate
there that our communities rely heavily on, in a lot of cases,
I have no choice but to pass those fees along to them, and to
them it may actually be the point of losing a route or gaining
an additional frequency. So it's a focus on us, a constant
challenge to maintain that balance. We all want good security,
but there's only so much money in the bank for us.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that, and then a
question to both you and Mr. White. In the past, this
Subcommittee has focused on insider threats at airports and
increasing the capacity of TSA to screen airport workers.
However, one potentially overlooked area of insider threat
vetting is the security and authenticity of pilots' licenses.
According to a recent Boston Globe investigation, the
Federal Aviation Administration has issued pilots' licenses and
credentials to applicants without having fully vetted the pilot
first. And the investigation found that at least five pilots
with active licenses matched watch list records for their
connection to terrorism or international crime. So, obviously,
this is a really startling report and discovery. The lapse
appears to stem from insufficient communication between FAA and
TSA, as well as the FAA's inability to validate the
authenticity of personal information on pilots' licenses at the
time of the application.
So to both of you, Mr. White and Mr. Weiler, your
constituencies rely heavily on the trustworthiness and
reliability of pilots, obviously. Would you support holding
pilots, at a minimum, to the same security standards as we do
airport workers?
Mr. White, why don't you start?
Mr. White. I think it's something that would be looked at.
But from the commercial airlines license, if we're looking at
commercial pilots, I think the scrutiny goes beyond just what
the governments themselves do, as to what the companies and
airlines also are looking at. From an international
perspective, we're looking at, for multiple purposes of
securing them, the individuals that are flying those aircraft,
with local governments where they're based and with the U.S.
Government.
So there's a multiple look at that. I'm not sure--I'm not
aware of that study, but it's something I can go back and find
more information on.
Senator Hassan. We'll be happy to get you a copy of the
report. It's relatively recent. It was very concerning to me.
That's why I'm bringing it up.
Mr. Weiler.
Mr. Weiler. I can't speak to that specific issue as well,
but I do know known threat and possibly even 100 percent
screening has been used effectively at some airports. I will
tell you it does have airports our size very concerned. Again,
it's a resource issue. We have focused working with TSA on more
of a random approach, limiting the number of access points for
employees, doing random screening, and leaving that expectation
with any airport employee that they could be screened at any
time. We focused on that, and we think it's a good balance.
Senator Hassan. Well, I thank you, and I see that I'm out
of time. I will add my voice to the chorus concerning VIPR
teams and dogs and enhancing TSA PreCheck.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
One good reason to have a hearing is it forces you to come
up with a bill, and so I'm pleased to have your reaction to the
bill we filed last night. I do think it includes most of the
concerns that some of you have previously shared both with the
Committee generally and in testimony.
One new thing we put in here, Mr. Weiler, was the ability
to look at the exit lane with a pilot project on a different
kind of security. Now, your airport, the one I use a lot--
you're approaching a million passengers a year. Is that right?
Mr. Weiler. That is correct.
Senator Blunt. And what would be your comfort with the
security and the economics of the idea of not having a person
at the exit lane all the time?
Mr. Weiler. Senator, for us, it's a win-win. There is good
technology on the market to be able to automate these lanes.
They're used at many airports very safely and securely. For our
airport, since we both share the staffing with TSA and with the
airport, they would actually save more money than we do because
they staff their lane longer. But yet there is no program for
them to share that cost with us. So I think the idea of a cost-
share program is a win-win. Ultimately, it should save both the
airport and TSA funds down the road. So we just see this as a
win-win.
Senator Blunt. And you're comfortable with the security
element of that?
Mr. Weiler. I am, Senator.
Senator Blunt. There are exit lane abilities that no one
would be able to get in the other way without immediately
triggering----
Mr. Weiler. The technology that is there, and if you've
seen them--they are installed at more and more airports,
especially the larger ones that bear that cost. It's very
secure. You are not allowed to go back. It is monitored. Alarms
will sound. Again, this is proven technology. I'm not saying it
can't get better, but I do think the security is there.
Senator Blunt. One of the things the law allows is the
private contractor coming in and providing TSA security. The
Kansas City Airport is one of the handful of airports in the
country that does that. At one time, your airport considered
it. Is that still something you occasionally look at, or why
have you moved back to the TSA in a more traditional way?
Mr. Weiler. You're right, Senator. It has been used at many
airports effectively, and we have looked at it in the past. We
are currently not looking at implementing private screening. We
have a good partnership with TSA. However, the airport would
very much like to maintain this ability, and I know other
airports would as well down the road, should that be an option
based on local conditions we could still apply to the
partnership program.
Senator Blunt. Let me ask a question of everybody here as I
finish my question time. If you could immediately change one
thing about the current approach to aviation security, what
would that one change be?
Mr. White, we're going to start with you and come back this
way.
Mr. Weiler. I think this bill is a major step in the right
direction.
Senator Blunt. I'm starting with Mr. White.
Mr. Weiler. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought----
Mr. White. I think if you had one thing to do, it's having
to develop a partnership that's truly open with the security
expertise of the people in aviation and that of the government.
That's the biggest thing we're lacking, because we don't have
that real true partnership, particularly with our foreign
carriers, which, for us, represents a very large chunk of the
transport that's coming into the U.S.
Without that, we can't work and share the knowledge that--
there's a real lack of sharing of knowledge between the
individuals within the aviation commercial industry and the
government. It's very one-sided, and if we can get away from
that, then we can really start making the change.
