[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5857-H5860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 103) to expedite State reviews of criminal records 
of applicants for private security officer employment, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 103

       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 1997''.

     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 service 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 of 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 gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] 
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 the bill under consideration.
  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 along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] at 
the beginning of this Congress. The gentleman from California has 
championed this bill not only in this Congress but in the previous 
Congresses as well.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is identical to the bill that passed this 
House last Congress by a vote of 415 to 6. This bill will help ensure 
that private security officers undergo thorough and timely criminal 
background checks. It 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 FBI'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

[[Page H5858]]

dynamic and there is great pressure to meet the 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 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 the FBI records, a cumbersome, unwieldy 
process is used, leading to lengthy delays.
  Today an employer must submit prints to the State police agency which 
in turn forward them to the Bureau where they are processed. This 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 might then be 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 almost always 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 even further. 
The bottom line is that in some instances an employer may wait more 
than a year, sometimes well over a year, before learning whether an 
applicant has a serious criminal record.
  Financial institutions, Mr. Speaker, were authorized by Congress 
under Public Law 92-544 to obtain criminal records directly from the 
FBI. Under this system, the American Banking Association has indicated 
the process is reduced to about 20 business days.
  Congress created another so-called express lane for obtaining 
criminal record information in 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 American Bankers Association [ABA], but 
the rap sheet is sent back to the State regulatory agency, not the 
employer. The system approximates that proposed in H.R. 103.
  This bill will authorize the Attorney General to name an association 
to aggregate, or collect, fingerprint cards, screen them for 
legibility, and then forward them to the FBI. The results of the 
records search will then be forwarded back to the appropriate State 
officials. By sending the records to State officials rather than to 
employers, we avoid, Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Moreover, the bill contains absolutely no mandates for the States. 
The States are not required to participate in any part of a proposed 
bill if they elect not to. I strongly urge this Congress to join in 
support of H.R. 103, the Private Security Officer Quality Assurance 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. This bill would permit 
associations representing private security firms to request FBI 
criminal history background checks on prospective security employees. 
This is a worthwhile bill because private security officers are 
entrusted with safety matters and it makes sense, good sense, to take 
advantage of the available resources to ensure that security firms do 
not unknowingly hire someone with a criminal background.
  I do, however, want to sound two notes of caution about the bill and 
potentially unintended outcomes. First, I want to be absolutely clear 
that I do not believe private security officers are a substitute for 
sworn law enforcement officers. Private officers are generally less 
well trained, they are not sworn to protect the public, and 
constitutional protections do not operate with respect to them to the 
same degree as with police officers. There has been a trend toward 
private companies and even residential communities hiring more private 
officers as local governments are forced by budget constraints to scale 
back on their police forces. If this legislation were to encourage that 
trend, I believe we would come to regret it and would need to review 
and take action in the future should that unintended and unexpected 
outcome be the result.
  Second, I do want to note that the FBI is concerned about the 
possible burden of dealing with hundreds of different private security 
firms requesting background checks. I share that concern and would urge 
the security firms if this bill is enacted to coordinate their 
background check requests through one or two trade associations that 
can provide a point of contact for the FBI. Again, if the firms fail to 
operate in a way that works best for the FBI, Congress would have to 
step back in and review this situation. And so I think it would be very 
wise for the private security firms to take every possible step to 
avoid adversely impacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  With those two caveats about potential concerns, I would like to note 
that I do and Democrats on the committee did support this bill. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], as the gentleman from Georgia 
noted, has introduced this bill for several Congresses and it is good 
to see a bipartisan team coming together in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to simply congratulate the gentleman from Georgia 
for this bill. I think it is a very important piece of legislation in 
terms of trying to make sure that when we have security officers in 
private concerns, and we do all over the country, that they get their 
backgrounds checked. It really does not make sense to open the door for 
criminal behavior and conduct even in private concerns when people are 
supposed to be involved with highly sensitive matters and they have 
some kind of background that would say to the people who are hiring 
that we would not do that if we had known that was there.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has made an enormously valuable 
contribution to safety and security in this country by this bill and I 
strongly support it and urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 103, the Private Security Officer Quality Assurance 
Act, represents a legislative effort to expedite and improve background 
checks for private security guards. Congressman Barr brought this issue 
to Congress' attention last year, and his bill passed overwhelmingly in 
the House. Unfortunately, it was not taken up by the Senate before 
final adjournment, and I commend him for his continuing dedication to 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the private security industry is large and continually 
growing. It is estimated that, by the year 2000, private security 
officers will outnumber sworn law enforcement officers nearly 3 to 1.
  Private security guards wear uniforms much like law enforcement 
uniforms. Some carry guns or other weapons. They give every appearance 
of authority, and many citizens trust them implicitly. The public 
deserves some assurances that the security guards they see at the 
malls, or in the parking lots, or at the office buildings are all 
qualified individuals who do not have criminal records.

