U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–436 

TSA MODERNIZATION: 

IMPROVEMENTS TO AVIATION SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

SHELLEY CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Ranking 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 28, 2017 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 18 

Letter dated November 8, 2017 to Hon. James M. Inhofe from Michael 

R. White, Vice President, Government and Industry Relations, Cargo 

Network Services Corp ................................................................................. 20 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 21 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 22 

Statement of Senator Booker .................................................................................. 26 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 28 

Statement of Senator Duckworth ........................................................................... 31 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 33 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 35 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 37 

WITNESSES

Brian C. Weiler, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, Springfield-Branson National 

Airport ................................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association; and Chairman, 

Aviation Security Advisory Committee, TSA ..................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Sissy Pressnell, Vice Chairman, Security Manufacturers Coalition ................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Michael White, Vice President, Government and Industry Relations, Cargo 

Networks Services Corporation, International Air Transport Association ...... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to: 

Brian Weiler ...................................................................................................... 39 

Response to written questions submitted to Stephen Alterman by: 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 39 

Hon. Tammy Duckworth .................................................................................. 40 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to: 

Sissy Pressnell .................................................................................................. 40 

Michael White ................................................................................................... 41 

(1) 

TSA MODERNIZATION: 

IMPROVEMENTS TO AVIATION SECURITY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND

SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Blunt [presiding], Thune, Fischer, Sullivan, 

Inhofe, Capito, Gardner, Young, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, 

Schatz, Markey, Booker, Baldwin, Duckworth, and Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. Senator Inhofe has pointed out that we have a 

vote at 10:30, so he’s right, and we will start, and we’ll work our 

way through that. I think it’s just one vote, and if we do that, we’ll 

do that in a way that we don’t disrupt the hearing. 

So let’s call the hearing to order. We certainly had an earlier 

hearing in February of this year, where we had a number of the 

stakeholders come in and talk about what needed to happen at 

TSA. I’ll say before we get well started with this, when I talk to 

anybody about air travel, whether they’re running an airline or 

running the TSA agency or running an airport, I usually say there 

are two items that every member of the Senate thinks they’re an 

expert on. One is politics, and two is air travel, and we do this 

about as much as anybody, so you’ll have to kind of acknowledge 

our predisposition there to think we know more than we very well 

may know about the challenges you face. 

But, certainly, the TSA obligation, the TSA challenges are significant. Everyone knows that the airports, the airlines, the transportation that’s involved in tourism as well as the daily business 

of the country—critically important on what happens at airports 

and how we do that. The TSA challenge is obviously formidable. In 

2016, TSA officers screened 738 million passengers, more than 2 

million a day. In addition, TSA screened 466 million checked bags 

and over 24 million airport employees. So to get that right and to 

get it right every time is a huge challenge, and I think there is a 

lot of appreciation for just how hard this job is. 

In our February hearing and as a result of the events of the baggage claim area at Fort Lauderdale Airport that had happened just 

2 

before that and the bombing at the public terminal in Brussels, 

Belgium, we have become well aware of the various security challenges at airports themselves in addition to getting people on and 

off airplanes in a safe way. 

We know that we need to speed up technology evaluation and deployment of the best technology. We need to improve communication with the traveling public on wait times; identify how to leverage the PreCheck program; not be afraid to get creative and test 

new ways of doing things, such as one of the things we’re going to 

talk about today, the idea of automating the exit line and impacting in a positive way the bottom line. 

I’m pleased that Chairman Thune, myself, Ranking Member Nelson, and Senator Cantwell have a bill that we are looking at today. 

We’re pleased to have the witnesses that I’ll introduce in a moment 

with us here today, and I’d like to turn to Senator Cantwell for her 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this important hearing about improving security in the 

aviation system. I’d like to thank our distinguished panelists as 

well. They deal with aviation security on a daily basis, and I look 

forward to the opportunity to hear from them about those issues. 

I was also glad for the opportunity to discuss the TSA Modernization bill, which was just introduced, as the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee just said, by Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and Senator Blunt and myself. The bill lays out what I believe is a strong framework for TSA to continue modernization and 

technology procedures to improve security and to keep the traveling public moving. I look forward to working with our colleagues 

on that. 

In my home state, Sea-Tac Airport has been one of the fastest— 

wait a minute—the fastest growing large airport in the country for 

three consecutive years. So I can guarantee you this is a very daily 

issue for us. I want to thank then Administrator Neffenger for paying close attention to this, and I hope that Administrator Pekoske 

will also make improvements. 

The bill that we introduced yesterday gives them the opportunity 

as an agency to develop testing and deployment of new technologies 

to improve security and efficiency for our traveling public. The airports and airlines deserve credit for their security work that they 

often do at their own expense. But we need to keep making improvements as we move forward. Our bill would give airports more 

flexibility to adapt to their own needs. The TSA Modernization Act 

would give airports the ability to train and deploy canine teams, 

some of the most effective tools that we have in making sure that 

our airports work in a secure and safe and efficient manner. 

Under the new language, large airports that do not have their 

full complement of TSA passenger canine screenings would be able 

to train dogs through improved third-party certification programs 

working with TSA. While the flexibility is a vital tool for fast growing airports like Sea-Tac, it is also important to note that we are 

3 

giving airports the ability to increase TSA resources and to help 

make sure that we are making improvements to the team. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 

these vital issues, and I thank the Chairman for this important 

hearing about technology and security. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

We have our panelists with us today: Brian Weiler is the Director of Aviation at my hometown airport, the Springfield-Branson 

National Airport; Steve Alterman, the President of Cargo Airlines 

Association, Chairman of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, and Mr. Alterman was with us in February, and we’re glad 

that you were able to come back today; Sissy Pressnell, the Vice 

President of Strategic Business Development and Stakeholder Relations, Smith Detention, and Vice Chairman of the Security Manufacturers Coalition; and Mr. Michael White, Vice President, Government and Industry Relations, Cargo Network Services Corporation, International Air Transportation Association. 

So, Mr. Weiler, if you’ll start, and we’ll limit each of you to 5 

minutes, and you don’t have to take all that time if you don’t want, 

and then we’ll come to questions. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN C. WEILER, A.A.E., DIRECTOR OF 

AVIATION, SPRINGFIELD-BRANSON NATIONAL AIRPORT 

Mr. WEILER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss security modernization efforts at 

the Springfield-Branson National Airport where I serve as Director. 

My airport is the third largest in the state of Missouri, serving 

a million passengers with 30 daily flights by four airlines. We also 

house a military base, air cargo operation, college flight training 

program, airline maintenance base, and Customs port of entry. The 

airport’s 10-gate terminal was built in 2009, and the TSA security 

checkpoint configuration is two standard lanes with AIT equipment 

and one PreCheck lane. 

The City of Springfield owns and operates the airport as an enterprise fund, which means we receive no local tax support, and all 

revenue generated needed to run the airport must be from user 

fees and rents. We focus on maximizing non-aeronautical revenue 

to keep our airline fees low. Airline passengers have increased 

more than 30 percent in five years at my airport by adding routes, 

frequency, and using larger aircraft. While this growth is good, it 

has, though, put a strain on our infrastructure, personnel, and financial resources. 

FAA grants have become increasingly hard to get, and the Federal cap on local PFCs at $4.50 has not been increased in 17 years. 

We recently had to borrow $2 million to purchase specialized snow 

equipment to meet new FAA requirements, and we are making 

emergency pavement repairs to a primary taxiway that we were 

unable to get an FAA grant to fix. It is a constant challenge to 

maintain development of the airport to meet the growing public 

needs but with very limited resources. 

Security is a shared responsibility, and it is absolutely imperative that TSA, airport operators, and our industry partners collaborate, communicate, and remain focused on the critical roles that 

4 

each of us play. On exit lane staffing, Congress has set in law that 

this is a TSA responsibility, and we appreciate that the bill continues funding to meet this obligation. My terminal has one exit 

lane that is staffed 14 hours a day by TSA when the checkpoint 

is open and then 6 hours by the airport until the last arrival. 

We have wanted to automate the exit lane for years, really to 

save money for both TSA and us, but the $300,000 cost was outside 

of our reach. The bill includes a new pilot program to implement 

and evaluate automated exit lane technology at small and non-hub 

airports. We see this win-win approach as a meaningful step forward and are pleased with the proposed robust Federal cost-share 

to make it attainable for smaller airports. 

My airport has its own police department with 10 officers. We 

are one of 300 airports that utilize the LEO reimbursement program, but I can testify that the current reimbursement rate only 

defrays a small portion of the actual cost to meet security requirements. We have seen a 28 percent reduction in LEO reimbursements since 2011, which currently covers 60 percent of the cost, 

and right now, it only covers 12 percent of our police personnel 

budget. 

We do appreciate the recognition and the importance of this program and the provisions to increase funding, the number of 

awards, and the funding per award. The commitment to enhance 

Federal support is very important for airports. 

The Springfield Airport has also seen a 25 percent increase in 

our expedited screen rate for passengers since PreCheck was first 

implemented. However, I continue to hear complaints from my customers about a cumbersome enrollment process and applicants 

waiting several months to get an appointment interview with an 

authorized enrollment provider. We appreciate your focus on enhancing enrollment and new provisions aimed at increasing 

PreCheck participation. 

In our view, TSA should publish its enrollment standards and 

any private sector entity meeting IT standards be allowed to submit applicant data for vetting by the TSA. This would ensure new 

and easier means for enrolling potential participants, including kiosks at airports and mobile device platforms. 

In conclusion, I want to again express my appreciation for the 

opportunity to testify. I commend Senator Blunt and subcommittee 

members for your work to provide airports and TSA with additional 

tools to meet threats that continue to emerge. As you move forward 

in the face of continued Federal budget constraints, I urge you to 

recognize that we cannot neglect or cut back on the TSA personnel 

or other resources needed to maintain effective and efficient security screening at airports, large or small, nor should the cost of this 

Federal security burden be shifted to local airports with limited 

budgets. 

