69–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–226 

STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF TSA EMPLOYEE 

MISCONDUCT ACT 

JULY 17, 2017.—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 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1351] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1351) to amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the 

Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

to make certain improvements in managing TSA’s employee misconduct, 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 .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 6 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 7 

Duplicative Federal Programs ................................................................................ 7 

Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 7 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 7 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 7 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 7 

2 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 8 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 8 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 16 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Oversight of TSA Employee Misconduct Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TSA MISCONDUCT INSPECTION PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44935 of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by redesignating the second subsection (i) (relating to accessibility of computer-based training facilities) as subsection (k); and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(l) TSA MISCONDUCT INSPECTIONS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 

this subsection, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shall— 

‘‘(A) designate a senior official to implement a plan to oversee unannounced inspections at airports of agency actions taken to address TSA employee misconduct, including actions taken by managers at airports to address any such misconduct through corrective actions, up to and including 

removal from Federal service, in accordance with Department of Homeland 

Security and TSA policies; 

‘‘(B) on a biannual basis thereafter until September 30, 2023, the official 

specified in subparagraph (A) shall certify to the Administrator that the unannounced inspections referred to in such paragraph were completed across 

a sufficient number of airports such that all airports are— 

‘‘(i) inspected before such date; and 

‘‘(ii) provided adequate information regarding agency actions taken to 

address TSA employee misconduct; 

‘‘(C) designate a senior official other than the senior official designated 

pursuant to subparagraph (A) to review the results of such unannounced 

inspections to identify causes of any variances and overall trends in the 

way actions are taken in response to TSA employee misconduct and develop 

corrective actions and recommendations, up to and including removal from 

Federal service, as appropriate; and 

‘‘(D) direct the official described in subparagraph (C) to implement the 

corrective actions and recommendations specified in such subparagraph. 

‘‘(2) CONSOLIDATION AND COORDINATION.—Unannounced inspections under 

paragraph (1) of certain locations may be consolidated and coordinated with 

other relevant TSA offices, as determined appropriate by the Administrator of 

the TSA. 

‘‘(3) EXTENSION.—The Administrator of the TSA may extend the final date 

specified in paragraph (1)(B) for completing the unannounced inspections under 

paragraph (1) for not more than one additional fiscal year if exigent circumstances warrant. If the Administrator determines that such an extension is 

necessary, the Administrator shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,. the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate written justification regarding such circumstances 

prior to granting such extension. 

‘‘(4) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REVIEW.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On a biannual basis, the official specified in paragraph 

(1)(C) shall provide to the Chief Human Capital Officer of the Department 

of Homeland Security the results of unannounced inspections conducted 

pursuant to such paragraph. 

‘‘(B) IDENTIFICATION.—The Chief Human Capital Officer of the Department of Homeland Security may review the results of the unannounced inspections conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) to, as appropriate, identify trends and make recommendations, to the Administrator of the TSA to 

address employee misconduct. 

‘‘(C) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Administrator of the TSA shall coordinate 

with the Chief Human Capital Officer of the Department of Homeland SeVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 21, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR226.XXX HR226
3 

curity to implement any recommendations made pursuant to subparagraph 

(B) within the timeframes established by the Chief Human Capital Officer. 

‘‘(5) INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator of the TSA shall make 

the results of the unannounced inspections, including any recommended corrective actions for addressing variances, identified under this subsection readily 

available to— 

‘‘(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 

‘‘(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee 

on Appropriations of the Senate; and 

‘‘(C) as appropriate, personnel of the Department of Homeland Security, 

as determined by the Administrator. 

‘‘(6) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

‘‘(A) ACTIONS.—The term ‘actions’ means consequences for employee misconduct, up to and including removal from Federal Service, established by 

TSA policy. 

‘‘(B) UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS.—The term ‘unannounced inspections’ 

means a review of information without providing advanced notice to the 

party under review.’’. 

