[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11135-H11137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT OF 1996

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2092) to expedite State reviews of criminal records 
of applicants for private security officer employment, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2092

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Private Security Officer 
     Quality Assurance Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) employment of private security officers in the United 
     States is growing rapidly;
       (2) the private security industry provides numerous 
     opportunities for entry-level job applicants, including 
     individuals suffering from unemployment due to economic 
     conditions or dislocations;
       (3) sworn law enforcement officers provide significant 
     services to the citizens of the United States in its public 
     areas, and are only supplemented by private security officers 
     who provide prevention and reporting services in support of, 
     but not in place of, regular sworn police;
       (4) given the growth of large private shopping malls, and 
     the consequent reduction in the number of public shopping 
     streets, the American public is more likely to have contact 
     with private security personnel in the course of a day than 
     with sworn law enforcement officers;
       (5) regardless of the differences in their duties, skill, 
     and responsibilities, the public has difficulty in discerning 
     the difference between sworn law enforcement officers and 
     private security personnel; and
       (6) the American public demands the employment of 
     qualified, well-trained private security personnel as an 
     adjunct, but not a replacement for sworn law enforcement 
     officers.

     SEC. 3. BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       (A) In General.--An association of employers of private 
     security officers, designated for the purpose of this section 
     by the Attorney General, may submit fingerprints or other 
     methods of positive identification approved by the Attorney 
     General, to the Attorney General on behalf of any applicant 
     for a State license or certificate or registration as a 
     private security officer or employer of private security 
     officers. In response to such a submission, the Attorney 
     General may, to the extent provided by State law conforming 
     to the requirements of the second paragraph under the heading 
     ``Federal Bureau of Investigation'' and the subheading 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' in title II of Public Law 92-544 
     (86 Stat. 1115), exchange, for licensing and employment 
     purposes, identification and criminal history records with 
     the State governmental agencies to which such applicant has 
     applied.
       (b) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section, 
     including measures relating to the security, confidentiality, 
     accuracy, use, and dissemination of information and audits 
     and recordkeeping and the imposition of fees necessary for 
     the recovery of costs.
       (c) Report.--The Attorney General shall report to the 
     Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this bill on the number of inquiries 
     made by the association of employers under this section and 
     their disposition.

     SEC. 4 SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that States should participate 
     in the background check system established under section 3.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``employee'' includes an applicant for 
     employment;
       (2) the term ``employer'' means any person that--
       (A) employs one or more private security officers; or
       (B) provides, as an independent contractor, for 
     consideration, the services of one or more private security 
     officers (possibly including oneself);
       (3) the term ``private security officer''--
       (A) means--
       (i) an individual who performs security services, full or 
     part time, for consideration as an independent contractor or 
     an employee, whether armed or unarmed and in uniform or plain 
     clothes whose primary duty is to perform security services, 
     or
       (ii) an individual who is an employee of an electronic 
     security system company who is engaged in one or more of the 
     following activities in the State: burglar alarm technician, 
     fire alarm technician, closed circuit television technician, 
     access control technician, or security system monitor; but
       (B) does not include--
       (i) sworn police officers who have law enforcement powers 
     in the State,
       (ii) attorneys, accountants, and other professionals who 
     are otherwise licensed in the State,
       (iii) employees whose duties are primarily internal audit 
     or credit functions,
       (iv) persons whose duties may incidentally include the 
     reporting or apprehension of shoplifters or trespassers, or
       (v) an individual on active duty in the military service;
       (4) the term ``certificate of registration'' means a 
     license, permit, certificate, registration card, or other 
     formal written permission from the State for the person to 
     engage in providing security services;
       (5) the term ``security services'' means the performance of 
     one or more of the following:
       (A) the observation or reporting of intrusion, larceny, 
     vandalism, fire or trespass;
       (B) the deterrence of theft or misappropriation of any 
     goods, money, or other item of value;
       (C) the observation or reporting of any unlawful activity;
       (D) the protection of individuals or property, including 
     proprietary information, from harm or misappropriation;
       (E) the control of access to premises being protected;
       (F) the secure movement of prisoners;
       (G) the maintenance of order and safety at athletic, 
     entertainment, or other public activities;
       (H) the provision of canine services for protecting 
     premises or for the detection of any unlawful device or 
     substance; and
       (I) the transportation of money or other valuables by 
     armored vehicle; and
       (6) the term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].