I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN C. WEILER, A.A.E., DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, 

SPRINGFIELD-BRANSON NATIONAL AIRPORT

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss security modernization efforts at the 

5 

Springfield-Branson National Airport, where I serve as airport director. I am also 

the immediate Past President of the Missouri Airport Managers Association and 

have been for over 20 years an accredited member of the American Association of 

Airport Executives, which represents thousands of men and women across the country who manage and operate our Nation’s airports. 

My airport is the third largest in the State of Missouri and classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as a small hub airport based on airline passenger volume. We will serve about a million passengers in 2017 with four airlines (American, 

Delta, United, and Allegiant) and nonstop service to 13 destinations, including an 

average 30 daily flights to six major airline hubs. The airport also houses a Missouri 

Air National Guard helicopter repair base, UPS/FedEx air cargo operations, college 

flight training program, airline maintenance base, and is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry for general aviation and corporate aircraft. 

The airport’s 10-gate, 275,000 square foot airline terminal was built in 2009. The 

current three-lane TSA security checkpoint configuration is two standard lanes with 

Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) equipment and one PreCheck lane with a metal 

detector. Baggage operations are supported with two Explosive Detection System 

(EDS) CT80 equipment. TSA management for the airport also oversees security operations at six non-hub commercial service airports in our area with one Assistant 

Federal Security Director (AFSD) and three Transportation Security Managers 

(TSMs). Recent security enhancements include installation of new AIT equipment 

in 2014 and PreCheck in 2016. We are scheduled to get a dedicated Known Crewmember Lane in November of this year. 

The City of Springfield owns and operates the airport as a municipal enterprise 

fund department, which means it is run like a business and receives no local tax 

support. All revenue needed to cover operating costs is generated from user fees, 

rents, and charges. We focus on generating as much non-aeronautical revenue as 

possible to keep airline fees low and maintain an environment supporting airline 

service growth, which is critical to our regional economy. Some examples include operating the 23-county Foreign Trade Zone and redevelopment of our former airline 

terminal into office space for over 1,000 employees. The airport houses some 40 

businesses, employees over 2,000 people, and generates an estimated $500 million 

annually in economic impact for Southwest Missouri. 

Airline passengers handled by the airport have grown more than 30 percent over 

the last five years, which is more than twice the national average annual growth 

rate of 2–3 percent. Working with our airline partners, we have added multiple 

routes, increased frequency, and are transitioning to larger aircraft from the 50-seat 

regional jets that were primarily serving our markets. While this growth is good and 

reflects a strong local economy, it has put a strain on airport infrastructure, personnel, and financial resources. 

FAA Airport Improvement Program grants have become increasingly hard to get, 

and the Federal cap on local Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) of $4.50 has not 

been increased in 17 years to even keep pace with inflation. Our airport recently 

had to borrow $2 million from a local bank to replace three pieces of 35 year old 

specialized snow removal equipment needed to comply with new FAA runway condition reporting requirements. We are also in the process of making emergency pavement repairs to a primary taxiway that we are unable to get an FAA grant to rebuild. It is a constant challenge to maintain and develop the airport to meet growing 

public needs within very limited resources, which is why we continue to ask Congress for more local flexibility with the PFC. 

I am pleased to say that airport management enjoys an excellent working relationship with and has the highest regard for TSA managers and personnel who 

work at the Springfield-Branson National Airport. This was also confirmed with the 

public in a recent passenger satisfaction study that scored efficient/friendly TSA personnel and clean restrooms as our two highest attributes. We all take our jobs seriously and partner together daily to maintain a high level of security for the traveling public in a customer service environment. 

Security is a shared responsibility at my airport and every other commercial service airport across the country. It is absolutely imperative that TSA, airport operators, and our industry partners collaborate, communicate, and remain keenly focused on the critical roles that each of us play in ensuring that airport facilities are 

as safe, secure, and efficient as possible to protect and serve the traveling public. 

This background leads to current efforts underway to improve aviation security 

and my input on four areas within the proposed legislation that the subcommittee 

may soon consider. 

Exit Lane Technology and Staffing: Congress has established in law that exit lane 

staffing is clearly a TSA responsibility. My terminal has a fairly simple design with 

one exit lane, which is staffed by TSA about 14 hours a day (4:00am—6:00pm) when 

6 

the checkpoint is open; then by airport staff for an additional six hours after the 

last departure at about 6:00pm until the last arrival around midnight. The airport 

has wanted to automate our exit lane for years, but with no Federal cost-share program currently available, the approximate $300,000 cost is outside of our financial 

ability. Since TSA and the airport staff our exit lane during different times of the 

day, both would benefit and save money by automating our exit lane. 

The draft legislation includes a pilot program to implement and evaluate automated exit lane technology at small and non-hub airports under a new Federal costshare program. While not for every airport, such a program would give airports like 

Springfield the ability to work with TSA to automate our exit lane and save money/ 

personnel resources for both agencies. We strongly support this win-win approach 

to resolving this issue, but ask that the program be implemented at an 85 percent 

federal/15 percent local cost-share so it is attainable for smaller airports that are 

budget constrained. 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Grant Program: The Springfield airport 

has its own Airport Police Department with 10 sworn officers and a wide area of 

responsibility over 3,300 acres of property, including providing law enforcement support to the TSA security checkpoint. We are one of approximately 300 airports that 

utilize the LEO reimbursement grant program, but can testify the current reimbursement rate of $20/hour only defrays a small portion of our costs to meet security 

requirements. We have experienced a 28 percent reduction in LEO reimbursement 

since 2011. Our current reimbursement of $104,000 covers about 60 percent of the 

$172,000 it costs to provide law enforcement support to the TSA checkpoint and is 

just 12 percent of our annual police personnel budget. 

While we appreciate the inclusion of language continuing the LEO reimbursement program at the current funding level of $45 million, the legislation also proposes to 

significantly broaden LEO responsibilities beyond those covered by existing security 

requirements. This includes increasing officer presence in public areas like baggage 

claim, ticket counters, and nearby roads. While these are certainly worthy goals, 

adding program responsibilities while keeping funding stagnant creates a significant 

unfunded mandate on airport operators. This would be difficult for small airports, 

especially those that utilize local law enforcement (County Sheriff or City Police) to 

meet these new requirements without hiring additional officers and incurring additional costs. 

PreCheck: The Springfield airport has seen a 25 percent increase in our expedited 

screen rate of our passengers since PreCheck was first implemented at our airport 

in 2016. We see this as significant progress and support further expansion of the 

program. However, while TSA continues to slowly grow participation in PreCheck, 

I continue to hear complaints from my customers about a cumbersome enrollment 

process and applicants waiting several months to get an appointment interview with 

an authorized enrollment provider, which there is only one serving my regional 

area. Just last week, one of my staff checked and the first available appointment 

was almost three months out. 

We suggest that TSA should publish its enrollment standards and that any private sector entity that meets information technology standards to connect into the 

Federal Government be allowed to submit applicant data for vetting and eligibility 

approved by TSA. This would ensure that there are numerous, creative, and easier 

means for enrolling potential participants, including using kiosks at airports, mobile 

devices, or other mobile enrollment platforms. Many airports would be willing to 

host PreCheck enrollment fairs and leverage existing resources, including the ability 

to facilitate fingerprint based background checks. 

Security Checkpoint Wait Times: The average security checkpoint wait time at my 

airport is approximately 13 minutes, which many travelers find to be acceptable. 

However, as the airport continues to grow, we are seeing significantly longer wait 

times more often during peak season and peak times during the day. We support 

the requirement for TSA to make the length of airport wait times at each security 

checkpoint available to the public within one year. However, we suggest you consider adding more specificity to this requirement. 

One area is in the definition of ‘‘wait time.’’ TSA will say this time begins when 

the traveler enters the checkpoint line until they present their information to the 

travel document checker. TSA’s definition does not include the time a passenger 

waits to place their personal items in bins to go into x-ray equipment or when they 

are screened for threat objects. The traveling public would likely define ‘‘wait time’’ 

as starting when they enter the line until they retrieve their screened items at the 

end of the checkpoint. Including a clear definition in the bill would help ensure 

there is no confusion as to what is being measured. 

In conclusion, I want to again express my appreciation for the opportunity to testify today regarding aviation security, which is something that I and my fellow airVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34309.TXT JACKIE
7 

port executives focus on and prioritize every day. I commend you, Senator Blunt and 

members of the subcommittee, for your work in trying to provide airports and TSA 

with additional tools to meet the challenges and threats that continue to emerge 

through your work on the legislation that is the subject of today’s hearing. 

As you move forward with this and other potential legislation, I urge you to recognize that we cannot neglect or cutback on the TSA personnel and other resources 

needed to maintain effective and efficient security screening of passengers/baggage 

at airports across the country, large or small. Nor should the costs of this Federal 

security burden be shifted to local airports with limited budgets. Air travel is projected to grow significantly in the years ahead and my airport colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to partner with TSA to enhance security throughout the airport environment. 

I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Weiler. 

Mr. Alterman? 

And if you’re listening to the pounding here, welcome to the Russell Building. It has been this way—they’ve been working on our 

side of this hallway since January, and it’s like that every day. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. And the air conditioning won’t switch off. 

Mr. Alterman. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, 

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; AND CHAIRMAN, 

AVIATION SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TSA 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. Good morning. My name is Steve Alterman, and I’m 

President of the Cargo Airline Association. I also have the honor 

of currently serving as the Chair of the Aviation Security Advisory 

Committee at TSA. 

When I testified before you in February, I mentioned several 

issues involving security policy that were having a significant impact on either the air cargo industry or on the work of ASAC. 

These issues included the use of third-party canines to screen air 

cargo, the need for a fixed five-year term for the TSA administrator, and the activity of ASAC in a number of areas. Much has 

happened since February, but the issues remain basically the 

same. 

To put today’s comments on these issues and your proposed legislation into context, I’d like to take a minute or two to describe the 

events that have happened since February. First of all and perhaps 

most significant, we have a new Administrator, and I can tell you 

that from the ASAC perspective, it’s really nice to have a permanent Administrator there. I’ve had six bosses since 3 years ago taking over the Chair of ASAC, and it’s nice to have an Administrator 

who I hope will be there for the long term. 