[[Page H5859]]

  H.R. 103 directs the Attorney General to designate an association of 
employers of private security officers who would submit fingerprints to 
the Attorney General on behalf of any applicant for a private security 
officer position. The Federal Bureau of Investigation will then conduct 
the background checks on those applicants. The legislation gives the 
Attorney General authority to prescribe such regulations as may be 
necessary to implement this process, including regulations relating to 
confidentiality of information and the imposition of fees necessary for 
the recovery of costs.
  This legislation does not supplant any current State background 
investigation process for private security officers, it simply creates 
a new avenue for more efficient investigations of national criminal 
history files. H.R. 103 will make it much more difficult for persons 
with criminal histories to cloak themselves with the legitimacy of a 
security uniform, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to keep in mind that just a 
few days ago we celebrated, if that is the proper word, or at least 
recognized the first anniversary of the tragic bombing at Olympic Park 
in Atlanta. With the fact that there was a great deal of private 
security at those events and with the events surrounding Mr. Jewel, I 
cannot help but think that this is a very appropriate time to bring 
this bill forward to the floor because it will, I think, Mr. Speaker, 
go a great distance toward improving the caliber of private security 
officers in our community.
  I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California for noting 
very appropriately and to remind all of our colleagues that the bill 
itself recognizes in its terms that despite the important role as an 
assistance or an adjunct to law enforcement, the role played by private 
security officers, they are not viewed in any way, shape or form by 
this legislation nor by myself or my cosponsor the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez] as usurping the authorities and duties of law 
enforcement officers. But that is a very important concern and one 
which we addressed specifically in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 103, 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. 103 is not broad in scope. 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 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 would 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 the 
employers would quickly receive important background information 
concerning individuals seeking to become private security officers.
  Second, the bill includes provisions expressing the sense of Congress 
that the States should participate in the background check system.
  The Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act passed the House 
on September 26, 1996 by a vote of 415 to 6. The Senate, however, did 
not act upon the measure before the 104th Congress adjourned. Thus the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] reintroduced the identical bill this 
year as H.R. 103.
  I would note that H.R. 103 was referred to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce and, in addition, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
While the Committee on Education and the Workforce has not reported 
H.R. 103, the Committee on the Judiciary did in fact order the bill 
favorably reported by a voice vote on June 18, 1997.
  In light of the fact that H.R. 103 is identical to legislation passed 
overwhelmingly by the House last September, I agree with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my committee chairman, 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 Education and the Workforce has 
regarding our jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the bill. 
The committee retains its jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in 
the bill should its provisions be considered in a conference with the 
Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of this legislation that will help 
ensure the quality of the individuals who work as private security 
officers and help improve public safety.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 103, 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. 103 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 this background 
check system.
  I am pleased to note that H.R. 103 reflects the changes that were 
made to the bill in the 104th Congress at the suggestion of Members of 
my committee. H.R. 103 is a vast improvement over the version 
introduced in the 104th Congress, which included lengthy provisions 
declaring the sense of the Congress that States should enact statutes 
imposing numerous certification and training requirements on employers 
of private security officers. While I strongly support the notion of 
thoroughly checking the background of all applicants for private 
security officer positions, 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 my committee. For that reason, I am pleased that the bill 
before us today does not include those provisions.
  The Private Security Officer Assurance Act passed the House on 
September 26, 1996 by a vote of 415 to 6. The Senate, however, did not 
act upon the measure before the 104th Congress adjourned. Thus, 
Representative Barr of Georgia reintroduced the identical bill this 
year as H.R. 103.
  Finally, I would note that H.R. 103 was referred to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, and in addition, to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. While the Committee on Education and the Workforce has not 
reported H.R. 103, the Judiciary Committee did, in fact, order the bill 
favorably reported by a voice vote on June 18, 1997. In light of the 
fact that H.R. 103 is identical to legislation passed overwhelmingly by 
the House last September, we saw no reason to slow the legislative 
process. However, these actions should hold no precedence regarding the 
interest that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 
regarding our jurisdiction with respect to issue raised in the bill. 
The committee retains its jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in 
the bill should its provisions be considered in a conference with the 
Senate.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am once again delighted to join the 
gentleman from Georgia in support of the Private Security Officer 
Quality Assurance Act, a bill we jointly introduced earlier this year. 
Representative Bob Barr deserves enormous credit for his diligence, 
skill, and hard work in bringing this important, bipartisan measure to 
the floor.
  I would like to take a moment to give special thanks to Chairman 
Goodling and Representative Clay for waiving committee jurisdiction 
over H.R. 103, and allowing this measure to be considered today.
  In the waning days of the 104th Congress, the same bill that we are 
considering this afternoon was overwhelmingly passed by the House. The 
Senate simply ran out of time and adjourned before they could act on 
this bipartisan bill. So here we are again.
  Mr. Speaker, the public deserves the assurance that the security 
guard they meet in the mall, the bank, or at school is not a felon or a 
person who has a history of violent behavior. Virtually every year the 
press reports on tragedies which occur when inadequate background 
checks are made--tragedies that involve security guards who commit 
murder, rape, and theft.
  There are now thousands of security companies employing close to 1.8 
million guards. The vast majority of these security guards are 
professionals, many acting heroically in performing their duties. 
However, right now, we cannot be sure that the security officers that

[[Page H5860]]

we meet in virtually every facet of our lives are not armed and 
dangerous.
  H.R. 103 will provide an expedited procedure for State officials to 
check the backgrounds of applicants for guard licenses. A similar 
procedure is in place for the banking and parimutuel industries. By 
establishing an expedited procedure for State regulators of security 
guards to receive FBI background checks, H.R. 103 will greatly improve 
the safety of the public.
  In some States it can take up to 18 months to complete background 
checks for security guards. This bill can reduce that time to the 
approximately 3 weeks it takes for banks to get results under their 
expedited procedure.
  H.R. 103 contains no mandates of any kind. No State or individual is 
compelled to use it. Fees will be paid by the applicants or their 
employers. There is no cost to the FBI.
  H.R. 103 has broad support, most notably from the National 
Association of Security and Investigative Regulators and 
representatives of the guard, alarm, and armored car industries.
  Security should not be a partisan issue. I am therefore delighted by 
the bipartisan support for this bill, which was so soundly reflected 
last September by the House vote for the Private Security Officer 
Quality Assurance Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
straightforward, modest, and reasonable bill that will greatly improve 
public safety.
  Vote for common sense. Vote for public safety. Vote for H.R. 103.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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. 103.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________