(b) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.—No additional funds are authorized to 

carry out the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act. Such 

requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 1351 is to amend title 49, United States 

Code, to direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) to make certain improvements in managing 

TSA’s employee misconduct, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 1351 is intended to better ensure consistency in the way 

TSA airport managers administer agency actions in response to 

employee misconduct and better position TSA to identify causes behind persistent employee misconduct. Specifically, H.R. 1351 requires the TSA Administrator to designate a senior official to oversee unannounced inspections at airports of agency actions taken to 

address employee misconduct to be completed at all airports within 

5 fiscal years. The bill also requires the Administrator to designate 

a separate official to review the inspection results to identify 

causes of any variances or trends in the way actions are taken in 

response to TSA misconduct and to develop corrective actions to address such variances. H.R. 1351 also requires TSA to provide inspection results to the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer 

to review the results, identify trends, and make recommendations 

on ways to improve TSA employee misconduct. Finally, the bill requires the TSA Administrator to provide inspection results and any 

corrective actions to certain Congressional committees. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In July 2016, the Majority staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency and the Subcommittee on Transportation Security released their findings from a joint investigation 

into TSA’s efforts to address employee misconduct in a report entitled ‘‘Misconduct at TSA Threatens the Security of the Flying Public.’’ In particular, the staff found that, according to TSA data, employee misconduct has grown over time-by almost 29 percent from 

Fiscal Year 2013 to 2015. Moreover, the report detailed that most 

disciplinary and non-disciplinary penalties are given by lower level 

managers at airport checkpoints with potentially very little overVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 21, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR226.XXX HR226
4 

sight by the airport’s Federal Security Director (FSD), much less by 

headquarters. 

In order to ensure that TSA effectively delegates authority to the 

local level, TSA needs mechanisms to ensure that employees are 

adhering to guidance. If these are not implemented, TSA will likely 

be unable to ensure that misconduct declines over time. Although 

TSA has issued guidance related to employee conduct and expects 

that all employees review and adhere to it, it does not have mechanisms in place to ensure that the policy is implemented at the local 

level. H.R. 1351 seeks to establish a random inspection mechanism 

to ensure that local managers are administering discipline in a consistent and fair way. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were specifically held on H.R. 1351. However, the 

Committee held an oversight hearing on TSA employee misconduct 

during the 114th Congress. On July 7, 2016, the Oversight and 

Management Efficiency Subcommittee and the Transportation Security Subcommittee held a joint hearing entitled ‘‘How Pervasive 

is Misconduct at TSA: Examining Findings from a Joint Subcommittee Investigation.’’ The Subcommittees received testimony 

from Dr. Huban Gowadia, Deputy Administrator, Transportation 

Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 

and Mr. Andrew Oosterbaan, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee met on May 3, 2017, to consider H.R. 1351, 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 Committee adopted H.R. 1351, as amended, by a recorded 

vote of 14 yeas and 10 nays (Roll No. 8). 

The following amendment was offered: 

An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by MR. PERRY

(#1); was AGREED TO by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 10 nays 

(Roll No. 7). 

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. 

The Committee on Homeland Security considered H.R. 1351 on 

May 3, 2017, and took the following votes: 

ROLL CALL NO. 7 

H.R. 1351 

On agreeing to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 

Perry (#1). 

Agreed to: 14 yeas and 10 nays. 

5 

Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay 

Mr. McCaul, ...................................

Chair .........................................

X Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, ......

Ranking Member ......................

X 

Mr. Smith of Texas ........................ Ms. Jackson Lee ...........................

Mr. King of New York .................... X Mr. Langevin ................................. X 

Mr. Rogers of Alabama ................. X Mr. Richmond ...............................

Mr. Duncan of South Carolina ...... X Mr. Keating ................................... X 

Mr. Marino ..................................... X Mr. Payne ...................................... X 

Mr. Barletta ................................... X Mr. Vela ........................................ X 

Mr. Perry ........................................ X Mrs. Watson Coleman .................. X 

Mr. Katko ....................................... Miss Rice of New York ................. X 

Mr. Hurd ........................................ X Mr. Correa ..................................... X 

Ms. McSally ................................... X Mrs. Demings ............................... X 

Mr. Ratcliffe .................................. X Ms. Barraga ́ n ................................ X 

Mr. Donovan ..................................

Mr. Gallagher ................................. X 

Mr. Higgins of Louisiana ............... X 

Mr. Rutherford ............................... X 

Mr. Garrett ..................................... X 

Mr. Fitzpatrick ...............................

Vote Total: 14 10 

ROLL CALL NO. 8 

H.R. 1351 

On ordering H.R. 1351 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation, as amended. 

Agreed to: 14 yeas and 10 nays. 

Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay 

Mr. McCaul, ...................................

Chair .........................................

X Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, ......

Ranking Member ......................

X 

Mr. Smith of Texas ........................ Ms. Jackson Lee ...........................