The ASAC has continued its work schedule, including but not 

limited to the submission of its report on the Checkpoint of the Future to both TSA and Congress. We had new recommendations 

from our General Aviation Subcommittee on how to modify and enhance these security programs for the general aviation community, 

and we continue to monitor the implementation of recommendations relating to airport worker screening. 

In addition, TSA is now moving forward to develop a program 

that would allow the third-party canine screening of air cargo. This 

program is not yet finalized, and the devil is always in the details, 

8 

1 Association members include direct air carriers ABX Air, Atlas Air, Federal Express Corporation, Kalitta Air and United Parcel Service Co., as well as Associate Members Amazon, 

but there has been significant movement. And, of course, the House 

of Representatives has passed its version of a DHS authorization 

bill. It’s against this background that today’s comments are submitted. 

The proposed Senate TSA bill is a much needed piece of legislation. We urge that it be passed as soon as possible and that any 

differences between the House and Senate version be quickly resolved. We are particularly encouraged by the provision to give the 

TSA Administrator a fixed 5-year term of office. The instability 

caused by a rapid turnover at the top of the agency creates internal 

chaos and inhibits the ability to plan strategically for the challenges ahead. We also support wording in the proposed legislation 

that would make the 5-year term applicable to the current Administrator. I would think that’s very important. 

The bill also contains several separate provisions related to the 

activities of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. On behalf 

of the members of ASAC, I want to thank you for your confidence 

in our work. We look forward to working with TSA to implement 

any provision in the proposed legislation that requires our assistance, and I do note there are four or five of those in the bill and 

we look forward to working with you on them. 

From the air cargo perspective, perhaps the most significant provisions in the legislation relate to the use of third-party canines to 

screen air cargo. As noted on numerous previous occasions, the 

members of the all-cargo air carrier industry strongly support this 

program, and we thank the Committee for including a third-party 

canine provision in the proposed legislation. 

We believe that the proposed Section 234 relating to the screening of air cargo by third-party canines contains the appropriate elements and succinctly lays out the process to be followed by TSA. 

While, as noted previously, TSA is in the process of moving in the 

direction of adopting the elements described, legislation is needed 

to ensure that the program is made permanent and not subject to 

future personnel changes within the agency. 

And, finally, while I’m on the subject of air cargo security, we 

also strongly believe that TSA needs a more centralized focus on 

the air cargo supply chain. At the present time, TSA policies that 

focus on air cargo are not centralized, but rather are spread across 

the agency in a somewhat uncoordinated manner. This structure, 

or lack of structure, has often led to confusion and an uncoordinated application of security standards. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I’d be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alterman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, CARGO AIRLINE

ASSOCIATION; AND CHAIRMAN, AVIATION SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TSA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good Morning. My name is Steve Alterman and I am the President of the Cargo 

Airline Association, the nationwide organization representing the interests of the 

all-cargo segment of the aviation community.1 I also have the honor of currently 

9 

DHL Express, Memphis Airport, Louisville Airport, Ft. Wayne Airport, Columbus (OH) Airport, 

Spokane Airport and the Alaska Airport System. 

serving as the Chairman of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), the 

Federal committee established by Congress to advise the TSA Administrator on 

issues relating to all areas of aviation security. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

When I testified before you in February, I mentioned several issues involving security policy that were having a significant impact on either the air cargo industry 

or on the work of ASAC. These issues included the use of third-party canines to 

screen air cargo; the need for a fixed five-year term for the TSA Administrator; and 

the activity of ASAC in a number of areas. Much has happened since February, but 

the basic issues remain the same. 

To put today’s comments on these issues and your proposed legislation into context, I would like to take a minute or two describing the significant events that have 

taken place between February and today: 

• We have a new Administrator at TSA. 

• The ASAC has continued its work schedule, including, but not limited to, the 

submission of its report on the Checkpoint of the Future to TSA and Congress, 

and the continued monitoring of the implementation of recommendations relating to airport worker screening. 

• TSA is now moving forward to develop a program that would allow the thirdparty canine screening of air cargo. This program is not yet finalized, and the 

devil is always in the details, but there has been significant movement. 

• The House of Representatives has passed its version of a DHS Authorization 

bill (H.R. 2825) that includes provisions similar to those in the Senate’s proposed bill. 

It is against this background that today’s comments are submitted. 

The proposed Senate TSA bill is a much-needed piece of legislation. We urge that 

it be passed as soon as possible and that any differences between the Senate and 

House versions be quickly resolved. We are particularly encouraged by the provision 

to give the TSA Administrator a fixed five-year term of office. The instability caused 

by a rapid turnover at the top of the Agency creates internal chaos and inhibits the 

ability to plan strategically for the challenges ahead. We also support wording in 

the proposed legislation that would make the five-year term applicable to the current Administrator without the need for a re-nomination and confirmation. 

The bill also contains several separate provisions related to the activities of the 

Aviation Security Advisory Committee. On behalf of the members of ASAC, I want 

to thank you for your confidence in our work. We look forward to working with TSA 

to implement any provision in the proposed legislation that requires our assistance. 

From the air cargo perspective, perhaps the most significant provisions in the legislation relate to the use of third-party canines to screen air cargo. As noted on numerous previous occasions, the members of the all-cargo air carrier industry strongly support this program and we thank the committee for including a third-party canine provision in the proposed legislation. We believe that the proposed section 234 

relating to the screening of air cargo by third-party canines contains the appropriate 

elements and succinctly lays out the process to be followed by TSA. While, as noted 

previously, TSA is in the process of moving in the direction of adopting the elements 

described, legislation is needed to ensure that the program is made permanent and 

not subject to future personnel changes within the Agency. 

And finally, while I am on the subject of air cargo security, we strongly believe 

that TSA needs a more centralized focus on the air cargo supply chain. At the 

present time, TSA policies that focus on air cargo are not centralized, but rather 

are spread across the Agency in a somewhat uncoordinated manner. This structure 

(or lack of structure) has often led to confusion and an uncoordinated application 

of security standards. 

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you. 

Ms. Pressnell. 

10 

STATEMENT OF SISSY PRESSNELL, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

SECURITY MANUFACTURERS COALITION 

Ms. PRESSNELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Blunt, 

Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee, on 

behalf of the eight members of the Security Manufacturers Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to share collective industry priorities and key recommendations for modernizing and improving 

aviation security. 

My name is Sissy Pressnell, and I’m the Vice Chair of the Security Manufacturers Coalition and also serve as the Chair of its Policy Committee. The SMC is the unified voice of leading security 

technology companies with manufacturing operations and offices in 

10 states. The SMC generates 7,000 direct and 20,000 indirect jobs 

in everything from research and development to engineering and 

advanced product manufacturing. The companies have certified 

equipment deployed around the world. 

The SMC recognizes that Congress must deal with substantial 

funding constraints and demands on its limited resources in an attempt to meet the needs of competing stakeholders. When considering aviation security, the lack of adequate funding and everchanging priorities impedes long-term innovation at a time when 

threats against the system continue to evolve and present potential 

adverse effects on international travel and commerce. 

TSA must embark on a requirements-driven, multi-year program 

that will immediately accelerate the development, testing, and deployment of next-generation technology as well as the initiation of 

system upgrades for all checkpoint and checked baggage technology 

with new software and detection algorithms. The SMC recommends 

ending the diversion of a portion of the passenger security fee that 

is now dedicated for deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint development and deployment of new technology enhancements. In the 

longer term, we support a multi-year approach that includes a 

checkpoint equipment capital fund similar to the checked baggage 

program to provide consistent availability of resources for technology acquisitions. 

Industry needs more information and more direction from TSA to 

ensure that manufacturing as well as research and development investment plans are truly aligned with technology capability gaps 

and actual government acquisition needs. For technology manufacturers, as you know, the path to technology acquisition is a very 

long one. It takes an average of 3 to 5 years and sometimes up to 

10 to deploy technology capabilities at the airports. 

Congress must direct DHS and TSA to develop a plan to completely reconstitute the equipment test and evaluation process with 

a target goal of reducing the time-frame to no more than one year 

from the date of laboratory certification. This should start with a 

formal review of the test and evaluation process and the addition 

of resources dedicated to hiring additional testing experts to manage the transition to next-generation equipment. Additional efficiencies can also be realized by establishing a formal third-party 

test and evaluation process requiring TSA to actually accept the results at the conclusion of an authorized third-party test. 

SMC members are global technology companies who manufacture 

security screening equipment that is tested and certified to meet 

11 

internationally recognized standards that are often more strict 

than those in the United States. Industry supports the recommendations contained in the recent Aviation Security Advisory Committee report titled ‘‘Improving Checkpoints at U.S. Airports.’’ The 

ASAC recognizes TSA’s efforts to coordinate the sharing of information with international partners to jointly define requirements and 

develop new security screening equipment that is capable of detecting explosives and other new threats to aviation. 

The SMC supports the acceleration of efforts to develop common 

detection testing and certification protocols with international regulators and encourages TSA to accept the large amounts of data that 

are captured during testing and deployment at international airports to strengthen security screening both in the United States 

and abroad. This will help to improve security by creating common 

screening protocols and encouraging reciprocity between international partners and also to improve the passenger experience. 

And, finally, the SMC strongly supports the work and the efforts 

of the Innovation Task Force. Since it was formally unveiled in 

2016, the ITF has engaged with industry stakeholders to identify 

and demonstrate next-generation technology solutions to improve 

both security and operational efficiency at selected airports. In 

order to build upon recent successes and to clearly establish a process for developing a program of record for approved technologies, 

Congress should formally authorize and fund the work of the ITF. 

Congress should direct the TSA to establish a framework and a 

formal requirements process that serves as a roadmap for industry 

engagement. At the same time, Congress should direct TSA to provide annual updates on the effectiveness of the ITF in improving 

the overall security equipment process. 

The Security Manufacturers Coalition appreciates the opportunity to share our views and our recommendations with your committee today. These recommendations share broad and unanimous 

support within our industry, and many are already endorsed by the 

ASAC, which represents a broad spectrum of aviation stakeholders. 