Senator Blunt. And in your other testimony, you said you'd
like to see much more of a standard that was consistent with
both domestic and international?
Mr. White. Exactly, because the TSA right now seems to be
divided in a domestic mode and an international mode. It's
aviation. It's not one or the other.
Senator Blunt. All right. I don't want to run out of time
here.
Ms. Pressnell, one thing you would change if you could.
It's OK if it's in this bill, but something we're not doing
now.
Ms. Pressnell. Well, the main concern that we have,
obviously, is the ability to get technology into the field
faster. The U.S. deserves the best technology it can have at
any given time, and we believe that the process that currently
exists is one that actually slows down the process and actually
puts us behind some of our foreign counterparts who deploy
technology that's somewhat more advanced.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Alterman?
Mr. Alterman. To follow up on what Mr. White said, security
always works better when the government and industry are
working together. I think one of the big things we need to
change and improve upon is the sharing of intelligence
information. We've discovered, sometimes the hard way, that if
we had better intelligence, we could stop things. All the rules
and security programs are fine, but we really need to work
together to share intelligence so that we can mitigate the
threats.
Senator Blunt. And by that, you're principally meaning for
them to share more of the threats that are out there with those
of you who are doing the shipping and the cargo?
Mr. Alterman. Yes. TSA, frankly, can't share information it
doesn't have. It goes both ways. There needs to be better
intelligence sharing for TSA among government agencies, which
don't seem to share very well----
Senator Blunt. Got it.
Mr. Alterman.--and then passing it on to the industry, yes.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Weiler, your one thing?
Mr. Weiler. Airports want to be a part of the table and be
there and collaborate, but we do not have unlimited resources.
Senator Blunt. Senator Booker.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I'd happily defer to my more
senior colleague.
Senator Blunt. Everybody here has asked questions. We're
down to you.
Senator Booker. OK. Would you mark my level of deference
for the record, please?
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt. There'll be a moment when you may need that.
Senator Booker. Yes, sir.
I'm very grateful for you all being here, and it's often
that we are reactive to crises as opposed to proactive, and
then everyone wants to do sort of a post mortem about what
happened. I often worry that when it comes to our security
issues at airports, we're often chasing after the last breach
and not really trying to see what's happening in the future
ones. That's why I found your comment very interesting about
watching other nations implement things a lot quicker than we
are doing.
So I'd like to just maybe--maybe I can start with you, Mr.
White. You know, I see things through the Newark lens. I live a
few miles from the airport. It was amazing to me traveling
around Europe, seeing the automated screening process, which is
actually quicker, and it seems to be more effective. I'm
wondering if you have any feedback regarding sort of those new
processes or the automatic screeners and the mechanization. Is
that something that you see as productive in terms of not just
speed, but also when it comes to the quality of the screening
that we're doing?
Mr. White. I think you have to take a look at the whole
process. If you take a look at the European programs, some of
the things, for instance, approval of screeners, are different
than the U.S. Some are more stringent. That standard, from our
perspective--we work closely with the government on those sorts
of things, and we want to share that kind of information. But
the TSA has a mindset of what they want, because most of the
inspectors are TSA employees. In most governments around the
world, it's not so. But the oversight is there, so the security
component is still there. So there are efficiencies that we
could be gaining, learning from our counterparts.
The PED situation, with carrying the personal electronic
devices, for us on the passenger side was quite an issue,
because the foreign governments had programs that we thought
were very effective, but the TSA did not. So there needed to be
better discussion between governments on how some of those
things were better--there's technology that was used by other
governments that may be considered, because it had been
implemented faster and quicker, as Ms. Pressnell was saying.
So it is a whole--just of bringing people together, and
it's very siloed in the TSA, and I think that's what we're kind
of all saying, that the TSA is so siloed internally and
externally, and that we need to bring some of this expertise in
with them.
Senator Booker. I appreciate that, and that goes to the
point you were making, Mr. Alterman, which I found interesting.
Maybe I could just make the comparison of traveling to Israel
versus here. It seems that they have, first of all, a far more
efficient system, it seems, in terms of the speed with which
people can go through. But it seems like they're using a
tremendous amount of background checks as well as intelligence
sharing to look at plane manifests.
Is this something that, really, we should be looking at?
Clearly, that's a nation that faces terrorist threats at our
level or worse.
Mr. Alterman. On the surface, maybe. The problem is that
the Israeli aviation system is so much smaller and limited than
the United States system. My concern is if you impose the
Israeli system on the United States, no one would ever move
anywhere, just because of the magnitude of the people that
move. But, certainly, what they're doing might be able to be
adapted to the U.S. system, and I, frankly, don't know whether
that's being done now or not. But we always need to be looking
for better ways of doing things.
Terrorists are not dumb, and, you know, the comment that we
always seem to be looking at and trying to solve yesterday's
problems is one of the major concerns and one of the major
challenges. I was very happy that in the final draft of the
bill, there was a reference to someone looking forward and
doing forward-looking things, and I think the agency needs to
do that.
Senator Booker. Well, I only have a few seconds left. So I
just really, very rapidly--when I--you know, I know a lot of
the folks at Newark Airport, and a lot of the TSA agents I know
on personal levels. And when I ask them, ``What else do you
need? What's happening?'' the common complaint that I get is
that there's not enough personnel, that they need more people.
Just really quickly, is that a yes or a no? Do you agree that
we should--are we staffed the way we need to be at airports
across the country, or do we need to be focusing on more
resources for staffing?