Mr. King of New York .................... X Mr. Langevin ................................. X 

Mr. Rogers of Alabama ................. X Mr. Richmond ...............................

Mr. Duncan of South Carolina ...... X Mr. Keating ................................... X 

Mr. Marino ..................................... X Mr. Payne ...................................... X 

Mr. Barletta ................................... X Mr. Vela ........................................ X 

Mr. Perry ........................................ X Mrs. Watson Coleman .................. X 

Mr. Katko ....................................... Miss Rice of New York ................. X 

Mr. Hurd ........................................ X Mr. Correa ..................................... X 

Ms. McSally ................................... X Mrs. Demings ............................... X 

Mr. Ratcliffe .................................. X Ms. Barraga ́ n ................................ X 

Mr. Donovan ..................................

Mr. Gallagher ................................. X 

Mr. Higgins of Louisiana ............... X 

Mr. Rutherford ............................... X 

Mr. Garrett ..................................... X 

Mr. Fitzpatrick ...............................

Vote Total: 14 10 

6 

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. 1351, the 

Strengthening Oversight of TSA Employee Misconduct 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, July 14, 2017. 

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. 1351, the Strengthening 

Oversight of TSA Employee Misconduct Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1351—Strengthening Oversight of TSA Employee Misconduct 

Act 

H.R. 1351 would require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to complete, by September 30, 2023, unannounced inspections at all airports of actions taken by TSA managers to address employee misconduct. The bill would specify procedures for 

TSA to follow in reporting the results of such inspections to both 

the Congress and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

would authorize TSA to implement any personnel-related recommendations that DHS makes after reviewing such results. 

Based on an analysis of information from TSA, CBO estimates 

that inspecting all airports where TSA currently operates within 

the timeframe specified by the bill would require about five additional staff. Including increased administrative costs and travel expenses, CBO estimates that meeting the bill’s inspection requirements would increase TSA’s costs by $1 million annually and $5 

million over the 2018–2022 period; that spending would be subject 

to the availability of appropriated funds. (That amount does not include any additional costs that the agency might incur to impleVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 21, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR226.XXX HR226
7 

ment DHS-recommended changes to policies for addressing employee misconduct pursuant to reports of inspections carried out 

under the bill.) 

Enacting H.R. 1351 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 1351 would not increase net direct spending or 

on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 1351 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

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. 1351 contains the following general performance goals and objectives, including outcome related goals and 

objectives authorized. 

The purpose of H.R. 1351 is to direct the Administrator of the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to make certain improvements in managing TSA’s employee misconduct, and for other 

purposes. 

DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of Rule XIII, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 1351 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 no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule XXI. 

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. 1351 does not preempt any State, 

local, or Tribal law. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that H.R. 1351 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. 

8 

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 ‘‘Strengthening Oversight of TSA Employee Misconduct Act’’. 

Sec. 2. TSA Misconduct Inspection Plan. 

Section 2 requires the TSA Administrator to, within 60 days of 

enactment, designate a senior official to oversee unannounced inspections at airports of agency actions taken to address employee 

misconduct, including managers removing employees from service, 

if necessary. That official must certify to the Administrator on a biannual basis thereafter until Fiscal Year 2023 that the unannounced inspections were completed across a sufficient number of 

airports to ensure that all airports are inspected by the specified 

time period. 

Section 2 also requires the Administrator to designate a separate 

official to review the inspection results to identify causes of any 

variances or trends in the way actions are taken in response to 

TSA misconduct and to develop corrective actions to address such 

variances. The Administrator is also required to ensure that the official conducting the unannounced inspections implements any recommendations made to address variances in the way actions are 

taken. The Administrator may determine, as appropriate, whether 

inspections may be consolidated with activities by other offices and 

such inspections should be coordinated with other relevant TSA offices. The Committee intends for the Administrator to safeguard 

against any unnecessary duplication in carrying out these inspections. 

Additionally, Section 2 provides that the Administrator may extend date for completing the unannounced inspections by not more 

than one additional fiscal year, if warranted by exigent circumstances. Section 2 also requires TSA to provide inspection results biannually to the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer 

to ensure that TSA addresses employee misconduct. The Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer may review the results, identify trends, and make recommendations on ways to improve TSA 

employee misconduct. Although the Administrator shall coordinate 

with the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer and implement recommendations, the Chief Human Capital Officer should consult 

with the Administrator on such recommendations and consider the 

cost and operational impacts of any such recommendations. The 

Committee intends for any recommendations made by the Chief 

Human Capital Officer to help the Administrator address employee 

misconduct. 