The SMC appreciates the work of this committee and professional 

staff for its diligent and inclusive efforts in drafting the TSA Modernization Act. We strongly support this legislation, and we look 

forward to working with you in the future. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pressnell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SISSY PRESSNELL, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

SECURITY MANUFACTURERS COALITION

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

on behalf of the eight members of the Security Manufacturers Coalition (SMC), 

thank you for the opportunity to share our collective industry priorities and key recommendations for modernizing and improving aviation security. 

The SMC is the unified voice of leading security technology companies with manufacturing operations and offices in ten states. The SMC generates 7,000 direct and 

20,000 indirect jobs in everything from research and development to engineering 

and advanced product manufacturing. The companies have certified equipment deployed around the world. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) have been diligently working to make long-term improvements to aviation security at the checkpoint and beyond. The SMC and its member 

companies share the government’s concern about new and evolving threats, and reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34309.TXT JACKIE
12 

main committed to delivering first-rate threat detection and screening equipment to 

improve security for the traveling public. 

My testimony today will focus on shared industry priorities and recommendations 

for TSA modernization that will enable TSA to remain prepared and stay ahead of 

its adversaries to deter, detect, and disrupt any threat to aviation while also being 

able to meet the growing demands of air travelers. 

Funding to meet current future needs 

The SMC recognizes that Congress must deal with substantial funding constraints 

and demands on its limited resources in an attempt to meet the needs of competing 

stakeholders. When considering aviation security, the lack of adequate funding and 

ever-changing priorities impedes long-term innovation at a time when threats 

against the system continue to evolve and present potential adverse effects on international travel and commerce. To that end, TSA must embark on a focused, requirements-driven, multi-year program that will immediately accelerate the development, 

testing, and deployment of next generation technology as well as the initiation of 

system upgrades for all checkpoint and checked baggage technology with new software and detection algorithms. Making long-term technology investments takes 

planning and significant resources. In the short-term, the SMC recommends ending 

the diversion of a portion of the Passenger Security Fee that is now dedicated for 

deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint development and deployment of new technology enhancements. Longer term, we support a multi-year approach that includes 

a checkpoint equipment capital fund, similar to the checked baggage program, to 

provide consistent availability of resources for technology acquisitions. 

Authorize and Fully Fund the Innovation Task Force 

The SMC strongly supports the work and the efforts of the Innovation Task Force 

(ITF). Since it was formally unveiled in 2016, the ITF has engaged with industry 

stakeholders to identify and demonstrate next generation technology solutions to improve both security and operational efficiency at selected airports. In order to build 

upon recent successes and to clearly establish a process for developing a program 

of record for approved technologies, Congress should formally authorize and fund 

the work of the ITF. Congress should direct the TSA to establish a framework and 

a formal requirements process that serves as a roadmap for industry engagement 

and to further encourage industry collaboration and participation. At the same time, 

Congress should direct TSA to provide annual updates on the effectiveness of the 

ITF in improving the overall security equipment development and acquisitions process. 

Enacting Acquisition Reform and Improving the Test & Evaluation Process 

The passage of the Transportation Security Reform Act (TSARA—P.L. 113–245) 

was an important legislative achievement and a key milestone for security technology manufacturers. For the first time, TSA was required to develop a five-year 

technology acquisition plan and share its contents with industry. This document 

provides a valuable framework for industry resource planning. However, industry 

needs more information and more direction from TSA to ensure that future manufacturing as well as research and development investment plans are truly aligned 

with technology capability gaps and actual government acquisition needs. 

For technology manufacturers, the path to technology acquisition is a long one. 

It takes an average of three to five years, and sometimes up to ten, for new technology capabilities to navigate the test and evaluation process before being deployed 

at airports. Congress must direct DHS and TSA to develop a plan to completely reconstitute the equipment test and evaluation process with a target goal of reducing 

the time-frame to no more than one year from the date of laboratory certification. 

This should start with a formal review of the test and evaluation process conducted 

to establish a new and more streamlined process. The SMC recommends additional 

resources be dedicated to hiring additional testing experts to manage the transition 

to the next generation of equipment. Additional efficiencies can also be realized by 

establishing a formal third party test and evaluation process, and requiring TSA to 

accept the results at the conclusion of an authorized third party test. 

International Harmonization 

SMC members are global technology companies who manufacture security screening equipment that is tested and certified to meet internationally-recognized standards that are often more strict than those in the United States. Industry supports 

the recommendations contained in the recent 

Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) report titled, ‘‘Improving Checkpoints at U.S. Airports’’. The ASAC recognizes TSA’s efforts to coordinate the sharing of information with international partners to jointly define requirements and deVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\34309.TXT JACKIE
13 

velop new security screening equipment that is capable of detecting explosives and 

other new threats to aviation. The SMC supports the acceleration of efforts to develop common detection testing and certification protocols with international regulators, and encourages TSA to accept the large amounts of data that are captured 

during testing and deployment at international airports to strengthen security 

screening both in the United States and abroad. This will help to improve security 

by creating common screening protocols and encouraging reciprocity between international partners to improve the passenger experience. It will also drive down the 

cost of next generation advanced technology by making it more affordable and available to everyone while increasing manufacturing certainty. 

Closing 

The Security Manufacturers Coalition appreciates the opportunity to share our 

views and recommendations with the Committee today. These recommendations 

share broad and unanimous support within our industry, and many were also endorsed by the ASAC, which represents a broad spectrum of aviation stakeholders. 

The SMC appreciates the work of this Committee and professional staff for its diligent and inclusive efforts in drafting the TSA Modernization Act. The SMC strongly 

supports this legislation and looks forward to working with you and the TSA to improve the security of the traveling public. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Ms. Pressnell. 

Mr. White. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY RELATIONS, 

CARGO NETWORKS SERVICES CORPORATION, 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WHITE. Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on modernizing the TSA. My name is Michael White. I’m the Vice President of Government and Industry 

Relations for Cargo Network Services, a company of the International Air Transport Association, IATA. 

IATA’s mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline industry. Our members comprise some 280 airlines in over 117 countries, carrying 83 percent of the world’s passengers and cargo traffic by air. IATA greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify on 

the need to modernize the TSA. Every day, the policies of the TSA 

have a direct impact on the majority of the 120 IATA members flying to, from, and within the United States on a regularly scheduled 

basis. 

The TSA is, indeed, a critical component of the security of the 

international aviation system. As with any organization, we do believe there are a number of areas that could be improved in order 

to enable the agency to continue its important mission as effectively and efficiently as possible. Given that the TSA has never 

been reauthorized in its history, we applaud the Subcommittee for 

its efforts on this bill that would bring about changes to the agency 

in a thoughtful and responsible way. We would like to comment on 

the following issues addressed in the Subcommittee’s draft proposal. 

A Five-year Term of the TSA Administrator. We strongly support 

a 5-year term for the TSA Administrator. The agency has been 

challenged in the past when faced with disruptive transitions between numerous administrators. 

The TSA Organization. We believe that TSA management should 

be reflective of the global nature of commercial air transportation 

and avoid treating domestic different than international travel. 

14 

TSA should align its domestic and international operations with 

International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, security policies 

and standards to promote global harmonization. 

Biometrics Expansion. IATA strongly supports the use of biometrics in improving the passenger facilitation process. We note 

with some concern that the TSA is currently pursuing a biometric 

solution using fingerprints, while CBP is testing facial recognition 

biometric capture in its entry and proposed exit system. We encourage the TSA and CBP to coordinate their efforts in this regard and 

utilize biometric capture technology that minimizes negative impacts on passenger flows. 

Third Party Canines. IATA supports the use of third party, TSAapproved canines for both public passenger areas and for air cargo. 

Canines have proven to be the most efficient means to screen passenger and cargo in a timely, cost-effective manner. We urge the 

TSA to move this program forward as expeditiously as possible. We 

recommend that the TSA consult with other Federal Government 

agencies for guidance and best practices. 

Public Area Best Practices. IATA shares the Subcommittee’s support for sharing best practices for securing airport public areas. 

IATA has worked closely with airports and government agencies 

around the world to improve processes at airport public acceptance 

areas and screening queues as well as with general airport design. 

We are confident that the TSA would benefit from the experiences 

of many of these airports. 

TSA PreCheck Program. IATA supports the expansion of TSA 

PreCheck Program, as we do with similar known passenger programs around the world. We need to ensure that the significant 

benefits of PreCheck are not lost by a reduction in personnel managing those lines. 

Passenger Security Fee Diversions. IATA strongly opposes the diversion of aviation-related fees for non-aviation purposes. Congress 

should end these fee diversions and allow the funds already being 

collected to be used for their original stated purposes. We also oppose any attempt to use fees paid by aviation to cross-subsidize 

other modes of transportation. The policy against cross-subsidization, long established in U.S. air transport agreements, derives directly from principles long championed by the U.S. within ICAO. 

Known Shipper and Indirect Air Carrier Programs. The Known 

Shipper and Indirect Air Carrier Programs need review. We strongly support a review of both those programs for air cargo. We believe a review of these programs will enable us to identify ways to 

use technology to reduce risk and improve cargo processing. 

Last Point of Departure Airports and Security Directives. We 

strongly support requiring the TSA Administrator to consult with 

trade association representatives for affected air carriers and airports. IATA and its 120 members who serve the U.S. want to work 

closer to be partners with the TSA when it comes to aviation security. 

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to participate in 

this important discussion on modernizing the TSA. IATA looks forward to working with you and your staff on this bill and further 

15 

legislation in the future to enhance safety and security of our aviation system. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND

INDUSTRY RELATIONS, CARGO NETWORK SERVICES CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee 

on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on modernizing the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA). 

My name is Michael White and I am the Vice President of Government and Industry Relations for Cargo Network Services Corporation, a company of the International Air Transport Association, or IATA. 

IATA’s mission is to represent, lead and serve the airline industry. Our members 

comprise some 280 airlines in over 117 countries, carrying 83 percent of the world’s 

passenger and cargo traffic by air. 