Mr. White. I think you do have issues with personnel at
different airports, but that varies by airport. But there's
technology that may be in use that we can improve on, because
if you look at the canine situation where we brought canines to
clear passengers the summer before last with all the backlogs,
that was a way to use something that was out there as a tool.
But you have to balance it.
Senator Booker. And, Mr. Chairman, right before I pass off,
I just want to say, first of all, I'm so grateful for this
hearing. It's so important. I've been saying, though, for a
long time that there's so much focus on our airports,
rightfully so, but part of them--part of the obligation for TSA
was to come back with a plan also for our rail system. You're
seeing so many attacks now on rail systems in the United
States. We have such a small, paltry percentage of our TSA
assets protecting our rails. I just want to say I know this
hearing--it's the topic of it, but I have a growing level of
frustration that we don't have a plan to protect our rails in
the United States.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Obviously, this began with Mohamed Atta and the other nine
at Logan Airport on September 11, 2001, and we continue to try
to make sure that we do our best to protect the American
public. Our nation's transportation security officers are
tasked with the important mission of detecting and forestalling
threats to passengers, crew, and aircraft.
Regrettably, airline fees may be making this job far more
difficult. In May, Secretary John Kelly stated that passengers
trying to avoid exorbitant checked bag fees, up to $120 for two
bags round trip, are cramming their belongings into smaller
carry-on bags. These carry-ons have become so dense that
screeners may be having difficulty identifying dangerous items.
For all of the witnesses, do you agree with Secretary Kelly
that TSA screeners may have more difficulty detecting dangerous
items in densely packed carry-on bags?
Mr. White. We haven't, from our side, seen anything that's
been initiated. The same technology that's basically used for
the carry-on bags is the same technology being used for the
checked bags.
Senator Markey. So you don't agree with Secretary Kelly.
Mr. White. Not necessarily.
Senator Markey. Ms. Pressnell?
Ms. Pressnell. I would disagree as well. The technology is
certainly advanced in terms of being able to detect threats
down to the most specific item. So I would disagree as well.
Senator Markey. You would disagree.
Ms. Pressnell. I would disagree with the Secretary that
it's causing problems.
Senator Markey. Mr. Alterman?
Mr. Alterman. I'm going to do something lawyers should
never do. I don't know.
Senator Markey. OK. That's great.
Mr. Weiler?
Mr. Weiler. I'm not aware, specifically, of direct TSA from
that. However, airports certainly do hear a lot from customers
about excessive baggage fees.
Senator Markey. OK. Well, in May, I wrote a letter with
Senator Blumenthal asking Secretary Kelly about this issue.
What we found was very troubling, in fact, very troubling.
According to TSA, bag fees do incentivize passengers to carry
on luggage, and the screening technologies at TSA screen
checkpoints are less sophisticated and advanced as those used
for checked baggage. I think that this important issue deserves
more study and evaluation, and we're going to be pursuing that
in the markup as we move forward on this legislation.
In the confines of the airline cabin, even a small knife
can contribute to devastating consequences. That's essentially
what happened on 9/11 at Logan Airport in Newark and here in
the District of Columbia, which is why I introduced a bill that
forbids any changes to the prohibited items that would permit
passengers to carry small knives through screening checkpoints,
and I'm pleased to see a similar provision in the TSA
Modernization Act.
For all of the witnesses, do you agree that we should
continue to ban knives on planes?
Mr. Weiler?
Mr. Weiler. Yes.
Senator Markey. Mr. Alterman?
Mr. Alterman. Yes.
Ms. Pressnell. Yes.
Mr. White. Yes.
Senator Markey. Yes, great. So that's all very helpful, and
I'm working with Senator Murkowski to ensure that this remains
a bipartisan issue as we move forward. I know that you have to
make a vote over on the----
Senator Cantwell [presiding]. I voted.
Senator Markey. Oh, you've already voted, and I have
already voted. So the Democrats are in charge over here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Blunt specifically asked that we not
do a lot of mischief while he was gone.
Senator Markey. No, No. Just a little humor reflecting the
bipartisanship, actually, with which the Senate is able to
operate, especially on issues that relate to homeland security.
That has been one area where we've been able to stay very
closely partnered, and I know that because of what happened on
9/11 and then what happened with the Tsarnaev brothers, who
were also in my congressional district, and what they did on
Patriot's Day.
So all of that kind of informs what I try to do, and we've
made a lot of progress over some opposition over time. But I
think we made great progress, you know, back in 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005. The cargo industry did oppose the screening of
cargo going out to passenger planes in the same way that the
bags which passengers were bringing onto the plane.
So it took the 2007 law to be able to upgrade that so that
there is nothing that goes onto a passenger plane that has
items on it that are not screened fully, and the same thing was
true for cargo coming in from overseas, so that the screening
was made for that. But that took the 2007 law, and that was 5
years, 6 years after the 9/11 incident. So we've made a lot of
progress, and I just want to make sure that we absolutely are
confident that we can detect any item that could cause a
serious problem.
We thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I
thank the gentlelady from Washington.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Mr. Weiler, I would like to ask about the exit lane
program. We know that it has been a success at some of the
larger airports. What is your experience on moving more
deployment of this to other regional and small airports?
Mr. Weiler. I think that's the nice thing about the pilot
program, Senator. It gives us the opportunity to explore it
more, analyze the technology, make sure it works at the smaller
airport environments. And for us, again, it focuses on saving
money, but making sure we do it in a very secure environment.