                             general leave

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 2092.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this great body in support of passage of 
the Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act. I introduced this 
legislation in the first session of this Congress along with our 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]

[[Page H11136]]

who could not be here this evening, but has championed this bill not 
only in this Congress but in the previous Congress as well.
  This bill will help ensure that private security officers undergo 
thorough and timely criminal background checks. The bill is 
straightforward and simple. It proposes an expedited procedure similar 
to those in use by the financial and parimutuel industries today to 
match the fingerprints of job applicants against records maintained by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Criminal Justice Services 
Division.
  Mr. Speaker, there are more than 1.5 million private security 
officers in the United States. The security industry is dynamic, and 
there is great pressure to meet ongoing need to hire qualified 
personnel as vacancies occur. Thorough reviews of job applicants' 
backgrounds are critical to employers, both to protect assets and to 
ensure protection for the public. Employers must depend on State and 
Federal agencies for criminal history information. They need this 
information promptly, but under existing law, Mr. Speaker, this process 
can take from 3 to 18 months.
  Thirty-nine States now require security contractors to conduct 
background checks of their personnel, usually requiring fingerprint 
matches. To obtain a review of FBI records, a cumbersome, unwieldy 
process is used, leading to lengthy delays. Today an employer must 
submit prints to the State police agency which forwards them to the 
bureau where they are processed. The so-called rap sheet is then sent 
back to the police agency, which then sends these results to the 
State's agency charged with regulating the industry. That agency then 
must judge the fitness of the applicant for employment and a decision 
is made. At that point, if a permit is issued, it is sent to the 
applicant.
  The existing system for private security employers to learn whether 
an applicant's criminal history disqualifies that person is often 
cumbersome and time consuming. The typical transaction provides many 
opportunities for the process to bog down. With State agencies commonly 
stretched thin by tight budgets, the time required for staff to forward 
an applicant's fingerprints to the FBI sometimes consumes months.

  Still further delays can and do occur after the FBI completes the 
check and returns the results to the State. As I stated earlier, in 
many States the results of the background check review then go to a law 
enforcement agency, then to a separate regulatory agency responsible 
for security officers, thereby lengthening the process. The bottom line 
is that in some instances an employer may wait more than a year before 
learning whether an applicant has a serious criminal record.
  Financial institutions were authorized by Congress under Public Law 
92-544 to obtain criminal records directly from the FBI. Under that 
system, which needs to be authorized by law and was authorized by law, 
the American Bankers Association screens fingerprint cards received 
from banks for legibility and then forwards them to the FBI for 
analysis. The rap sheet is then returned directly to the bank. Under 
this system, the ABA has indicated the process is reduced to about 20 
business days.
  Congress created another so-called express lane for obtaining 
criminal record information with the enactment of Public Law 100-413, 
the Parimutuel Licensing Simplification Act of 1988. This is a similar 
process to the one used by the ABA, but the rap sheet is sent back to 
the State regulatory agency, not to the employer. This system 
approximates that proposed in H.R. 2092.
  This bill will authorize the Attorney General to name an association 
to aggregate fingerprint cards, screen them for legibility, and then 
forward them to the FBI. The results of the record search would then be 
forwarded back to the appropriate State officials. By sending the 
records to State officials rather than to employers, we avoid potential 
concerns about privacy rights of job applicants. By eliminating several 
steps from the process, this system should result in a far more 
efficient system of background checks.
  This system has been endorsed by the National Association of State 
Security and Investigative Regulators. As under current law, fees will 
be assessed to compensate the FBI for their costs, and there will be no 
net cost to the Government for this expedited procedure. We have made 
that clear in the language of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  The bill contains absolutely no mandates for the States. The States 
are not required to participate in any part of the proposed bill if 
they elect not to.
  I strongly urge this Congress to join in support of H.R. 2092, the 
Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act. In so doing, we will be 
filling in one small but important chink in the armor against terrorism 
and other crimes that plague us. As the bombing incident in Atlanta 
recently made very clear, though a small chink in the armor, this is 
indeed an important one to fill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  This bill falls into the category of lukewarm ideas that may come 
back to haunt us. It is strongly, strongly opposed by every major rank 
and file police organization in the country. The police do not like the 
bill because they believe it is a further step in the creeping 
legitimization of private uniform security forces that look like real 
police, but are not.
  They raise a concern that all of us ought to ponder. When you go to a 
mall or into an office building or into an airport parking lot these 
days, you see a lot of uniformed police that look like policemen and 
policewomen, but in fact many of these police are not sworn officers of 
the law. They do not have the same restraints that Government imposes 
on sworn officers, they are not backed up by the same system of checks 
and balances and public liabilities that uniform officers carry and 
they often are not professionally trained. Yet all too often not one of 
us here could tell the real cop from the uniformed cop. That is a 
reason for caution, Mr. Speaker, and it is a reason that a measure very 
similar to this was soundly defeated in the last Congress when it was 
offered as an amendment of the 1994 crime bill. That vote was 340 
``noes'' and only 80 ``ayes.''
  Additionally, the Justice Department has expressed reservations that 
the bill would institute procedures that would initially bypass the 
State criminal record system in favor of direct access to the FBI. The 
Justice Department believes that this procedure may inhibit the FBI 
from making the most efficient use of its resources.
  Although there are some positive efforts behind this legislation, I 
think it is important that my colleagues carefully consider the views 
of the national police organizations when they decide how they wish to 
vote on this measure. I believe that we can provide guidance to our 
private security firms and individuals without some of he major 
obstacles that this legislation imposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the goal of H.R. 2092, the Private Security Officer 
Quality Assurance Act, is to improve the oversight and regulation of 
private security officers. This is a laudable goal that most Members 
would support.
  Currently, it generally takes up to 18 months for private security 
companies to get background checks completed. This legislation will 
enable State regulatory agencies to obtain easy access to the criminal 
histories of security guard applicants and contains a sense of the 
Congress provision that encourages States to develop standards for 
private security officers.
  There are some concerns, however, which we must consider as we vote 
on this bill. Most police organizations have strong reservations about 
this bill because it seems to blur the distinctions between sworn 
police officers and private uniformed security guards. Private security 
guards do not have the same restraints that governments impose on sworn 
officers. In many cases, they have not been professionally trained and 
have not been subject to the same system of checks and balances of 
uniformed police officers.
  Some Members of the House may also have concerns about permitting an 
association of employers of private security guards to conduct criminal 
history record checks directly with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
  Additionally, the Justice Department has expressed reservations that 
the bill would institute procedures that would initially bypass the 
State criminal records system in favor of direct access to the FBI. The 
Justice Department believes that this procedure may inhibit the FBI