Section 2 also requires the TSA Administrator to make inspection results and any corrective actions available to the Committees 

on Homeland Security, and Appropriations of the House of RepVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 21, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR226.XXX HR226
9 

resentatives; the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Appropriations of the Senate; and, as appropriate, Department personnel. Section 2 includes definitions of actions and unannounced 

inspections to help TSA implement the bill’s provisions. Finally, 

section 2 prohibits any additional funds from being authorized to 

carry out these provisions. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 449—SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44935. Employment standards and training 

(a) EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall prescribe standards for the employment 

and continued employment of, and contracting for, air carrier personnel and, as appropriate, airport security personnel. The standards shall include— 

(1) minimum training requirements for new employees; 

(2) retraining requirements; 

(3) minimum staffing levels; 

(4) minimum language skills; and 

(5) minimum education levels for employees, when appropriate. 

(b) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—In coordination with air 

carriers, airport operators, and other interested persons, the Under 

Secretary shall review issues related to human performance in the 

aviation security system to maximize that performance. When the 

10 

review is completed, the Under Secretary shall recommend guidelines and prescribe appropriate changes in existing procedures to 

improve that performance. 

(c) SECURITY PROGRAM TRAINING, STANDARDS, AND QUALIFICATIONS.—(1) The Under Secretary— 

(A) may train individuals employed to carry out a security 

program under section 44903(c) of this title; and 

(B) shall prescribe uniform training standards and uniform 

minimum qualifications for individuals eligible for that training. 

(2) The Under Secretary may authorize reimbursement for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for security training of 

non-United States Government domestic and foreign individuals 

whose services will contribute significantly to carrying out civil 

aviation security programs. To the extent practicable, air travel reimbursed under this paragraph shall be on air carriers. 

(d) EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS FOR SECURITY COORDINATORS, SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL, AND PILOTS.—(1) The Under 

Secretary shall prescribe standards for educating and training— 

(A) ground security coordinators; 

(B) security supervisory personnel; and 

(C) airline pilots as in-flight security coordinators. 

(2) The standards shall include initial training, retraining, and 

continuing education requirements and methods. Those requirements and methods shall be used annually to measure the performance of ground security coordinators and security supervisory personnel. 

(e) SECURITY SCREENERS.— 

(1) TRAINING PROGRAM.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish a program for the hiring and 

training of security screening personnel. 

(2) HIRING.— 

(A) QUALIFICATIONS.—Within 30 days after the date of 

enactment of the aviation Transportation Security Act, the 

Under Secretary shall establish qualification standards for 

individuals to be hired by the United States as security 

screening personnel. Notwithstanding any provision of law, 

those standards shall require, at a minimum, an individual— 

(i) to have a satisfactory or better score on a Federal 

security screening personnel selection examination; 

(ii) to be a citizen of the United States or a national 

of the United States, as defined in section 1101(a)(22) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(22)); 

(iii) to meet, at a minimum, the requirements set 

forth in subsection (f); 

(iv) to meet such other qualifications as the Under 

Secretary may establish; and 

(v) to have the ability to demonstrate daily a fitness 

for duty without any impairment due to illegal drugs, 

sleep deprivation, medication, or alcohol. 

(B) BACKGROUND CHECKS.—The Under Secretary shall 

require that an individual to be hired as a security screenVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:09 Jul 21, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR226.XXX HR226
11 

er undergo an employment investigation (including a 

criminal history record check) under section 44936(a)(1). 

(C) DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS WHO PRESENT NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS.—The Under Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 

agencies, shall establish procedures, in addition to any 

background check conducted under section 44936, to ensure that no individual who presents a threat to national 

security is employed as a security screener. 

(3) EXAMINATION; REVIEW OF EXISTING RULES.—The Under 

Secretary shall develop a security screening personnel examination for use in determining the qualification of individuals 

seeking employment as security screening personnel. The 

Under Secretary shall also review, and revise as necessary, 

any standard, rule, or regulation governing the employment of 

individuals as security screening personnel. 

(f) EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR SCREENING PERSONNEL.— 

(1) SCREENER REQUIREMENTS.—Notwithstanding any provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security 

screener unless that individual meets the following requirements: 

(A) The individual shall possess a high school diploma, 

a general equivalency diploma, or experience that the 

Under Secretary has determined to be sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the position. 