So we think the pilot program, as I mentioned in my testimony,
is a major step forward. I don't know if that answers your
question.
Senator Cantwell. You know, the exit lane doors that are
used at airports to, I think, enhance security, and my guess is
it helps some of these smaller airports on cost and
implementation of security measures.
Mr. Weiler. Yes, and by automating those, we won't have to
staff them, so that will definitely be a cost saving for us.
You know, again, when the airport staffs it--but this is--
Congress has established this is a TSA responsibility, so it
will actually save money for TSA in the long run on personnel
cost. Hopefully, those assets can be redeployed back to the
checkpoint, in general, to improve efficiency and bring more
assets to those areas.
Senator Cantwell. Well, as I said earlier on the canine
program, I think all of these things--obviously, Sea-Tac being
one of the fastest growing airports in the nation 3 years in a
row makes us want to deploy everything that we can that helps
us on security and efficiency, and, obviously, the canine units
do it. And I think for the pressure, then, that it puts on the
other airports, having these exit lanes being also deployed
helps on the efficiency side, so all of that.
Mr. White, you mentioned the issue of biometrics and some
coordination on biometrics. How do you think that we come to a,
if you will, standard that we feel comfortable with from a
national and international basis?
Mr. White. I think, first thing, on the U.S. side----
Senator Cantwell. And I just mean on the technology.
Mr. White. On the technology aspect.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, just on the technology aspect of it.
Mr. White. Whether one is right, better than the other, you
know, that still could be determined. From our perspective,
we're working, for instance, with CBP on the exit lanes right
now into the U.S. to see how we can capture those passengers to
ensure who's leaving. Is that same technology what should be in
place at the checkpoint for TSA? Is that where it starts?
So part of it, from our perspective, is what technology is
best, whether it's fingerprint or other. It also ties into
what's the efficiency of the airport. So you take Sea-Tac,
trying to move more passengers, really, through the same
terminal until the expansion starts. But you're moving more
people through the same space. Can you use that technology, and
which one is better, and where that standard comes from takes a
lot of--lots more people that I know, that I am, that we have,
and those are the studies that IATA does.
So we've been working with other airports around the world
in similar type fashions. Again, it's sharing of information,
and work groups that are really involved with that sort of
thing. The airlines' perspective is, what's the cost? You know,
at the end of the day, there is a cost to all of this, and what
makes it more efficient. Do we gain efficiency from it? Does it
improve security? We have to look at all those factors.
So technology, as it comes about, one over the other is
what's--the latest and greatest. You've really got to delve
down into it. So that's where we really want to focus with some
of the--a lot of people in the airlines that we have that are
really doing that day-to-day work and studying that sort of
thing.
Senator Cantwell. But we don't have a body yet that works.
It's more of an informal discussion. Is that what you're
saying?
Mr. White. What we're finding is most governments are
testing different things in different ways, and I don't know of
a formal body, although there are--like through ICAO, there are
working groups that are looking at those sorts of things as to,
you know, what are the technologies and how do we implement
them. IATA has been looking at the express lanes and how we can
clear passengers quicker. Is the technology--and we could put
it in with the check-in process--make it easier for a passenger
to clear?
Senator Cantwell. Well, we--myself and Senator Collins--
have worked on moving our borders to overseas airports and
deploying these kinds of technologies as a way to get security
before people enter the United States, and we think this is an
important question. She and I have worked on the biometrics for
quite some time now, and we think we should continue forward.
Senator Duckworth.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I want
to thank you and also the Chair for convening today's hearing,
and I want to thank our witnesses for participating in this
important conversation.
As this Committee moves closer to consider legislation to
enhance TSA programs, including TSA's rail security efforts and
improving aviation security, I'm encouraged that industry is
actually engaged in working with us to address policy gaps and
identify appropriate solutions.
Mr. Alterman, as Chairman of TSA's Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, can you speak to the agency's efforts to
deploy credential authentication technology for detecting
fraudulent identification documents at airport passenger
checkpoints?
Mr. Alterman. This goes to--we started that effort in ASAC
as a result of insider threat issues that developed out of the
Atlanta airport, and the ASAC gave 28 separate recommendations
on insider threat, and many of those recommendations had to do
with credentialing. We made those recommendations to TSA, and
they have been moving forward on them. They've done a pretty
good job on that. There were a couple of issues involving
interagency issues that they couldn't do right away--the FBI's
Rap Back program so we could figure out--we could get access to
those.
That's an ongoing issue. I personally don't know exactly
where we are in detail on that. But, certainly, the
credentialing issue is one that is of constant concern to us
because of the potential ability to get fraudulent credentials.
So the agency is working on that in response to our
recommendations, and they are making progress on that. I
honestly can't tell you exactly where they are in that process.
Senator Duckworth. Well, we'll have to follow up with you
on it. I want to also touch on the air cargo advanced screening
pilot program that took place. As you know, it was established
after authorities discovered two U.S.-bound packages from
Yemen, and they contained viable bombs, capable of bringing
down aircraft, and it was determined by forensic experts that
they were designed to detonate midair over Chicago. They
attributed the plot to Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula.
What's the current status--because it was a pilot program--
of the air cargo advanced screening pilot program, and what are
the plans for developing this into something that's industry-
wide?
Mr. Alterman. That's a very good question. It is not--the
pilot program is not finished. The pilot program is ongoing.
It's been ongoing for 6 years. We are currently waiting for a
CBP rule that would make mandatory the filing of certain
information to CBP. This is a cooperative program between CBP
and the TSA. TSA would be then responsible for doing the
checking when CBP got information that some of the packages
might be suspect.