IATA greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify on the need to modernize the 

TSA. Every day, the policies of the TSA have a direct impact on the majority of the 

120 IATA member airlines flying to, from, and within the United States on a regularly scheduled basis. 

The Transportation Security Administration is indeed a critical component to the 

security of the international aviation system. Since its inception, the agency has 

grown into what is today a mature organization that is well equipped to meet the 

ever-changing needs of the aviation security environment. However, as with any organization, we do believe there are a number of areas that could be improved in 

order to enable the agency to continue in its important mission as effectively and 

efficiently as possible. 

Given that the TSA has never been reauthorized in its history, we applaud the 

Subcommittee for its effort to draft the TSA Modernization Act to help bring about 

changes to the agency in a thoughtful and responsible way. We would like to comment on the following issues addressed in the Subcommittee’s draft proposal: 

5-Year Term for the TSA Administrator 

We strongly support a five-year term for the TSA Administrator. The agency has 

been challenged in the past when faced with disruptive transitions between numerous Administrators. We believe a 5-year term will give an Administrator the time 

he/she needs to promote the organization’s mission in a consistent and coherent 

fashion. It is consistent with the term of the FAA Administrator, whose agency faces 

similar challenges on the safety side and has benefited from the stability that has 

come with a 5-year appointment. 

TSA Organization 

We believe that TSA management should be reflective of the global nature of commercial air transportation and avoid treating domestic different than international 

travel. To that end, we believe there should be greater alignment between the Office 

of Strategic Policy and Industry Engagement (OSPIE), which normally addresses domestic security, and the Office of Global Strategy (OGS), which normally addresses 

international security matters. To the extent practical, TSA should align its domestic and international operations with International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) security policies and standards to promote global harmonization. 

Biometrics Expansion 

IATA strongly supports the use of biometrics in improving the passenger facilitation process. We note with some concern that the TSA is currently pursuing a biometric solution using fingerprints while U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

is testing facial recognition biometric capture in its entry and proposed exit system. 

We encourage the TSA and CBP to coordinate their efforts in this regard and utilize 

biometric capture technology that minimizes negative impacts on passenger flows. 

Third Party Canines 

IATA supports the use of third party TSA-approved canines for both public passenger areas and for air cargo. Canines have proven to be the most efficient means 

to screen passenger and cargo in a timely and cost-effective manner. We urge the 

TSA to move this program forward as expeditiously as possible. We recommend that 

16 

the TSA consult with other Federal Government agencies (State, DOD, CBP) for 

guidance and best practices. 

Public Area Best Practices 

IATA shares the Subcommittee’s support for sharing best practices for securing 

airport public areas. IATA has worked closely with airports and government agencies around the world to improve processes at airport public acceptance areas and 

screening queues as well as with general airport design. We are confident the TSA 

would benefit from the experiences of many of these foreign airports. 

TSA Pre✓® Program 

IATA supports the expansion of the TSA Pre✓® program as we do with similar 

known passenger programs around the world. We need to ensure that the significant benefits of TSA Pre✓® are not lost by a reduction in personnel managing those 

lanes. 

Passenger Security Fee Diversions 

IATA strongly opposes the diversion of aviation-related fees for non-aviation purposes. In 2013, Congress increased the TSA Passenger Security Fee from $5.00 per 

segment to $5.60 per one-way trip and used the surplus revenue as a pay-for. This 

is projected to raise $15.79 billion through Fiscal Year 2025 under the guise of aviation security and diverted to the general fund. Congress should end these fee diversions and allow the funds already being collected to be used for their original stated 

purpose. We also oppose any attempt to use fees paid by aviation to cross-subsidize 

other modes of transportation. 

In addition to being bad public policy, these actions have the potential to violate 

existing international agreements to which the U.S. is a party. The U.S. Government has entered into bilateral aviation agreements with over 100 countries, all of 

which include a clear prohibition against governments imposing user fees that exceed the costs of the services provided to commercial aviation. Further, the policy 

against cross-subsidization—long established in U.S. air transport agreements—derives directly from principles long championed by the U.S. within ICAO. 

Known Shipper and Indirect Carrier Programs Review 

We strongly support a review of the Known Shipper and Indirect Air Carrier programs. These programs were developed in the 1990s and enhanced after 9/11. Since 

that time, we have much better data and technology to secure and track cargo shipments. CBP has used the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system to collect trade data both in and out of the United States for all modes of transportation. 

Technology has also moved to a less paper-intensive environment for most government agencies. The data collected offers the opportunity for a more effective and efficient risk-based screening process. We are hopeful this review will enable us to 

identify ways to use the technology to reduce risk and improve cargo processing. 

Last Point of Departure Airports; Security Directives 

We strongly support requiring that the Administrator consult with trade association representatives for affected air carriers and airports. To that end, it is important to note that the majority of passengers and air cargo arriving in the United 

States is flown on non-U.S. carriers. The TSA often consults with U.S. carriers in 

advance of the issuance of Emergency Amendments (EAs) and Security Directives 

(SD), which enables those carriers to provide meaningful input into that discussion 

and prepare their operations in advance to support TSA’s security needs. Unfortunately, these advance consultations have not taken place on a regular basis with 

non-U.S. carriers, either directly or through IATA. This has led to situations where 

the TSA’s mission has been undermined because of a lack of understanding for or 

appreciation of the various operational, governmental, or fiscal challenges facing 

carriers seeking to meet new requirements. While we recognize that appropriate security clearances are needed for these types of discussions, accommodations must 

be made in order to ensure effective and timely implementation of these critical security directives. 

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee 

on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you again for inviting me to 

participate in this important discussion on modernizing the TSA. IATA looks forward to working with you and your staff as you craft legislation to enhance the safety and security of our Nation’s aviation system. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. White. 

17 

For the Members who arrived after we started, we’ll try to keep 

the hearing moving during the vote that’s coming up, and I’ll stay 

for a little while and do that. I may get to questions then. 

So we’ll start with Senator Cantwell and then we’ll go to Senator 

Inhofe. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

panelists being pretty endorsing—I guess is the right way to say 

it—of the canine program included in the legislation that was introduced. We’re big believers in what TSA and Homeland and everybody else has told us about the efficiency of these dogs, both in 

detecting explosives as well as helping to move fast-paced lines 

that are challenged in very congested airports like I mentioned at 

Sea-Tac. 

So, Mr. Alterman, you also believe that they have great opportunity to help us in the cargo area. You mentioned the supply 

chain. So what is it that you think will best help us in the canine 

units and getting more canine units in our airports? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Well, I think the legislation helps, because it 

puts a shining light on the need for it. We’ve talked a lot about 

technology on this panel, and that’s absolutely necessary. Dogs are 

sort of the low-tech solution, but a very important one. 

In the air cargo area, our businesses are expanding, our requirements for screening freight are expanding, and at least at the 

present moment, technology doesn’t do the job. We don’t have the 

right technology. We absolutely need the canines to do that, and in 

order to do that, we need a program that TSA is currently working 

on that actually substantially mirrors the language in this legislation. 

We all wish it would move faster. The bureaucracy sometimes 

moves a little too slowly for all of us. So we’re looking forward to 

that. I was hoping that by the time of this hearing, I could tell you 

that they’re in the process of implementing that canine program. 

I expected to see something about 3 weeks ago. We haven’t seen 

it yet. You know, it’s always tomorrow that we’re going to be doing 

this. So I am looking forward to the program that TSA is developing. We just hope that there aren’t any glitches or deviations 

from what the proposed legislation has in it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Any ideas about why that is moving slowly? 

Do you know? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. It’s a bureaucracy. Well, I actually do, and at the 

risk of—well, let me say this first. Probably, the way TSA works 

internally is none of my damned business. But that’s one of the 

problems. The problem is that, as in any bureaucracy, there are 

various pieces of the agency with various portions of this project, 

and they don’t always get along with each other that well. So I 

think that one of the reasons that we do not yet have a canine program is the lack of coordination between the various parts of TSA, 

and nobody seems to be totally in charge that can bang heads together and actually get it done, and I think that’s simply a bureaucratic problem. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you for illuminating it this 

morning, and I find here that illuminating some of these things 

does help us. The efficacy of the program is very important, as you 

know, in making sure the dogs are trained and skilled for this kind 

18 

of detection, and making sure they meet that standard is very important. But, obviously, probably everybody on this committee has 

seen some pretty amazing things done by these canine units—I 

mean just amazing things. 

So on the cargo side, you’re talking about a large scale deployment or a targeted first? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Well, the cargo industry is very diverse, and so 

making one comment on that is very difficult. I think different 

members of our industry would use the dogs differently. I know 

that at least one company wants to use them fairly extensively, 

and others just as a supplement to other things. 

I think the important thing is not to limit the program initially, 

but rather let the marketplace take its form, and let the people 

who want to use the dogs go and rent the dogs from qualified people who have been trained by people who know how to train them 

and have been certified by people that have been certified by TSA, 

and then just let the marketplace take care of it. I don’t think onesize-fits-all in this program works. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, that is why we want the flexibility in 

the program, particularly as it relates to passenger screening at 

our airports, and we’re so glad that you guys have all supported 

that concept and we’re going to get to move forward on that. Our 

airports are showing that these dogs—and I just go back to the horrible situations we’ve seen in Europe. People tell us that the security—that they would have detected somebody the minute they 

walked into the airport terminal. To me, that is the kind of deterrence that we need, as well as the expediting of the processing at 

our really very congested airports. So thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUNT. Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to say, Mr. Alterman, that’s one of the better descriptions 

that I’ve heard of bureaucratic problems. I’ve written it down. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. You know, I’m new to this committee, but we’ve 

already had—you’ve been here as a witness before, and it has been 

fascinating to me as we watch the successes and some things that 

are working and aren’t working. But it seems like every time someone testifies, they come right back to the issue of the canines, you 

know, the dogs are there, and I fail to see what the problem is. 

You know, first of all, you say that anyone who is training these 

dogs has to be certified by the TSA. Is that correct? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. The way the program is going to work—and I believe the language in the legislation—TSA would set the standards 

for suppliers of the dogs to use. They would be trained—— 

Senator INHOFE. You say would. Have they already done this? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. They are in the process of doing it. They’ve already set the standards for their own dogs—the TSA dogs that are 

currently operating. I haven’t seen standards for the third-party canine program for screening air cargo. But I can’t imagine those 

standards are going to be very different from what they’ve already 

19 

done. So my guess is that part of the process has been done, but 

I haven’t seen it, finally. 

