[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H36-H38]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SECURITY ASSESSMENT FEASIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT TESTING AND EVALUATION OF 
                   CAPABILITIES FOR OUR HOMELAND ACT

  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4561) to provide for third party testing of transportation 
security screening technology, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4561

       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 ``Security Assessment 
     Feasibility for Equipment Testing and Evaluation of 
     Capabilities for our Homeland Act'' or the ``SAFE TECH Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Transportation Security Administration.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.

     SEC. 3. THIRD PARTY TESTING OF SECURITY SCREENING TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, shall develop a program to 
     enable a vendor of transportation security screening 
     technology to obtain testing, including as an alternative to 
     the Administration's testing process under paragraph (9) of 
     section 114(f) of title 49, United States Code, by an 
     appropriate third party, as determined by the Administrator, 
     in consultation with the Under Secretary, of such technology 
     before procurement or development of such technology.
       (b) Detection Testing.--
       (1) In general.--The third party testing program authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall include detection testing to 
     evaluate the performance of a security screening technology 
     relating to the probability of detection, the probability of 
     false alarm, and other indicators that such technology is 
     able to meet the Administration's mission needs for detection 
     of--
       (A) explosives; and
       (B) prohibited items.
       (2) Coordination with final processes.--To the extent 
     practicable, and without compromising the integrity of the 
     Administration's testing process under paragraph (9) of 
     section 114(f) of title 49, United States Code, or the 
     Department of Homeland Security's oversight of such testing 
     process, or increasing costs to the Administration, the 
     Administrator shall coordinate the third party detection 
     testing under paragraph (1) with any associated subsequent 
     final Department of Homeland Security testing.
       (3) International partnerships.--To the extent practicable 
     and permissible under law, and in accordance with national 
     security interests of the United States, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) share with appropriate international partners detection 
     testing information and standards; and
       (B) coordinate with such appropriate international partners 
     to align such testing information and standards to maximize 
     the capability to detect explosives and other threats.
       (c) Alternative Testing Factors.--Third party testing under 
     subsection (a) may include as an alternative, at the 
     discretion of the Administrator, the testing at the TSA 
     Systems Integration Facility of the Administration, including 
     testing for--
       (1) health and safety factors;
       (2) operator interface;
       (3) human factors;
       (4) environmental factors;
       (5) throughput;
       (6) reliability, maintainability, and availability factors; 
     and
       (7) interoperability.
       (d) Testing Framework.--The Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, shall--
       (1) establish a framework for the third party testing under 
     this section to determine if the security screening 
     technology that is the subject of such testing satisfies the 
     Administration's requirements before such technology may 
     enter or re-enter, as applicable, operational testing at an 
     airport or other transportation facility; and
       (2) use phased implementation to allow the Administration 
     and the third party concerned to establish best practices.
       (e) Prioritization of Third Party Testing.--The 
     Administrator may prioritize, when appropriate, the field 
     testing of security screening technology and equipment by 
     third parties.
       (f) Eligible Entities.--
       (1) United states ownership.--An entity providing third 
     party testing under the program developed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be owned and controlled by a citizen of 
     the United States.
       (2) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the requirement 
     specified in paragraph (1) with respect to an entity that is 
     a United States subsidiary of a parent company that has 
     implemented a foreign ownership, control, or influence 
     mitigation plan that has been approved by the Defense 
     Security Service of the Department of Defense prior to 
     seeking to engage in third party testing. The Administrator 
     has complete discretion to reject any proposal from a company 
     to provide testing under subsection (a) that requires a 
     waiver under this paragraph.
       (3) Conflicts of interest.--The Administrator shall ensure, 
     to the extent possible, that an entity providing third party 
     testing under this section does not have a contractual, 
     business, or other pecuniary interest (exclusive of any such 
     testing) in--
       (A) the security screening technology subject to such 
     testing; or the
       (B) vendor of such technology.

     SEC. 4. RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION OF SECURITY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator, in coordination with 
     the European Civil Aviation Conference, shall continue 
     development of a validation process for the reciprocal 
     recognition of security validation processes for recognition 
     of security screening technologies or certification 
     authorities for deployment.
       (b) Requirement.--The validation process under subsection 
     (a) shall ensure that the certification process of each 
     participating international security partner or recognized 
     certification authority complies with Administration 
     standards.

     SEC. 5. GAO REVIEW.

       Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a study on the third party 
     testing program developed under this Act. Such study shall 
     include a review of the following:
       (1) Any efficiencies or gains in effectiveness achieved in 
     the Administration's operations as a result of such program.

[[Page H37]]

       (2) The degree to which the Administration conducts timely 
     and regular oversight of entities engaged in such testing.
       (3) The effect of such program on the following:
       (A) The introduction of innovative detection technologies 
     into security screening operations.
       (B) The availability of testing for technologies developed 
     by small to medium sized businesses.
       (C) Any vulnerabilities associated with such program 
     including with respect to the following:
       (i) National security.
       (ii) Conflicts of interest between entities carrying out 
     such testing and entities with such technologies to be 
     tested.
       (iii) Waste, fraud and abuse.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Katko) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vela) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4561, the SAFE 
TECH Act, sponsored by my good friend and colleague and a knowledgeable 
alumnus of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bilirakis, who 
recently participated in my subcommittee's overseas congressional 
delegation to examine airport security and the passenger screening 
technology in place at last point of departure airports with direct 
flights to the United States.
  As part of our delegation, we visited Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, 
where we saw the effective deployment of new and advanced computed 
tomography screening technology, as well as a number of other screening 
technologies aimed at making the passenger and employee screening 
checkpoints both more effective and more efficient.
  Upon returning to the United States, the committee conducted rigorous 
oversight and found that the existing testing and evaluation processes 
in place at the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation 
Security Administration are riddled with bureaucratic bottlenecks that 
serve to delay new technologies for years.
  I will note that the technology in place at the airport in Schiphol 
was made in the United States, yet we are not taking advantage of that 
technology because of these bottlenecks.
  Additionally, due to logjams at Homeland Security and TSA facilities, 
small businesses, as well as technology startups, are often prevented 
from participating in the acquisitions and procurement processes. As a 
result, our aviation system is left with antiquated security technology 
that is incapable of adequately responding to new and ever-evolving 
threats.
  Madam Speaker, this is simply unacceptable, and we must act to reform 
the Homeland Security and TSA acquisition processes. H.R. 4561 takes 
significant steps toward making these reforms by allowing new 
technologies to receive third-party testing and evaluation, while 
maintaining existing lines of authority for the TSA administrator to 
ensure such testing remains held to the highest standards of security 
and integrity.
  This bill will not only drive innovation but will also save taxpayer 
dollars at Homeland Security and TSA, while reducing costs to companies 
developing new screening technologies. That is why we have received 
broad support, not only in a bipartisan manner here in Congress, but 
also from the private sector.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the dedication of Congressman Bilirakis to 
reforming the broken acquisitions process currently in place and for 
working with me and the committee on developing this bill. I also wish 
to thank Chairman McCaul for supporting this legislation and moving it 
quickly through the committee to address the serious concerns we found 
through our oversight efforts.
  I also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who 
routinely support bills of ours, and we routinely support bills of 
theirs, because we both understand that homeland security is a very 
bipartisan issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VELA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4561, the Security 
Assessment Feasibility for Equipment Testing and Evaluation of 
Capabilities for Our Homeland Act, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support its passage, which would require the Department of Homeland 
Security to develop a new, third-party testing program for 
Transportation Security Administration screening technology.
  We have heard, time and time again, from vendors that it takes far 
too long to get their technologies through TSA testing processes. TSA's 
testing and evaluation must be improved not simply to improve 
management efficiency, but to address the constantly evolving threat 
landscape.
  In November, TSA Administrator David Pekoske testified before the 
Committee on Homeland Security about the need to accelerate deployment 
of innovative security enhancements, as terrorist groups are becoming 
more sophisticated. These bad actors are learning about our aviation 
security countermeasures and have even gone so far as to post 
instructions to build devices to evade screening technologies on the 
internet.