We need to do that. We need to make that final. We need to
make that final as quickly as possible, and we need to make it
applicable to everybody. The hang-up as I know it right now is
that we're still waiting for a CBP rule to make it mandatory,
and I think that one of the problems that they're encountering
is we do have this new administration's rule that you can't put
in new rules without taking two away and the cost implications
of that. My guess is that, bureaucratically, it may be hung up
in that issue. I don't know. Mr. White may know a little bit
more than I do on that.
But you're absolutely correct. It's an issue that's
ongoing. Our members have been participating. There are
millions of packages that are screened that way now--not
screened, but the information is given--and we need to make
that universal.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. White, do you want to address that? Is that rule ready
to go but it just can't be posted because of the new Trump
administration----
Mr. White. It has been going between CBP, TSA, and DHS.
It's our understanding that the rule is very close, according
to meetings with CBP last week, and that it's in its final
version for proposed rulemaking. They may be able to not even
have to have a proposed rule. They're looking to see if they
can actually implement it under current rules.
But the same as Mr. Alterman mentioned, we are very
supportive of the ACAS program. We think that's something
that--technology actually brings information together to
enhance screening, and it's proven very well that it can be
done. There are still some technology challenges that will be
needed, but I think once it's implemented, it'll become the
norm.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I yield back.
Senator Blunt [presiding]. Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you. I have sort of two lines of
questioning.
Mr. Alterman, I wanted to talk to you about the
segmentation at airports, and I want to ask you questions from
a layman's perspective. We have Trusted Traveler, we have TSA
Pre, we have now Clear, we have your regular lines, and I guess
from a logistics standpoint, my question is at what point are
we sort of taking a one-lane highway, widening it to five, and
then having it merge back into one a mile later?
I mean, I know that sounds, you know, borderline sassy. But
it's a real question, because those of us who travel a lot sort
of wonder whether there's not a point at which this just
becomes how effectively an individual experienced traveler can
sort of work the arbitrage in this system rather than increase
throughput capacity. So I wonder how much thought has been
given to that question. And can you reassure me that there is a
strategic plan here and there is some strategic thinking rather
than just new product offerings for individual travelers as we
go along?
Mr. Alterman. I'm probably the wrong one to ask that
question of. We may have an airport that would have a better
idea. But I sort of smiled when you mentioned that, because we
have about five different ways of getting through security, and
they all seem to converge at one point.
Senator Schatz. At the security line, yes.
Mr. Alterman. At the security line. I don't actually know
the answer to that question.
Mr. Weiler. Senator, I could speak to that a little bit.
Senator Schatz. Sure, please.
Mr. Weiler. I manage a small hub airport, so we have about
a million passengers, and I actually had that same question
about our checkpoint. We have two standard lanes and one
PreCheck lane, and we're just about ready to get a Known Crew
Member lane. So it's kind of that same thing. I do think the
focus should continue to be on making all the main lines as
efficient as possible.
But even on like the Known Crew Member line, my
understanding, from talking to our TSA personnel, is it's not
like that's going to have to be staffed all day long. When they
get a peak group in--we have a lot of pilots that live in our
area that are traveling to other hub airports to do their
things, and they'll get 10 of them in, put them in that line
behind a long line, and then deploy assets over there to deal
with them and move it on.
So I agree. I'm kind of a believer now. We're excited about
getting the Known Crew Member, but I also share your concerns.
The focus should continue to be on increasing throughput
through the main line.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Mr. Alterman--and feel free to hand it off, as you just
did--I want to talk to you about the biometric data collection.
I know there are a couple of pilot programs being implemented.
Generally speaking, I think this is an exciting space, and even
if I had reservations, which I do from the civil liberties
standpoint, I think this is inevitable. I think faces will be
in databases, but the question becomes sort of how you manage
this process, recognizing our Fourth Amendment rights.
So the question is: My understanding is that DHS has a
requirement for a privacy impact assessment, and they're doing
that on the CBP side. I'm wondering, you know, where we're
going to be, first of all, specifically on the privacy impact
assessment, and then, second, more generally, if you have
private sector companies that do this biometric data analysis
and provide these services to airports and hubs, do they keep
the data? What's the understanding with respect to where those
facial recognition data go?
Mr. Alterman. I'm getting very good at not answering
questions. I don't know the answer to that, but Mr. White has
mentioned the biometrics in his testimony, and we have a
technology expert here. Am I allowed to turn it over to them?
Senator Schatz. Sure. This is working fine.
Mr. White. From an airline perspective, as I mentioned
earlier, our issue is we have emerging technologies of
biometrics and which one is best or not. We see advantages, but
where the data is stored is an issue, in general, from a global
standard, because we have the European requirements on just the
passenger data as to what we have that we submit already to the
government.
So I think some of that that we've already learned from the
passenger data, your personal information when you make your
reservation, that we're providing in the Advanced Passenger
Information System is already--some of that information is
probably related to the biometric side. So there's probably
some preexisting study that's been done from that point.
Senator Schatz. Ms. Pressnell, did you want to add
anything?
Ms. Pressnell. I cannot speak directly to biometrics, sir.
Senator Schatz. So it just seems to me that for the
Committee and staff and others to consider that it's not at all
clear as we move forward--and we are. We're going to move
forward with biometric data collection, and we should. But it's
not a trivial question to ask--who gets the data? Does a
private sector company own this IP? Is there a requirement for
the destruction of these data sets? Does this need to be in
statute?