(B) The individual shall possess basic aptitudes and 

physical abilities, including color perception, visual and 

aural acuity, physical coordination, and motor skills, to the 

following standards: 

(i) Screeners operating screening equipment shall be 

able to distinguish on the screening equipment monitor the appropriate imaging standard specified by the 

Under Secretary. 

(ii) Screeners operating any screening equipment 

shall be able to distinguish each color displayed on 

every type of screening equipment and explain what 

each color signifies. 

(iii) Screeners shall be able to hear and respond to 

the spoken voice and to audible alarms generated by 

screening equipment in an active checkpoint environment. 

(iv) Screeners performing physical searches or other 

related operations shall be able to efficiently and thoroughly manipulate and handle such baggage, containers, and other objects subject to security processing. 

(v) Screeners who perform pat-downs or hand-held 

metal detector searches of individuals shall have sufficient dexterity and capability to thoroughly conduct 

those procedures over an individual’s entire body. 

(C) The individual shall be able to read, speak, and write 

English well enough to— 

(i) carry out written and oral instructions regarding 

the proper performance of screening duties; 

12 

(ii) read English language identification media, credentials, airline tickets, and labels on items normally 

encountered in the screening process; 

(iii) provide direction to and understand and answer 

questions from English-speaking individuals undergoing screening; and 

(iv) write incident reports and statements and log 

entries into security records in the English language. 

(D) The individual shall have satisfactorily completed all 

initial, recurrent, and appropriate specialized training required by the security program, except as provided in 

paragraph (3). 

(2) VETERANS PREFERENCE.—The Under Secretary shall provide a preference for the hiring of an individual as a security 

screener if the individual is a member or former member of the 

armed forces and if the individual is entitled, under statute, to 

retired, retirement, or retainer pay on account of service as a 

member of the armed forces. 

(3) EXCEPTIONS.—An individual who has not completed the 

training required by this section may be deployed during the 

on-the-job portion of training to perform functions if that individual— 

(A) is closely supervised; and 

(B) does not make independent judgments as to whether 

individuals or property may enter a sterile area or aircraft 

without further inspection. 

(4) REMEDIAL TRAINING.—No individual employed as a security screener may perform a screening function after that individual has failed an operational test related to that function 

until that individual has successfully completed the remedial 

training specified in the security program. 

(5) ANNUAL PROFICIENCY REVIEW.—The Under Secretary 

shall provide that an annual evaluation of each individual assigned screening duties is conducted and documented. An individual employed as a security screener may not continue to be 

employed in that capacity unless the evaluation demonstrates 

that the individual— 

(A) continues to meet all qualifications and standards required to perform a screening function; 

(B) has a satisfactory record of performance and attention to duty based on the standards and requirements in 

the security program; and 

(C) demonstrates the current knowledge and skills necessary to courteously, vigilantly, and effectively perform 

screening functions. 

(6) OPERATIONAL TESTING.—In addition to the annual proficiency review conducted under paragraph (5), the Under Secretary shall provide for the operational testing of such personnel. 

(g) TRAINING.— 

(1) USE OF OTHER AGENCIES.—The Under Secretary may 

enter into a memorandum of understanding or other arrangement with any other Federal agency or department with appropriate law enforcement responsibilities, to provide personnel, 

13 

resources, or other forms of assistance in the training of security screening personnel. 

(2) TRAINING PLAN.—Within 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the 

Under Secretary shall develop a plan for the training of security screening personnel. The plan shall require, at a minimum, that a security screener— 

(A) has completed 40 hours of classroom instruction or 

successfully completed a program that the Under Secretary determines will train individuals to a level of proficiency equivalent to the level that would be achieved by 

such classroom instruction; 

(B) has completed 60 hours of on-the-job instructions; 

and 

(C) has successfully completed an on-the-job training examination prescribed by the Under Secretary. 

(3) EQUIPMENT-SPECIFIC TRAINING.—An individual employed 

as a security screener may not use any security screening device or equipment in the scope of that individual’s employment 

unless the individual has been trained on that device or equipment and has successfully completed a test on the use of the 

device or equipment. 

(h) TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary shall require 

training to ensure that screeners are proficient in using 

the most up-to-date new technology and to ensure their 

proficiency in recognizing new threats and weapons. 

(2) PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS.—The Under Secretary shall 

make periodic assessments to determine if there are dual 

use items and inform security screening personnel of the 

existence of such items. 