Senator INHOFE. I just don’t see the problem with this, because—— 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Well, neither do we, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, what I’m saying is I’ve been the ranking 

member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have the 

same problem right there in getting the adequate number of dogs. 

The talent is there. People train—there are a number of people 

who train them. But if they have to be certified by the TSA, and 

they haven’t yet done it, the question would be—and you’re not the 

TSA so I can’t ask you, but I will ask the TSA—why haven’t they 

already done it? 

And then guidelines, for example. What role do higher education 

institutions play in this? Are they involved in this? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. They certainly can be. They’re not specifically involved in this. But, certainly, the educational institutions—and 

there are several of them around the country that are involved very 

intimately in the canine program. 

Senator INHOFE. One of those is Oklahoma State University, and 

yet when I went over to check, they don’t actually get involved in 

training the dogs. They’re think tanks. They’re putting together 

programs—what do we want, what do—it seems to me that we’re 

beyond that point. So I think this Committee could be helpful in 

trying to actually go out there and get more dogs. I mean, there 

are lots of other issues here, but that’s one that consistently has 

come up. 

So are you familiar with some of the programs like Oklahoma 

State University? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. I’m familiar with some programs. Auburn has 

one. Oklahoma State has one. There are several other universities. 

I’m not intimately familiar with exactly what they’re doing. But 

they have a role in this. They clearly have a role in this, and any 

help that they can be to the TSA, I’m sure TSA would be glad to 

take. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Well, I just want to get to the point where 

we actually get more dogs. 

Now, all of you have talked about the 5-year term, which I think 

would be consistent with the FAA and their five-year term. Is this 

something that you all agree on? We were here and we did go 

ahead and approve a Director, and I think we went without a Director for about 8 months. So that is a hardship, so we will pursue 

that. 

I didn’t realize my time has expired. 

Thank you. 

Senator BLUNT. I don’t think your time had expired. You have 

a minute. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, well, on my little clock, it said—OK. Well, 

that’s—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Maybe that’s a message just to me. 

Senator BLUNT. Maybe in the interest of time, we’ll just move on. 

Senator INHOFE. No, let me ask one final question. 

20 

Mr. White, you mentioned the fee diversion that’s taking place. 

Tell us about these fee diversions. Are they with the PFCs or what? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, the security charges don’t always remain at— 

for the purpose they were designed for. Some of the funding does 

go into other agencies outside. 

Senator INHOFE. Can you give some specific examples? 

Mr. WHITE. There are some that are used, for instance, for ocean 

and the purpose of screening passengers on the ocean side. There’s 

other things that are being used to—for just in general funds that 

are not for security purposes. I don’t have specifics, but we can give 

you a list of those. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, for the record. I’d be interested in knowing 

that. 

Mr. WHITE. We’ll be glad to get those for you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

CARGO NETWORK SERVICES CORP

Miami, FL, November 8, 2017 

Hon. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Hearing—TSA Modernization: Improvements to Aviation Security; September 28, 2017 

Dear Senator Inhofe: 

This letter is in response to your request during the September 28, 2017 subcommittee hearing for specific examples of where Congress has increased aviationrelated user fees to pay for items unrelated to aviation. Below are three of the most 

recent examples: 

• The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113–67) increased the TSA Passenger 

Security Fee from $5.00 per segment to $5.60 per one-way trip and directed 

that a portion of those fees, totaling $12.63 billion, in Fiscal Years 2014 through 

2023 be deposited into the general fund. 

• The Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act 

of 2015 (P.L. 114–41) extended the authorization to divert a portion of the TSA 

Passenger Security Fee increase through Fiscal Year 2025, adding another 

$3.16 billion to the general fund. 

• The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114–94) indexed 

customs user fees beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 to increases in the Consumer 

Price Index and used the estimated $5.7 billion revenue increase as a pay-for. 

Of this amount, $932 million is estimated to come from aviation. 

While CNS and IATA appreciate the funding challenges currently facing the Congress, we strongly believe that any aviation-related user fees should be used for 

their intended purpose and that airlines and their customers should not be asked 

to fund other, unrelated government programs. We appreciate your support and look 

forward to working with you and your office on this important issue in the future. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL R. WHITE, 

Vice President, Government and Industry Relations. 

cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar and then Senator Hassan. 

21 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We had 

a very good experience in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, which 

is a major hub, by adding dogs. We had severe wait lines, and then, 

at the time, TSA Administrator Neffenger came in and brought 

more dog teams, including one team of dogs that, unfortunately for 

them, got relocated from Maui to the Twin Cities. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But it made a huge benefit. So I would just 

add what my colleagues, Senator Cantwell and Senator Inhofe, 

have said about the value, not just for security, which is key and 

the most important thing, but also for efficiency at a very, very 

busy airport. 

I thought I would ask about the TSA PreCheck program. It increases efficiency and security. Mr. Weiler, from your perspective 

from Missouri, what strategies have been effective in promoting the 

program, and how are we assured, I guess, Mr. White, that those 

benefits don’t get taken away by longer lines in the PreCheck? I’ve 

started to see longer lines in that like the regular one. So let’s talk 

a little bit about that. 

Mr. WEILER. Sure. Thank you, Senator. We have seen an increase in the use of it, and I think it’s impacted our general line, 

which is good. I think the more we can do to highlight the program—and I really like how the bill sets specific enrollment targets 

out there to increase that. But, as I said, it’s still somewhat clunky. 

You can get online. You can complete your data to submit it. But 

when you have to do that follow-up interview—at least, at my airport, we only have one enrollment center, and it’s nowhere near the 

airport. It’s functioning, but it takes months to do that. 

So I think bringing the devices that we all now have, having that 

technology and bringing those things, and opening up more to more 

vendors to increase it would be very good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you think a clear definition of wait time 

would be helpful? 

Mr. WEILER. We do, we do, as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. White. 

Mr. WHITE. On the issue of the lanes themselves, we’re seeing at 

some airports—and you’ve probably seen it here at the Washington 

airports—where the PreCheck lines are getting longer and longer. 

I think part of the issue you have to look at is back to the data 

perspective as to how many passengers are going to go through 

every day. Can we look at some of the data that determines the actual movement of where the officers and inspectors should be in a 

day? Are you going to have more PreCheck passengers or not? Can 

you take your manpower flows for those days and—so I think 

there’s a lot of capability based off the airline information and the 

airports’ information on helping rearrange where some of those 

lanes are. 

The other thing, though, that we want—we do want more people 

in PreCheck. It does reduce the time, and it does help put the flow 

of passengers faster through the terminal. But then you have the 

whole issue of the design of the airports and such. 

22 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How about best practices for security at airport public areas? We’ve seen in other countries, of course, major 

issues there. 

Mr. WHITE. IATA has worked with other airports around the 

world, because our security groups do work directly with airports 

in many other parts of the world. So we look at time studies. We 

do actual views of the flow of the passengers as related to the security inside the terminal. So is that, you know, the public area and 

some of the things like we found in Fort Lauderdale? 

Those are difficult challenges, in baggage claim areas and others. 

We have to re-look at that, but I think that’s where we can take 

some of the studies that we’ve done on simplifying the business 

product on the passenger side that we work with the airlines on 

to see how we could put that into a security realm better. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Alterman, you called for TSA to have a more centralized 

focus on air cargo supply chain. How should TSA change in order 

to focus on air cargo security? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. That’s a tough one. But let me preface my answer by saying once upon a time, TSA had an air cargo division 

with scores of people. I think the numbers were about 40 people, 

and that whole division focused on air cargo security, and it cut 

across lines. About 5 years ago—I believe it was 2012—that whole 

air cargo division was disbanded, and the people that were working 

on air cargo were spread throughout the agency. 

Since then, there hasn’t been within the agency a centralized 

focus on air cargo. So what we have is the OSO, the operation security people, making some policy on it, and other people making policy on other areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could I just ask you one question? Maybe 

you could finish that one in writing, since I’m out of time. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Sure. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Would you like a 5-year term for the TSA 

Administrator and Deputy Administrator for some more continuity? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Excellent answer. Thank you. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Weiler, I wanted to thank you for your testimony and follow 

up a little bit on the realities of managing a small to medium size 

airport. As a manager of a small airport, I would expect—and your 

testimony certainly suggested—that you struggle with some of the 

same security and funding challenges that other such airports do, 

like the one in my City of Manchester, New Hampshire. 

As you know, the President’s budget request eliminates the TSA 

grants to reimburse state and local law enforcement for their patrols of airports and the surrounding areas, and it also dramatically cuts VIPR teams. When the budget came out earlier this year, 

I asked then Secretary of DHS Kelly during a Senate Homeland 

23 

Security Committee hearing about why the administration cut 

these programs, even though our aviation system is facing increased threats? 

Secretary Kelly’s response to my question was that from DHS’ 

perspective, the state and local law enforcement would have to 

shoulder more of the burden for securing the airport and its surrounding areas, given that airports generate so much revenue for 

states and municipalities. I reminded him at the time that at least 

in my state of New Hampshire, budgets are pretty slim and local 

property taxpayers aren’t eager to increase their property tax rates 

anymore. 

So I understand from your testimony that your airport runs on 

an enterprise fund and has its own 10 uniformed police officers patrolling the airport. How much does maintaining that force cost? 

And, additionally, does that police force—would that be able to stay 

up and running if your local enforcement grants are cut? 

Mr. WEILER. Senator, it’s a constant challenge. We cover a large 

geographic area. Our airport is 3,300 acres. We do rely heavily, as 

do the other 300 airports, on this law enforcement officer program. 

Airports may be seen as a cash cow, but, honestly, it’s probably 

more in terms of the economic impact that they generate. They 

don’t really generate money for the local entity. 