I think these are important questions, because we're moving
forward apace on all of this, and it's a non-trivial question
whether or not a private sector company will now be in
possession of not just personally identifying information in
the traditional sense, but also your face.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Another question, Senator Schatz, another
point that came up earlier, too, is if we're going to do
biometric data, do we need to have different models that use
different biometrics, or would we be better off if we sort of
directed this into one direction so it's not everybody's
fingerprints and everybody's facial or everybody's iris or--
what do we--are we letting everybody collect everything, which
would be another thought along that path you were pursuing?
So the Chairman of the Full Committee always comes in with
really the hard questions very near the end of the hearing when
the witnesses are basically worn out and least resistant. So
I'll turn it over to the Chairman.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt, and I know at this
point in the hearing, too, that everything has been asked, so
I'm sure you've answered these questions. But I do want to
thank you, Senator Blunt, for having the hearing today to
discuss the TSA Modernization Act that we introduced yesterday
along with Senators Nelson and Cantwell.
As with the FAA reauthorization, I'm pleased that we came
to agreement on a package of practical reforms to improve
aviation security, and building on the successful enactment of
a host of security enhancements last year, I think this
authorizing legislation would make important improvements to
aviation security as well as the passenger travel experience.
In developing the legislation, the Committee engaged with TSA
officials and with industry stakeholders to ensure that
workable solutions with the greatest impact were included. In
particular, I appreciate the effort of those represented on
this panel, the TSA, and others to help shape the legislation.
We plan to consider the bill at our markup next week, and
so I just have a few questions that perhaps build on or maybe
are redundant ones that have already been asked. But you talked
a little bit about some of these issues, I know already. But
this past May, the Aviation Security Advisory Committee--and
I'll direct this to Mr. Alterman--which you chair, released a
Checkpoint of the Future report required by the FAA Extension
Safety and Security Act of 2016. The report made a series of
industry and stakeholder recommendations to TSA outlining how
the agency can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
passenger screening checkpoints at U.S. airports.
The question is: In the Modernization Act, we would
formally authorize the Innovation Task Force to assess the
impact of using some of these exciting new technologies such as
biometrics. Do you think that these and other provisions in the
bill will truly help TSA to develop a Checkpoint of the Future
while also increasing security, and what are the key things to
look for in implementation of that?
Mr. Alterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we're
moving forward well on that issue. I have to do a little bit of
a shout-out to our new Security Technology Subcommittee, which
is a committee that was actually formed after the recent Act.
They did one heck of a job in turning out that report, and they
should get the credit for that.
TSA has accepted that report and is moving forward. I think
in combination with the Innovation Task Force, either as it is
today or as it will be after this legislation, hopefully, I
think that the agency is committed to doing those things. But
the devil is always in the details, and there are a whole lot
of moving parts in working toward a Checkpoint of the Future
that both enhances security and enhances passenger acceptance
of them and passenger throughput.
Those are tough issues, and I think that what the report
did is set down a baseline for TSA to consider, and I hope that
that report is used by the Innovation Task Force in developing
new recommendations for TSA. It's a fairly new report. I
believe it was submitted to the Congress in July, and things
don't always move as quickly as a lot of us like. But I think
it was a very good start, and I'm hoping that we can look
forward to some good results out of that.
I might say that in terms of ASAC and in terms of what we
do, there has been sort of a change in the way we operate. It
used to be--we understand that we're just an advisory
committee. We can't tell TSA to do things. We just give them
advice. What we have told them, though, in the past few years
is ``If you accept our recommendations, we are going to follow
through on implementation.'' We're not just going to let it
sit. So we intend to follow through and find out exactly how
they're going to react and how they're going to implement those
recommendations. I'm not sure just having them accept
recommendations is good enough. We need to follow through on
the implementation.
The question is a good one, and it's a little early to tell
exactly how it's going to come out. But I think it's a good
start.
The Chairman. Well, we would look forward to working with
you to ensure that those do get implemented, given the advisory
role of your Task Force.
Ms. Pressnell, one of the major themes of the TSA
Modernization Act is finding ways to speed up TSA's deployment
of the latest security technology at airports. For example, one
provision instructs TSA to authorize the third-party testing
and evaluation of security screening equipment in an effort to
enable faster deployment of the latest and most effective
screening technologies.
Can you explain how this and other provisions in this bill
will assist TSA in getting the most advanced technology out
into the field at a faster rate than it is currently able to?
Ms. Pressnell. Mr. Thune, thank you so much for that
question. The bottom line is it takes too long. It simply takes
too long to get technology from start to finish and deployed in
the airports in large part because the process for testing
and--setting requirements and then testing gets bogged down. So
lots of times, we have a technology that goes through the lab,
it gets certified, and then we go on to operational testing,
where we end up getting through testing, and then we get bogged
down by administrative type reports.
What the third-party testing process would do--and it would
be extraordinarily helpful to us--is that it would cut down
significantly on the time that it would take to get us through
the process. That primarily would be because we could be
testing things that are the non-requirements that could get us
through a lot faster. We spend a lot of time testing and then
re-testing and then, of course, going through the reporting
phase that can sometimes take months. But going through a
third-party testing process would certainly help us field
technology a lot faster simply because we're able to, in some
cases, with your bill, maybe do some of the testing in our own
facilities and other contracting facilities where this type of
thing could occur.