[[Page H11137]]

from making the most efficient use of its resources.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully review the provisions of this bill 
and make an informed choice.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2092, the 
Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act. Modest though it may 
be, I believe this legislation can provide a valuable first step toward 
assuring that only qualified individuals are hired as private security 
officers.
  H.R. 2092 would accomplish two basic goals. First, it would allow the 
Attorney General to establish an association of private security guard 
employers that would, in turn, serve as a clearinghouse for submitting 
applicant information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 
purposes of doing individual background checks. This would help ensure 
that both the States and employers would more quickly receive important 
background information concerning individuals seeking to become private 
security officers. Second, the bill includes a Sense of the Congress 
that simply says that the States should participate in the background 
check system noted above.
  I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation we are considering 
today is a vast improvement from the bill as originally introduced. In 
its original form, H.R. 2092 addressed a broad range of employment 
issues, including a Sense of the Congress that the States should enact 
statutes imposing potentially onerous registration and training 
requirements on employers of private security officers. While I 
strongly support the notion of thoroughly checking the background of 
all private security officer job applicants, and of assuring an 
adequate level of training for such applicants, I found the 
proscriptive nature of the bill's original language--and, its 
suggestion that these requirements be mandated upon either the States 
or employers--troubling. For that reason, I am pleased that the bill 
before us today no longer includes those particular provisions.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that H.R. 2092 was originally 
introduced by Representative Barr of Georgia, and was referred to the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in addition, 
to the Committee on the Judiciary. While the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities has not reported H.R. 2092, the Judiciary 
Committee ordered the bill favorably reported by a voice vote on 
September 18, 1996. Given Congress' impending adjournment, I saw no 
reason to slow the legislative process; however, these actions should 
hold no precedence regarding the interest that the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities has regarding our jurisdiction 
with respect to issues raised in the bill.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2092, the 
Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act. I believe this 
legislation will help ensure that only qualified individuals are hired 
as private security officers, thereby improving the important public 
service these individuals provide.
  H.R. 2092 is not broad in scope; rather, it seeks modest changes that 
would simply expedite the process by which States and employers can 
check the backgrounds of individuals applying for private security 
officer jobs. The bill would accomplish this in two basic ways. First, 
it would allow the Attorney General to establish an association of 
private security guard employers. This association would, in turn, 
serve as an industry clearinghouse that could submit applicant 
information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of 
doing individual background checks. This would help ensure that both 
the States and employers would quickly receive important background 
information concerning individuals seeking to become private security 
officers. Second, the bill includes provisions expressing the Sense of 
the Congress that the States should participate in the background check 
system noted above.
  It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation we are 
considering today is very different--and, much improved--than the bill 
that was originally introduced. In its original form, H.R. 2092 
included lengthy provisions declaring the Sense of the Congress that 
the States should enact statutes imposing numerous certification and 
training requirements on employers of private security officers. 
Although I support the concept of improving efforts to screen and 
adequately train private security officer job applicants, the bill's 
focus on achieving these improvements through proscriptive and 
cumbersome mandates--imposed on either the States or employers--was 
troubling to me as well as to other Members of our Committee. For that 
reason, I am pleased that the bill that we take up today no longer 
includes those particular provisions.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that H.R. 2092, which was 
originally introduced by Representative Barr of Georgia, was referred 
to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in 
addition, to the Committee on the Judiciary. While the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities has not reported H.R. 2092, the 
Judiciary Committee did, in fact, order the bill favorably reported by 
a voice vote on September 18, 1996. Given Congress' impending 
adjournment, I agree with my committee chairman, Mr. Goodling, that 
there is no reason to slow the legislative process; however, I also 
share his view that these actions should hold no precedence regarding 
the interest that the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities has regarding our jurisdiction with respect to issues 
raised in the bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2092, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule 
I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________