So the bill does call for increased security in public areas, baggage, around ticket checkpoints, things like that, which we all 

agree are good. But at least the draft bill from this committee also 

increases the funding for the LEO to provide those resources, at especially small airports. There’s only so many places I can go, and 

the airlines that operate there that our communities rely heavily 

on, in a lot of cases, I have no choice but to pass those fees along 

to them, and to them it may actually be the point of losing a route 

or gaining an additional frequency. So it’s a focus on us, a constant 

challenge to maintain that balance. We all want good security, but 

there’s only so much money in the bank for us. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you for that, and then a question 

to both you and Mr. White. In the past, this Subcommittee has focused on insider threats at airports and increasing the capacity of 

TSA to screen airport workers. However, one potentially overlooked 

area of insider threat vetting is the security and authenticity of pilots’ licenses. 

According to a recent Boston Globe investigation, the Federal 

Aviation Administration has issued pilots’ licenses and credentials 

to applicants without having fully vetted the pilot first. And the investigation found that at least five pilots with active licenses 

matched watch list records for their connection to terrorism or 

international crime. So, obviously, this is a really startling report 

and discovery. The lapse appears to stem from insufficient communication between FAA and TSA, as well as the FAA’s inability to 

validate the authenticity of personal information on pilots’ licenses 

at the time of the application. 

So to both of you, Mr. White and Mr. Weiler, your constituencies 

rely heavily on the trustworthiness and reliability of pilots, obviously. Would you support holding pilots, at a minimum, to the 

same security standards as we do airport workers? 

Mr. White, why don’t you start? 

24 

Mr. WHITE. I think it’s something that would be looked at. But 

from the commercial airlines license, if we’re looking at commercial 

pilots, I think the scrutiny goes beyond just what the governments 

themselves do, as to what the companies and airlines also are looking at. From an international perspective, we’re looking at, for multiple purposes of securing them, the individuals that are flying 

those aircraft, with local governments where they’re based and 

with the U.S. Government. 

So there’s a multiple look at that. I’m not sure—I’m not aware 

of that study, but it’s something I can go back and find more information on. 

Senator HASSAN. We’ll be happy to get you a copy of the report. 

It’s relatively recent. It was very concerning to me. That’s why I’m 

bringing it up. 

Mr. Weiler. 

Mr. WEILER. I can’t speak to that specific issue as well, but I do 

know known threat and possibly even 100 percent screening has 

been used effectively at some airports. I will tell you it does have 

airports our size very concerned. Again, it’s a resource issue. We 

have focused working with TSA on more of a random approach, 

limiting the number of access points for employees, doing random 

screening, and leaving that expectation with any airport employee 

that they could be screened at any time. We focused on that, and 

we think it’s a good balance. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, I thank you, and I see that I’m out of 

time. I will add my voice to the chorus concerning VIPR teams and 

dogs and enhancing TSA PreCheck. 

Thank you. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator. 

One good reason to have a hearing is it forces you to come up 

with a bill, and so I’m pleased to have your reaction to the bill we 

filed last night. I do think it includes most of the concerns that 

some of you have previously shared both with the Committee generally and in testimony. 

One new thing we put in here, Mr. Weiler, was the ability to look 

at the exit lane with a pilot project on a different kind of security. 

Now, your airport, the one I use a lot—you’re approaching a million 

passengers a year. Is that right? 

Mr. WEILER. That is correct. 

Senator BLUNT. And what would be your comfort with the security and the economics of the idea of not having a person at the 

exit lane all the time? 

Mr. WEILER. Senator, for us, it’s a win-win. There is good technology on the market to be able to automate these lanes. They’re 

used at many airports very safely and securely. For our airport, 

since we both share the staffing with TSA and with the airport, 

they would actually save more money than we do because they 

staff their lane longer. But yet there is no program for them to 

share that cost with us. So I think the idea of a cost-share program 

is a win-win. Ultimately, it should save both the airport and TSA 

funds down the road. So we just see this as a win-win. 

Senator BLUNT. And you’re comfortable with the security element 

of that? 

Mr. WEILER. I am, Senator. 

25 

Senator BLUNT. There are exit lane abilities that no one would 

be able to get in the other way without immediately triggering—— 

Mr. WEILER. The technology that is there, and if you’ve seen 

them—they are installed at more and more airports, especially the 

larger ones that bear that cost. It’s very secure. You are not allowed to go back. It is monitored. Alarms will sound. Again, this 

is proven technology. I’m not saying it can’t get better, but I do 

think the security is there. 

Senator BLUNT. One of the things the law allows is the private 

contractor coming in and providing TSA security. The Kansas City 

Airport is one of the handful of airports in the country that does 

that. At one time, your airport considered it. Is that still something 

you occasionally look at, or why have you moved back to the TSA 

in a more traditional way? 

Mr. WEILER. You’re right, Senator. It has been used at many airports effectively, and we have looked at it in the past. We are currently not looking at implementing private screening. We have a 

good partnership with TSA. However, the airport would very much 

like to maintain this ability, and I know other airports would as 

well down the road, should that be an option based on local conditions we could still apply to the partnership program. 

Senator BLUNT. Let me ask a question of everybody here as I finish my question time. If you could immediately change one thing 

about the current approach to aviation security, what would that 

one change be? 

Mr. White, we’re going to start with you and come back this way. 

Mr. WEILER. I think this bill is a major step in the right direction. 

Senator BLUNT. I’m starting with Mr. White. 

Mr. WEILER. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought—— 

Mr. WHITE. I think if you had one thing to do, it’s having to develop a partnership that’s truly open with the security expertise of 

the people in aviation and that of the government. That’s the biggest thing we’re lacking, because we don’t have that real true partnership, particularly with our foreign carriers, which, for us, represents a very large chunk of the transport that’s coming into the 

U.S. 

Without that, we can’t work and share the knowledge that— 

there’s a real lack of sharing of knowledge between the individuals 

within the aviation commercial industry and the government. It’s 

very one-sided, and if we can get away from that, then we can really start making the change. 

Senator BLUNT. And in your other testimony, you said you’d like 

to see much more of a standard that was consistent with both domestic and international? 

Mr. WHITE. Exactly, because the TSA right now seems to be divided in a domestic mode and an international mode. It’s aviation. 

It’s not one or the other. 

Senator BLUNT. All right. I don’t want to run out of time here. 

Ms. Pressnell, one thing you would change if you could. It’s OK 

if it’s in this bill, but something we’re not doing now. 

Ms. PRESSNELL. Well, the main concern that we have, obviously, 

is the ability to get technology into the field faster. The U.S. deserves the best technology it can have at any given time, and we 

26 

believe that the process that currently exists is one that actually 

slows down the process and actually puts us behind some of our 

foreign counterparts who deploy technology that’s somewhat more 

advanced. 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Alterman? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. To follow up on what Mr. White said, security always works better when the government and industry are working 

together. I think one of the big things we need to change and improve upon is the sharing of intelligence information. We’ve discovered, sometimes the hard way, that if we had better intelligence, 

we could stop things. All the rules and security programs are fine, 

but we really need to work together to share intelligence so that 

we can mitigate the threats. 

Senator BLUNT. And by that, you’re principally meaning for them 

to share more of the threats that are out there with those of you 

who are doing the shipping and the cargo? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Yes. TSA, frankly, can’t share information it 

doesn’t have. It goes both ways. There needs to be better intelligence sharing for TSA among government agencies, which don’t 

seem to share very well—— 

Senator BLUNT. Got it. 

Mr. ALTERMAN.—and then passing it on to the industry, yes. 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Weiler, your one thing? 

Mr. WEILER. Airports want to be a part of the table and be there 

and collaborate, but we do not have unlimited resources. 

Senator BLUNT. Senator Booker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I’d happily defer to my more 

senior colleague. 

Senator BLUNT. Everybody here has asked questions. We’re down 

to you. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. Would you mark my level of deference for 

the record, please? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. There’ll be a moment when you may need that. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes, sir. 

I’m very grateful for you all being here, and it’s often that we are 

reactive to crises as opposed to proactive, and then everyone wants 

to do sort of a post mortem about what happened. I often worry 

that when it comes to our security issues at airports, we’re often 

chasing after the last breach and not really trying to see what’s 

happening in the future ones. That’s why I found your comment 

very interesting about watching other nations implement things a 

lot quicker than we are doing. 

So I’d like to just maybe—maybe I can start with you, Mr. White. 

You know, I see things through the Newark lens. I live a few miles 

from the airport. It was amazing to me traveling around Europe, 

seeing the automated screening process, which is actually quicker, 

and it seems to be more effective. I’m wondering if you have any 

feedback regarding sort of those new processes or the automatic 

screeners and the mechanization. Is that something that you see as 

27 

productive in terms of not just speed, but also when it comes to the 

quality of the screening that we’re doing? 

Mr. WHITE. I think you have to take a look at the whole process. 

If you take a look at the European programs, some of the things, 

for instance, approval of screeners, are different than the U.S. 

Some are more stringent. That standard, from our perspective—we 

work closely with the government on those sorts of things, and we 

want to share that kind of information. But the TSA has a mindset 

of what they want, because most of the inspectors are TSA employees. In most governments around the world, it’s not so. But the 

oversight is there, so the security component is still there. So there 

are efficiencies that we could be gaining, learning from our counterparts. 

The PED situation, with carrying the personal electronic devices, 

for us on the passenger side was quite an issue, because the foreign 

governments had programs that we thought were very effective, 

but the TSA did not. So there needed to be better discussion between governments on how some of those things were better— 

there’s technology that was used by other governments that may 

be considered, because it had been implemented faster and quicker, 

as Ms. Pressnell was saying. 

So it is a whole—just of bringing people together, and it’s very 

siloed in the TSA, and I think that’s what we’re kind of all saying, 

that the TSA is so siloed internally and externally, and that we 

need to bring some of this expertise in with them. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate that, and that goes to the point 

you were making, Mr. Alterman, which I found interesting. Maybe 

I could just make the comparison of traveling to Israel versus here. 

It seems that they have, first of all, a far more efficient system, it 

seems, in terms of the speed with which people can go through. But 

it seems like they’re using a tremendous amount of background 

checks as well as intelligence sharing to look at plane manifests. 