The bottom line for third-party testing to really make it
work, though, is to make sure that when it's complete that TSA
will readily accept the results. That's a key factor for us
because we're taking our technology--it takes a lot of money to
go through the process, but if it's not accepted at the end,
it's just going to slow down the process even more. So that
would be the only limitation that we can see, and we would
certainly recommend that TSA accept the results at the end of
the testing process.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank
you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to ask members of the panel--and I know you're
familiar with the shift in financial burden with TSA's budget
moved onto, in effect, passengers. Do you agree that the
airlines themselves ought to pay for a portion of TSA's costs?
Why don't we begin on your right and go down the panel.
Mr. Weiler. Senator, I don't know that I have a position on
that one way or another. I do know that the airports are
concerned about the cost being passed along to them in the
environment that we're currently operating under. Airports are
very concerned about keeping cost--we all want to deploy new
technology. At the end of the day, for us, it's law
enforcement, and we're very pleased with the bill, that it does
increase and puts more scrutiny on public areas, which should
be, but also it provides funding for that. As far as the
airlines, I don't know that I can make a position on that, sir.
Mr. Alterman. I'm not sure I have a position on that,
either, Senator. It's a tough issue because when you talk about
airlines--and maybe Mr. White can answer this better than I
can. I've gotten very good at passing questions to Mr. White
since I don't represent the passenger side of the industry.
When airlines--my impression is that when airlines have to pay
for it, eventually the passenger has to pay for it because
there's a pass-through. But I'm not sure that's the case, and,
actually, I hate to duck the question, but I really haven't
thought about that enough to really give you a definitive
answer.
Ms. Pressnell. Mr. Blumenthal, I'm sorry to have to--to not
be able to answer that, either. Our coalition has not taken a
position on that, sir.
Mr. White. So someone that does represent the airlines--if
you take a look at the security fee, I guess the issue--this is
a national security issue. This isn't just airline security.
This is a national security issue, and when it comes to that,
it affects governments and it affects the economies. So we do
not believe it's necessarily the need for the airline to pay
that fee, because we're just a portion of the user. But we also
affect your economies and bring that transport that makes your
economies work around the world.
So we look at it that way, that we're just part of that
system, and where does it come down at the end of the day.
We've been talking about this issue ever since 9/11, but from
my honest perspective, no, we don't believe we should have that
fee.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, as you know, all of you--and,
unfortunately, the consumer side of this argument is not
represented, and I respect that your organizations have not
taken a position. But Congress acquiesced to the airlines'
request--maybe I should say demands--to eliminate their
responsibility to contribute about $400 million, which they had
been contributing, correct?
Mr. White. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And they had been required to do so
since, I think, September 11. One of the publications--I'm
looking right now at my notes--called this one of the top
lobbying victories of 2013. So that victory blew a massive hole
in TSA's budget. When we talk about the effectiveness of TSA,
we're really talking about what it does with the resources that
it has. If the resources are deprived, then its effectiveness
is undermined.
Next week, we're going to consider a long-term TSA bill--I
think it's next week--and that bill proposes shifting the
increase that was enacted in 2013 back to TSA. But I guess the
question of the moment is whether--in shifting the security fee
that customers pay back to TSA, shouldn't we also require that
the airlines at least pay a portion of it, because it would
give them some real skin in this game.
I understand the airlines affect the economy. So do the
railroads. So does every method of transportation. They all
need some security, and I respectfully suggest that maybe you
can ask your organizations whether they should take a position,
and that they should.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Chairman Thune, any other questions?
[No verbal response.]
Senator Blunt. Well, thanks to the panel for being here. I
believe it's the Chairman's intention to mark this bill up
maybe even as early as next week, and your testimony helped a
lot today. Thank you all.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Brian Weiler
Airport Security Infrastructure Funding
In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their
security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced
threats on airports and air travelers. However, as threats become more
complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted,
I believe airports need additional assistance to implement the
necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the
traveling public.
When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I
introduced two bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill
that would help airports use existing funding sources for security
infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified
before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I asked him about
creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he said
he would look into it.
Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA
airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see
in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively
meet their security needs?
Answer. Unfortunately, there are no existing ``TSA security focused
grant programs'' of any significance for airports to apply for at this
time. However, airports would welcome new Federal resources from TSA to
help meet existing Federal mandates and to further enhance security. If
grant funds were made available, we would ask for flexibility to meet
the most pressing needs at individual facilities. Specific needs can
vary airport to airport depending on local conditions.
While additional flexibility would be welcomed, such as giving
airport operators the discretion to utilize AIP funds or PFCs for some
security-related items, we urge Congress to avoid targeting those
programs for significant security investments. AIP and PFC revenues are
already scarce, and further diluting those resources would have a
negative impact on many other critical airport infrastructure
priorities.
Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline
passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated
government funding, back to aviation security purposes?
Answer. The airport community fully supports efforts to redirect
aviation security fee collections from deficit reduction to aviation
security purposes. These revenues could be utilized to support a robust
TSA grant program envisioned in question 1 and to meet other security
needs across the aviation system, which include LEO reimbursement to
airports, the acquisition and deployment of enhanced security
technology, and other high-priority imperatives.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Stephen Alterman
Airport Security Infrastructure Funding
In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their
security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced
threats on airports and air travelers. However, as threats become more
complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted,
I believe airports need additional assistance to implement the
necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the
traveling public.
When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I
introduced two bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill
that would help airports use existing funding sources for security
infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified
before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I asked him about
creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he said
he would look into it.
Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA
airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see
in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively
meet their security needs?
