[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4978-4979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            CONTRACT SCREENER REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 10, 2013

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the ``Contract Screener Reform and Accountability Act.''
  Together with my colleagues in the House, Representative Nita Lowey 
of New York and Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, I am introducing this 
legislation to reform, enhance oversight of, and provide greater 
workforce protections to the Transportation Security Administration's 
(TSA) contract screener program known as the Screening Partnership 
Program (SPP). I am very pleased that a companion measure is being 
introduced in the other chamber by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
  Specifically, the ``Contract Screener Reform and Accountability Act'' 
would:
  Bar subsidiaries of foreign owned corporations from providing for 
security screening at domestic airports under the SPP;
  Mandate covert testing of contract screeners so that their 
performance can be monitored and compared to airports where screening 
is carried out by TSA and protect the integrity of those tests by 
imposing penalties for compromising such testing;
  Require security breaches at airports with contracted screening 
services to be reported;

[[Page 4979]]

  Ensure national security through requiring training for the proper 
handling of sensitive security information at SPP airports;
  Provide new compensation, benefits, and whistleblower protections for 
screeners; and
  Enhance customer service for the flying public who are screened at 
SPP airports.
  With enactment of the ``FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012'' 
(P.L. 112-95), subsidiaries of foreign owned corporations are 
permitted, for the first time since the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, to provide screening services at our nation's commercial 
service airports. This change in law was enacted without debate about 
the security implications and despite the need, in the current economic 
climate, to encourage opportunities for U.S. companies rather than 
outsourcing work and diverting taxpayer dollars to subsidiaries of 
foreign owned corporations.
  The reforms concerning covert testing are necessary in light of the 
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General's previous 
finding that the contractor for screening services at San Francisco 
International Airport (SFO), the nation's largest and busiest airport 
with contract screeners, compromised covert testing.
  It is imperative that the integrity of covert security testing be 
protected so that we are assured that contract screeners perform at the 
same level as Transportation Security Officers.
  TSA has reported numerous security breaches occurring regularly at 
airports with contract screeners, including at SFO. These breaches 
include contract screener personnel not detecting prohibited items such 
as knives and bullets in carry-on baggage, improperly clearing 
passengers without verification of their identity, and not conducting 
the required additional screening of passengers referred to secondary 
screening.
  For example, on August 21, 2009, a passenger at SFO alarmed the walk-
through metal detector and was referred to the secondary area for 
additional screening. The passenger promptly let herself out of the 
holding area and collected her accessible property. It was three 
minutes before an employee of the private screening company noticed 
that she was missing.
  More needs to be done to prevent security breaches at SPP airports.
  Similarly, given that the documented mishandling of sensitive 
information can have tragic consequences, more needs to be done to 
prevent such violations as well.
  Today, TSA does not have a process in place for ensuring that all 
employees of corporations with contracts for screening services receive 
training on the proper handling of sensitive information.
  This is the case despite several instances of sensitive security 
information having been mishandled by employees of corporations with 
contracts for screening services under the SPP.
  For example, on July 18, 2010, a new hire training manual containing 
sensitive security information (SSI) about screening practices was 
stolen after a private security company employee in possession of the 
manual removed it from SFO. In response, TSA sent a letter to the 
company that conducts screening services for SFO, as well as to all 
other SPP contractors, directing that any SSI materials be retained in 
a secure fashion at the airport and only removed with expressed, 
written permission of a TSA Contracting Officer.
  I understand that similar incidents have occurred at other SPP 
airports. However, since TSA has not always taken action or documented 
their actions to correct the mishandling of the SSI information, 
reports on such incidents are currently unavailable.
  Regarding workforce protections, the bill would protect workers' pay 
and benefits by requiring that when an airport privatizes, the private 
screening company provide Transportation Security Officers employed at 
the time of the switch the right of first refusal to screening jobs and 
offer compensation and benefits equal to or greater than what they 
received at the time the contract was awarded.
  No worker on the front lines in securing our aviation system should 
lose their job, see a reduction in pay, or lose benefits because an 
airport opts to utilize a private screening company.
  As all of my colleagues can attest to, customer service at airports, 
and in particular in the security screening lanes, is an issue that 
evokes passionate reactions from constituents all across the country.
  Currently, there is no requirement that private screening companies 
report customer complaints regarding their screening experience to TSA 
or Congress. The bill would provide the public an avenue for expressing 
concerns with screening at airports with contract screeners, thus 
ensuring that the flying public's concerns can be addressed.
  In the wake of the deadly attacks of September 11, 2001, TSA was 
created to secure all modes of transportation so that a terrorist 
attack on the scale of 9/11 would never happen again.
  Since TSA's earliest days, it has struggled to fulfill its mission, 
but, with every passing year, it matures and improves as a security 
agency. Opponents of TSA have not forgone any opportunity to exploit a 
misstep to advance their ultimate goal--the dismantling of TSA. At the 
same time, they have willfully turned a blind eye to lapses, breaches, 
and problems at airports secured by contract screeners.
  Just as we must act to strengthen TSA's security operations, it is 
imperative that we address SPP's glaring security challenges.
  It is my hope that the ``Contract Screener Reform and Accountability 
Act'' be enacted to ensure that we do just that.

                          ____________________