[House Report 115-498]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







115th Congress     }                               {           Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                               {          115-498
======================================================================



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

                                _______
                                

January 9, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. McCaul, from the Committee on Homeland Security, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4561]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4561) to provide for third party testing of 
transportation security screening technology, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     4
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     6
Duplicative Federal Programs.....................................     7
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     7
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     7
Preemption Clarification.........................................     7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     7
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     7
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and insert 
the following:

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.
          (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.

                          Purpose and Summary

    This legislation directs the Administrator of the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a 
program and framework for enabling third party testing for 
advanced security screening technologies, in order to alleviate 
existing bureaucratic hurdles and bottleneck's in the TSA's 
testing and evaluation process. This legislation will seek to 
increase efficiencies while decreasing costs to TSA, while also 
having a positive impact on the acquisitions and procurement 
process for mitigating the rapidly evolving threats to 
transportation security. Lastly, this bill seeks to align 
various security standards and protocols with the European 
Civil Aviation Conference, in order to streamline international 
security standards and raise the global baseline of aviation 
security.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Technology stakeholders consistently face challenges in 
partnering with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 
the TSA to test and validate their screening technologies for 
procurement. This is due in large part to current bottlenecks 
at the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate's 
Transportation Security Laboratory and TSA's Transportation 
Systems Integration Facility, where new technologies are 
testing and evaluated before they can be purchased and deployed 
at passenger screening checkpoints. These bottlenecks and 
bureaucratic hurdles have often cut out small or startup 
technology businesses and stifled innovations in passenger 
screening, all while the threat landscape facing transportation 
has continued to evolve rapidly and put the traveling public at 
risk. Most recently, this has been observed in TSA's struggle 
to develop and deploy Computed Tomography technology at 
checkpoints, which provides greater imaging and enhanced 
screening capabilities. This legislation will hopefully spur 
more rapid and efficient technology testing while saving TSA 
money in testing costs.

                                Hearings


114th Congress

    On January 7, 2016, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Security held a hearing entitled ``Transportation Security 
Acquisition Reform Act: Examining Remaining Challenges.'' The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Steven Wallen, 
Director, Explosives Division, Homeland Security Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, Science and Technology Directorate, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Jill Vaughan, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Security Technologies, 
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security; Ms. Michele Mackin, Director, Office 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; and Mr. TJ Schulz, Executive Director, 
Security Manufacturers Coalition.

115th Congress

    On April 27, 2017, the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Protective Security held a hearing entitled ``Checkpoint of the 
Future: Evaluating TSA's Innovation Task Force Initiative'' The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Steve Karoly, Acting 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Requirements and 
Capabilities Analysis, Transportation Security Administration, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Roosevelt Council, 
Jr., General Manager, Hatsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 
Airport, Department of Aviation, City of Atlanta, Georgia; Ms. 
Jeanne M. Olivier, A.A.E., Assistant Director, Aviation 
Security & Technology, Security Operations and Programs 
Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
    On September 26, 2017, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
and Protective Security held a hearing entitled ``Raising the 
Standard: DHS's Efforts to Improve Aviation Security Around the 
Globe.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Craig 
Lynes, Director of Global Compliance, Office of Global 
Strategies, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Todd C. Owen, Executive 
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Customs and 
Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and 
Ms. Jennifer Grover, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    On November 8, 2017, the Full Committee held a hearing 
entitled ``Preventing the Next Attack: TSA's Role in Keeping 
Our Transportation Systems Secure.'' The Committee received 
testimony from Hon. David P. Pekoske, Administrator, 
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Committee met on December 13, 2017, to consider H.R. 
4561, and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation, as amended, by voice vote. The 
Committee took the following actions:
    The following amendment was offered:

 An amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (#1); was 
AGREED TO by voice vote.
     At the end of section 3, insert a new subsection entitled ``(f) 
Eligible entities.''

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto.
    No recorded votes were requested during consideration of 
H.R. 4561.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight 
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
4561, the Security Assessment Feasibility for Equipment Testing 
and Evaluation of Capabilities for our Homeland Act, would 
result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, January 8, 2018.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4561, the Security 
Assessment Feasibility for Equipment Testing and Evaluation of 
Capabilities for Our Homeland Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4561--Security Assessment Feasibility for Equipment Testing and 
        Evaluation of Capabilities for Our Homeland Act

    Under current law, the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) is responsible for testing facilities, 
equipment, and systems related to transportation security. As 
an alternative, H.R. 4561 would direct TSA to establish a 
program to allow technology developers to obtain testing from a 
third party, subject to requirements specified in the bill. 
H.R. 4561 also would require the Government Accountability 
Office to study the effects of the proposed program and would 
direct TSA to develop, in consultation with the European Civil 
Aviation Conference, processes to promote reciprocal 
recognition of security-related standards among international 
organizations.
    Using information from TSA, CBO estimates that implementing 
H.R. 4561 would cost about $300,000 annually. Such spending--
which would be subject to appropriation--would support 
additional staff required to develop policies related to TSA's 
vetting of data from external sources and for reviewing 
information submitted by vendors that would use the third-party 
testing program. Enacting H.R. 4561 would not affect direct 
spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 
not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4561 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 4561 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 4561 contains the following 
general performance goals and objectives, including outcome 
related goals and objectives authorized.
    The legislation requires the Administrator to develop a 
program to enable third party testing for technologies, without 
increases expenses to the Administration or lowering the 
quality of testing. Additionally, this legislation provides for 
the Government Accountability Office to submit a report as to 
the effectiveness of this program.

                      Duplicative Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of Rule XIII, the Committee finds 
that H.R. 4561 does not contain any provision that establishes 
or reauthorizes a program known to be duplicative of another 
Federal program.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the following 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                        Preemption Clarification

    In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or 
joint resolution to include a statement on the extent to which 
the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, 
local, or Tribal law, the Committee finds that H.R. 4561 does 
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 4561 would require no 
directed rule makings.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1.   Short Title.

    This section provides that this bill 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.

    This section defines the terms used in this act including: 
``Administration'' and ``Administrator''.

Sec. 3.   Third Party Testing of Security Screening Technology.

    This section directs the Administrator, in consultation 
with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of DHS, to 
develop a program to enable a vendor of transportation security 
screening technology to obtain testing by a third party. This 
testing shall include detection testing to evaluate the 
performance of a security screening technology relating to the 
detection of explosives, and other prohibited items. The third 
party testing, without increasing expenses and lowering quality 
of testing, shall coordinate its final qualification processes 
with DHS testing.
    To the extent practicable, and in accordance to national 
security interests, the administrator shall share detection 
testing information and standards, and coordinate testing 
alignments with international partners to maximize the 
capability to detect explosives and other threats. Alternate 
testing may also include (at the discretion of the 
administrator; health and safety factors, Operator interface, 
human factors, environmental factors, and reliability/
maintainability and availability factors. The administrator may 
prioritize the field testing of security screening technology 
and equipment by third parties.

Sec. 4.   Reciprical Recogniton of Security Standards.

    This section requires the Administrator to continue to 
develop a validation process for the reciprocal recognition of 
security validation processes for recognition of security 
screening technologies or certification authorities for 
deployment with the European Civil Aviation Conference. 
Validation shall ensure that each participating international 
security partner complies with the Administrator's standards.

Sec. 5.   GAO Review.

    This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide to the House Committee on Homeland Security 
and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs a study on the third party testing program developed 
under this measure. The Committee believes that this study will 
provide the appropriate committees the ability to review and 
enhance this legislation in the future.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    As reported, H.R. 4561 makes no changes to existing law.

                                  [all]