                              {time}  1300

  As terrorist and criminal organizations become more sophisticated, we 
must remain one step ahead. H.R. 4561 seeks to do just that and move 
TSA forward in overcoming technology stovepipes that have hindered 
state-of-the-art security technology from being integrated into our 
Nation's transportation systems in a timely manner.
  H.R. 4561 is predicated on the view that, by establishing alternative 
avenues to test transportation screening technologies, TSA will be 
positioned to introduce innovative security enhancements into 
checkpoints sooner, and businesses, regardless of their size, will be 
better positioned to compete.
  The committee has repeatedly heard from small security manufacturers 
about how financially draining it is to wait out TSA testing in the 
hopes of a contract. H.R. 4561, if implemented effectively, has the 
potential to get innovative technology produced by small businesses in 
airport security checkpoints and enhance the effectiveness of TSA's 
screening operations.
  During consideration of this measure in committee, the majority 
accepted amendments offered by committee Democrats to the bill to 
ensure that the third-party testing receives scrutiny from the 
Government Accountability Office and to build integrity into this new 
program.
  Given the changes that were made to the legislation in committee and 
the potential positive impact this legislation could have on ensuring 
innovative technologies are integrated into TSA's security operations, 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4561.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend John 
Katko, and also the ranking member, my good friend Filo Vela, and also 
the chairman, the full chairman of the committee, Mr. McCaul, for their 
great work. I really appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 4561, Security 
Assessment Feasibility for Equipment Testing and Evaluation of 
Capabilities for Our Homeland, or the SAFE TECH Act. My legislation 
seeks to strengthen the safety of international air travel.
  Specifically, this bill provides an avenue for third-party testing of 
innovative technology screening capabilities to enhance airport 
security. The testing program authorized under this act shall include 
evaluating the performance of detecting explosives and other prohibited 
items. Additionally, the SAFE TECH Act will look into alternative 
testing for other factors, including, health and safety concerns, 
operator interference, human error, environmental dynamics, 
reliability, and interoperability.

[[Page H38]]

  The bill also assesses the feasibility of linking compatible security 
technology utilized by the United States and international allies in 
order to augment screening checkpoints. The coordinated collaboration 
is an essential element of strengthening global security.
  Currently, technical standards for safety and operating procedures at 
the international airports are set by international agreements. 
However, the standards in place are generally broad, leaving potential 
vulnerabilities through inconsistencies with international partners.
  On a recent congressional delegation trip that I appreciated the 
chairman including me on to review screening procedures for inbound 
travel to the United States at major EU hubs, I was startled by the 
lack of consistency in international standards and gaps in technology 
that support precautionary measures to ensure passenger safety.
  Today's bill--and I appreciate the work of the committee, and I thank 
you for making it an even stronger bill--will address this concern and 
improve the safety of our air travel for all passengers. I have always 
contended that, if we are not safe, nothing else matters.
  The protection and security of our homeland and its citizens is our 
responsibility, Mr. Speaker, which is why I introduced the SAFE TECH 
Act. We must ensure those entrusted with the care of our citizens have 
the best resources and technology available to combat the growing 
threat of terrorism.
  Passage of this bill today makes air travel safer for everyone 
entering the United States and for our citizens, and it represents a 
step forward in ensuring the cooperation needed to improve global 
security. I urge my colleagues to support this good bill and its 
passage in the House.
  Mr. VELA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out that this series of 
bills that we have presented today has been worked on in a strong 
bipartisan fashion.
  I would like to thank Chairman Katko and Ranking Member Watson 
Coleman for their strong leadership on this subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis 
for his hard work, and, of course, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member 
Thompson for their leadership on the Homeland Security committee.
  On behalf of both Members and staff on this side of the aisle, we 
also wish Krista Harvey the best of luck in her future endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4561 is commonsense legislation. This bill promotes 
the incorporation of innovative technology in airport screening 
capabilities. It does so by requiring DHS to stand up a third-party 
testing program to accelerate the evaluation of promising 
transportation security technologies, including 3D-imaging computer 
tomography, or CT technology.
  CT scan technology holds great promise in enhancing the effectiveness 
of TSA screening operations insofar as transportation security officers 
would have the benefit of seeing a full 3D multicolor image of whatever 
the screener is inspecting and getting better detail about any suspect 
items.
  Presently, TSA is testing a number of systems in the lab and in the 
field and has said that it expects to be able to begin deployment of 
this new tool to airports by early 2019.

  Given the known ongoing terrorist threat posed by electronic devices, 
CT technology should be introduced into the airport environment in an 
expedited fashion. If done right, the establishment of a third-party 
testing program within TSA has the potential of getting innovative 
technologies into our transportation security systems quicker and 
improving the overall effectiveness of security screening. As such, I 
encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4561.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the time is long overdue to apply strong oversight and 
reform to the manner in which TSA develops and deploys new screening 
technologies across our aviation system.
  With persistent threats facing the aviation sector, H.R. 4561 makes 
much-needed improvements to the innovation and procurement process at 
TSA. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4561, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________