(3) CURRENT LISTS OF DUAL USE ITEMS.—Current lists of 

dual use items shall be part of the ongoing training for 

screeners. 

(4) DUAL USE DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection, 

the term ‘‘dual use’’ item means an item that may seem 

harmless but that may be used as a weapon. 

(i) LIMITATION ON RIGHT TO STRIKE.—An individual that screens 

passengers or property, or both, at an airport under this section 

may not participate in a strike, or assert the right to strike, 

against the person (including a governmental entity) employing 

such individual to perform such screening. 

(j) UNIFORMS.—The Under Secretary shall require any individual 

who screens passengers and property pursuant to section 44901 to 

be attired while on duty in a uniform approved by the Under Secretary. 

ø(i)¿ (k) ACCESSIBILITY OF COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING FACILITIES.—The Under Secretary shall work with air carriers and airports to ensure that computer-based training facilities intended for 

use by security screeners at an airport regularly serving an air carrier holding a certificate issued by the Secretary of Transportation 

are conveniently located for that airport and easily accessible. 

(l) TSA MISCONDUCT INSPECTIONS.— 

14 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the 

enactment of this subsection, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shall— 

(A) designate a senior official to implement a plan to 

oversee unannounced inspections at airports of agency actions taken to address TSA employee misconduct, including 

actions taken by managers at airports to address any such 

misconduct through corrective actions, up to and including 

removal from Federal service, in accordance with Department of Homeland Security and TSA policies; 

(B) on a biannual basis thereafter until September 30, 

2023, the official specified in subparagraph (A) shall certify 

to the Administrator that the unannounced inspections referred to in such paragraph were completed across a sufficient number of airports such that all airports are— 

(i) inspected before such date; and 

(ii) provided adequate information regarding agency 

actions taken to address TSA employee misconduct; 

(C) designate a senior official other than the senior official designated pursuant to subparagraph (A) to review the 

results of such unannounced inspections to identify causes 

of any variances and overall trends in the way actions are 

taken in response to TSA employee misconduct and develop 

corrective actions and recommendations, up to and including removal from Federal service, as appropriate; and 

(D) direct the official described in subparagraph (C) to 

implement the corrective actions and recommendations 

specified in such subparagraph. 

(2) CONSOLIDATION AND COORDINATION.—Unannounced inspections under paragraph (1) of certain locations may be consolidated and coordinated with other relevant TSA offices, as 

determined appropriate by the Administrator of the TSA. 

(3) EXTENSION.—The Administrator of the TSA may extend 

the final date specified in paragraph (1)(B) for completing the 

unannounced inspections under paragraph (1) for not more 

than one additional fiscal year if exigent circumstances warrant. If the Administrator determines that such an extension is 

necessary, the Administrator shall provide to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,. the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate written justification regarding such circumstances prior to granting such extension. 

(4) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REVIEW.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—On a biannual basis, the official specified in paragraph (1)(C) shall provide to the Chief Human 

Capital Officer of the Department of Homeland Security the 

results of unannounced inspections conducted pursuant to 

such paragraph. 

(B) IDENTIFICATION.—The Chief Human Capital Officer 

of the Department of Homeland Security may review the results of the unannounced inspections conducted pursuant to 

paragraph (1)(A) to, as appropriate, identify trends and 

15 

make recommendations, to the Administrator of the TSA to 

address employee misconduct. 

(C) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Administrator of the TSA 

shall coordinate with the Chief Human Capital Officer of 

the Department of Homeland Security to implement any 

recommendations made pursuant to subparagraph (B) 

within the timeframes established by the Chief Human 

Capital Officer. 

(5) INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator of the 

TSA shall make the results of the unannounced inspections, including any recommended corrective actions for addressing 

variances, identified under this subsection readily available 

to— 

(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 

(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, and the Committee on Appropriations of 

the Senate; and 

(C) as appropriate, personnel of the Department of Homeland Security, as determined by the Administrator. 

(6) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

(A) ACTIONS.—The term ‘‘actions’’ means consequences for 

employee misconduct, up to and including removal from 

Federal Service, established by TSA policy. 

(B) UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS.—The term ‘‘unannounced inspections’’ means a review of information without providing advanced notice to the party under review. 

* * * * * * * 

(16) 

1TSA Releases 2016 Statistics. National Press Release. January 12, 2017. https: http:// 

blog.tsa.gov/2017/01/tsa-year-in-review-record-amount-of.html. 2 Id. 