Answer. Although I have no direct experience in the area of airport
grant programs, it is clear that, in a time of limited resources, such
programs would be appropriate to help airports meet their growing
security responsibilities. Such grants might be used to help airports
reconfigure passenger checkpoints to include new technologies and to
implement more robust strategies to address the issue of insider
threats. Having said that, since I am not an expert in this area (or in
the area of how to pay for such grants), it might be more appropriate
to address this question to the airport community.
Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline
passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated
government funding, back to aviation security purposes?
Answer. I absolutely support a proposal to ensure that airline
passenger security fees are redirected to pay for security enhancements
and not for unrelated purposes. It is simply unconscionable that these
fees are being used for purposes wholly unrelated to their stated
purpose.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Stephen Alterman
Question. You are to be commended for your work as Chairman of the
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, or ``ASAC.'' The ASAC provides
advice to the TSA Administrator on aviation security matters. Its
efforts are well-regarded.
The aircraft maintenance technician community is not represented on
the ASAC, although pilots and flight attendants do have representation
on the ASAC. Aircraft maintenance is among the primary career fields in
the airline industry. Would a craft specific voice on behalf of
aircraft maintenance technicians contribute to the ASAC mission?
Answer. Positions on the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
(ASAC) are appointed by the TSA Administrator to provide a broad
representation of aviation stakeholders. The labor community is
currently well represented by various organizations and, without
knowing more, it is unclear to me whether having maintenance technician
representation would, or would not, be appropriate. That decision is up
to the Administrator.
Having said that, much of the work of ASAC is done at the
subcommittee level. ASAC subcommittees consist, not only of ASAC
members, but also of Subject Matter Experts who lend their experience
in areas being discussed. It occurs to me that input from the
maintenance technician community would be appropriate when issues
within its area of expertise are being discussed by one or more
subcommittees.
Finally, with respect to full ASAC membership, it is my
understanding that TSA will shortly be soliciting new applications for
membership by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. To the
extent that any maintenance technician representatives are interested,
they should be encouraged to apply.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Sissy Pressnell
Airport Security Infrastructure Funding
In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their
security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced
threats on airports and air travelers. However, as threats become more
complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted,
I believe airports need additional assistance to implement the
necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the
traveling public.
When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I
introduced two bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill
that would help airports use existing funding sources for security
infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified
before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I asked him about
creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he said
he would look into it.
Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA
airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see
in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively
meet their security needs?
Answer. Airports must be able to meet the growing demands of air
travelers and must be provided with the financial resources to help
meet critical mission needs to ensure that the highest level of
screening capabilities are in place. The Security Manufacturers
Coalition (SMC) supports the recommendations contained in the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) report titled ``Improving
Checkpoints at U.S. Airports'' to establish a multi-year program that
includes a capital fund for equipment that is similar to the mandatory
Aviation Security Capital Fund that provides $250 million annually for
the Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP). Creating a reliable
and consistent funding resource is needed to ensure the highest
screening capabilities are deployed at U.S. airports.
Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline
passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated
government funding, back to aviation security purposes?
Answer. The Security Manufacturers Coalition (SMC) recognizes that
Congress must deal with substantial funding constraints and demands on
its limited resources in an attempt to meet the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) to pay for aviation services as well
as the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of equipment. However,
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 directed the diversion of a portion
of the fee through 2023 to pay for non-aviation activities such as debt
reduction. Approximately $1.28 billion of the fee will be diverted in
FY 2017. The SMC believes that inconsistent funding levels as well as
the diversion of fees make it difficult for TSA to sustain its mission
and keep pace with the recapitalization and acquisition of next-
generation security technology equipment. The SMC supports the
recommendations of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to
end the diversion of a portion of the Passenger Security Fee that is
now dedicated for deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint development
and deployment of new technology enhancements. Longer term, we support
a multi-year approach that includes a checkpoint equipment capital
fund, similar to the checked baggage program, to provide consistent
availability of resources for technology acquisitions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Michael White
Airport Security Infrastructure Funding
In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their
security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced
threats on airports and air travelers. However, as threats become more
complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted,
I believe airports need additional assistance to implement the
necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the
traveling public.
When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I
introduced two bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill
that would help airports use existing funding sources for security
infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified
before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I asked him about
creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he said
he would look into it.
Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA
airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see
in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively
meet their security needs?
Answer. We would like to see grant money put into a joint effort
between IATA, the TSA, airports, educational institutions, and other
strategic partners to develop future screening technologies and
processes to improve passenger facilitation while also enhancing
aviation security. There also needs to be more focus on cyber security
threats, the use of biometrics, IT programming for risk targeting, and
the development of new systems.
We also think there is a need to look at many of the current
security programs to determine if they are of value and are truly
reducing risk. For instance, do certain manpower intensive programs,
such as the Federal Air Marshal program, offer as much risk reduction
value versus using the same funds for visible canine teams, new
terminal designs, or improved screening technology? Further, we support
increased participation in trusted travelers programs like TSA Pre3 to
reduce security screening wait times.
Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline
passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated
government funding, back to aviation security purposes?
Answer. Yes, we strongly supports using passenger security fees for
their intended purpose of aviation security as opposed to being
diverted and used for unrelated government purposes. As you may be
aware, Congress has diverted a total of $15.79 billion in passenger
security fees through Fiscal Year 2025 to the general fund. We also
believe the TSA should be held accountable for providing more timely
and accurate justifications for what it plans to spend on aviation
security programs.