[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.
____________________