3 ‘‘Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.’’ December 2016. Accessed July 14, 2017. 

http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/HS10. 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

On behalf of Committee Democrats, I submit these dissenting 

views with respect to H.R. 1351, the ‘‘Strengthening Oversight of 

TSA Employee Misconduct Act,’’ a bill premised on unsubstantiated 

claims of wide-scale misconduct within the transportation security 

officer (TSO) workforce that, if enacted, could result in limited 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) auditing resources 

being diverted from investigating security-related concerns. 

The TSO workforce has been effective at protecting the flying 

public since federalization of their duties following the terrible 

events of 9/11. The TSO workforce is the face of TSA and are the 

DHS employees the public is most likely to encounter. In 2016, the 

TSO workforce screened more than 2 million passengers per day 

(738 million in total).1 The men and women that serve on TSA’s 

frontlines stopped over 3,000 firearms from being brought on 

planes in carry-on bags in 2016.2

There is no evidence to support the premise of H.R. 1351—that 

the TSO workforce is more likely to engage in misconduct than 

other federal workers and, thus, specific legislation requiring 

heightened scrutiny for this workforce is unwarranted. It is important to keep in mind that amongst government agencies, TSA consistently ranks near the bottom for best places to work, ranking 

303 out of 305 in 2016.3 With their notoriously low workforce morale, a bill such as H.R. 1351 that singles out the agency, risks further demoralizing TSOs and creating an atmosphere of fear and 

mistrust. 

Beyond insulting the TSO workforce, H.R. 1351, as drafted, has 

fundamental flaws that, according to TSA, sow confusion about 

what the agency would actually be mandated to do. Specifically, in 

advance of the Full Committee’s consideration of this measure, 

TSA communicated to the Committee that it is unsure of whether 

it would be expected to divert its limited inspection resources away 

from its risk-based review of security operations and administrative matters, including personnel matters, to conduct unannounced 

audits of documentation on how misconduct is managed at each 

airport in the United States. 

Further, to carry out an effective audit, TSA indicated that there 

needs to be coordination with the leadership within an audited airport to ensure that needed documents are available for review. TSA 

told the Committee, informally, that the unannounced audit regime 

is a recipe for waste since, under TSA’s ‘‘hub and spoke model’’ documents are centrally housed at certain airports. Furthermore, the 

17 

bill fails to recognize that each incident of misconduct is unique by 

nature and requires a detailed analysis in order to make informed 

decisions. Identifying the number of instances of misconduct does 

not identify causation. Simply collecting paperwork from airports 

across the country cannot paint an accurate picture of all incidents 

and is a misguided approach to oversight. 

Further, as drafted, it is unclear which entities and persons 

would be responsible for carrying out the mandated inspections. 

H.R. 1351 offers no guidance on which office within TSA would be 

responsible for the unannounced inspections. It only states that a 

‘‘senior official’’ would be responsible. 

TSA’s Audits and Inspections Division has an inspection program 

that utilizes a risk-based approach to focus on higher impact operational and administrative areas. The Committee was told by TSA 

that if the Audits and Inspections Division is tasked with performing the new unannounced inspection regime, it could result in 

approximately 20% of their project work, from the date of passage 

through the subsequent 5 years, needing to be abandoned until the 

requirements of the bill are met. 

This bill is unnecessary as there are already extensive procedures in place at TSA to handle misconduct. For almost 16 years, 

TSA has maintained its own disciplinary procedures and already 

has several senior officials, including the Chief Human Capital Officer and the Director of Employee Relations, whose duties include 

tracking disciplinary actions. Moreover, TSA’s Office of Professional 

Responsibility Appellate Review Board tracks and oversees disciplinary actions. Additionally, Congress already has the authority to 

request information on TSA disciplinary actions, and TSA has provided such information repeatedly. 

H.R. 1351 is vague, confusing for TSA, wasteful, and could result 

in limited homeland security resources being improperly diverted. 

Most importantly, it lacks a well-reasoned rationale and is based 

on false notions about the degree to which there are discipline 

issues within the TSO workforce. The men and women of TSA 

should be supported by Congress, not put down, as they endeavor 

every day, often in stressful and understaffed environments, to ensure that the American flying public is secure. 

For all these reasons, on behalf of Committee Democrats, I 

strongly dissent against H.R. 1351 and urge my colleagues in the 

House of Representatives to stand with the over 44,000 TSOs nationwide and reject H.R. 1351. 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON. 

Æ