PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
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]