Is this something that, really, we should be looking at? Clearly, 

that’s a nation that faces terrorist threats at our level or worse. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. On the surface, maybe. The problem is that the 

Israeli aviation system is so much smaller and limited than the 

United States system. My concern is if you impose the Israeli system on the United States, no one would ever move anywhere, just 

because of the magnitude of the people that move. But, certainly, 

what they’re doing might be able to be adapted to the U.S. system, 

and I, frankly, don’t know whether that’s being done now or not. 

But we always need to be looking for better ways of doing things. 

Terrorists are not dumb, and, you know, the comment that we 

always seem to be looking at and trying to solve yesterday’s problems is one of the major concerns and one of the major challenges. 

I was very happy that in the final draft of the bill, there was a reference to someone looking forward and doing forward-looking 

things, and I think the agency needs to do that. 

Senator BOOKER. Well, I only have a few seconds left. So I just 

really, very rapidly—when I—you know, I know a lot of the folks 

at Newark Airport, and a lot of the TSA agents I know on personal 

levels. And when I ask them, ‘‘What else do you need? What’s happening?’’ the common complaint that I get is that there’s not 

enough personnel, that they need more people. Just really quickly, 

28 

is that a yes or a no? Do you agree that we should—are we staffed 

the way we need to be at airports across the country, or do we need 

to be focusing on more resources for staffing? 

Mr. WHITE. I think you do have issues with personnel at different airports, but that varies by airport. But there’s technology 

that may be in use that we can improve on, because if you look at 

the canine situation where we brought canines to clear passengers 

the summer before last with all the backlogs, that was a way to 

use something that was out there as a tool. But you have to balance it. 

Senator BOOKER. And, Mr. Chairman, right before I pass off, I 

just want to say, first of all, I’m so grateful for this hearing. It’s 

so important. I’ve been saying, though, for a long time that there’s 

so much focus on our airports, rightfully so, but part of them—part 

of the obligation for TSA was to come back with a plan also for our 

rail system. You’re seeing so many attacks now on rail systems in 

the United States. We have such a small, paltry percentage of our 

TSA assets protecting our rails. I just want to say I know this 

hearing—it’s the topic of it, but I have a growing level of frustration that we don’t have a plan to protect our rails in the United 

States. 

Thank you. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Obviously, this began with Mohamed Atta and the other nine at 

Logan Airport on September 11, 2001, and we continue to try to 

make sure that we do our best to protect the American public. Our 

nation’s transportation security officers are tasked with the important mission of detecting and forestalling threats to passengers, 

crew, and aircraft. 

Regrettably, airline fees may be making this job far more difficult. In May, Secretary John Kelly stated that passengers trying 

to avoid exorbitant checked bag fees, up to $120 for two bags round 

trip, are cramming their belongings into smaller carry-on bags. 

These carry-ons have become so dense that screeners may be having difficulty identifying dangerous items. 

For all of the witnesses, do you agree with Secretary Kelly that 

TSA screeners may have more difficulty detecting dangerous items 

in densely packed carry-on bags? 

Mr. WHITE. We haven’t, from our side, seen anything that’s been 

initiated. The same technology that’s basically used for the carryon bags is the same technology being used for the checked bags. 

Senator MARKEY. So you don’t agree with Secretary Kelly. 

Mr. WHITE. Not necessarily. 

Senator MARKEY. Ms. Pressnell? 

Ms. PRESSNELL. I would disagree as well. The technology is certainly advanced in terms of being able to detect threats down to 

the most specific item. So I would disagree as well. 

Senator MARKEY. You would disagree. 

29 

Ms. PRESSNELL. I would disagree with the Secretary that it’s 

causing problems. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Alterman? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. I’m going to do something lawyers should never 

do. I don’t know. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. That’s great. 

Mr. Weiler? 

Mr. WEILER. I’m not aware, specifically, of direct TSA from that. 

However, airports certainly do hear a lot from customers about excessive baggage fees. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. Well, in May, I wrote a letter with Senator 

Blumenthal asking Secretary Kelly about this issue. What we 

found was very troubling, in fact, very troubling. According to TSA, 

bag fees do incentivize passengers to carry on luggage, and the 

screening technologies at TSA screen checkpoints are less sophisticated and advanced as those used for checked baggage. I think that 

this important issue deserves more study and evaluation, and we’re 

going to be pursuing that in the markup as we move forward on 

this legislation. 

In the confines of the airline cabin, even a small knife can contribute to devastating consequences. That’s essentially what happened on 9/11 at Logan Airport in Newark and here in the District 

of Columbia, which is why I introduced a bill that forbids any 

changes to the prohibited items that would permit passengers to 

carry small knives through screening checkpoints, and I’m pleased 

to see a similar provision in the TSA Modernization Act. 

For all of the witnesses, do you agree that we should continue 

to ban knives on planes? 

Mr. Weiler? 

Mr. WEILER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Alterman? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. PRESSNELL. Yes. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, great. So that’s all very helpful, and I’m 

working with Senator Murkowski to ensure that this remains a bipartisan issue as we move forward. I know that you have to make 

a vote over on the—— 

Senator CANTWELL [presiding]. I voted. 

Senator MARKEY. Oh, you’ve already voted, and I have already 

voted. So the Democrats are in charge over here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Blunt specifically asked that we not do 

a lot of mischief while he was gone. 

Senator MARKEY. No, No. Just a little humor reflecting the bipartisanship, actually, with which the Senate is able to operate, especially on issues that relate to homeland security. That has been one 

area where we’ve been able to stay very closely partnered, and I 

know that because of what happened on 9/11 and then what happened with the Tsarnaev brothers, who were also in my congressional district, and what they did on Patriot’s Day. 

So all of that kind of informs what I try to do, and we’ve made 

a lot of progress over some opposition over time. But I think we 

made great progress, you know, back in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. 

30 

The cargo industry did oppose the screening of cargo going out to 

passenger planes in the same way that the bags which passengers 

were bringing onto the plane. 

So it took the 2007 law to be able to upgrade that so that there 

is nothing that goes onto a passenger plane that has items on it 

that are not screened fully, and the same thing was true for cargo 

coming in from overseas, so that the screening was made for that. 

But that took the 2007 law, and that was 5 years, 6 years after 

the 9/11 incident. So we’ve made a lot of progress, and I just want 

to make sure that we absolutely are confident that we can detect 

any item that could cause a serious problem. 

We thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I thank 

the gentlelady from Washington. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Mr. Weiler, I would like to ask about the exit lane program. We 

know that it has been a success at some of the larger airports. 

What is your experience on moving more deployment of this to 

other regional and small airports? 

Mr. WEILER. I think that’s the nice thing about the pilot program, Senator. It gives us the opportunity to explore it more, analyze the technology, make sure it works at the smaller airport environments. And for us, again, it focuses on saving money, but making sure we do it in a very secure environment. So we think the 

pilot program, as I mentioned in my testimony, is a major step forward. I don’t know if that answers your question. 

Senator CANTWELL. You know, the exit lane doors that are used 

at airports to, I think, enhance security, and my guess is it helps 

some of these smaller airports on cost and implementation of security measures. 

Mr. WEILER. Yes, and by automating those, we won’t have to 

staff them, so that will definitely be a cost saving for us. You know, 

again, when the airport staffs it—but this is—Congress has established this is a TSA responsibility, so it will actually save money 

for TSA in the long run on personnel cost. Hopefully, those assets 

can be redeployed back to the checkpoint, in general, to improve efficiency and bring more assets to those areas. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, as I said earlier on the canine program, 

I think all of these things—obviously, Sea-Tac being one of the fastest growing airports in the nation 3 years in a row makes us want 

to deploy everything that we can that helps us on security and efficiency, and, obviously, the canine units do it. And I think for the 

pressure, then, that it puts on the other airports, having these exit 

lanes being also deployed helps on the efficiency side, so all of that. 

Mr. White, you mentioned the issue of biometrics and some coordination on biometrics. How do you think that we come to a, if 

you will, standard that we feel comfortable with from a national 

and international basis? 

Mr. WHITE. I think, first thing, on the U.S. side—— 

Senator CANTWELL. And I just mean on the technology. 

Mr. WHITE. On the technology aspect. 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, just on the technology aspect of it. 

Mr. WHITE. Whether one is right, better than the other, you 

know, that still could be determined. From our perspective, we’re 

working, for instance, with CBP on the exit lanes right now into 

31 

the U.S. to see how we can capture those passengers to ensure 

who’s leaving. Is that same technology what should be in place at 

the checkpoint for TSA? Is that where it starts? 

So part of it, from our perspective, is what technology is best, 

whether it’s fingerprint or other. It also ties into what’s the efficiency of the airport. So you take Sea-Tac, trying to move more 

passengers, really, through the same terminal until the expansion 

starts. But you’re moving more people through the same space. Can 

you use that technology, and which one is better, and where that 

standard comes from takes a lot of—lots more people that I know, 

that I am, that we have, and those are the studies that IATA does. 

So we’ve been working with other airports around the world in 

similar type fashions. Again, it’s sharing of information, and work 

groups that are really involved with that sort of thing. The airlines’ 

perspective is, what’s the cost? You know, at the end of the day, 

there is a cost to all of this, and what makes it more efficient. Do 

we gain efficiency from it? Does it improve security? We have to 

look at all those factors. 

So technology, as it comes about, one over the other is what’s— 

the latest and greatest. You’ve really got to delve down into it. So 

that’s where we really want to focus with some of the—a lot of people in the airlines that we have that are really doing that day-today work and studying that sort of thing. 

Senator CANTWELL. But we don’t have a body yet that works. It’s 

more of an informal discussion. Is that what you’re saying? 

Mr. WHITE. What we’re finding is most governments are testing 

different things in different ways, and I don’t know of a formal 

body, although there are—like through ICAO, there are working 

groups that are looking at those sorts of things as to, you know, 

what are the technologies and how do we implement them. IATA 

has been looking at the express lanes and how we can clear passengers quicker. Is the technology—and we could put it in with the 

check-in process—make it easier for a passenger to clear? 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we—myself and Senator Collins—have 

worked on moving our borders to overseas airports and deploying 

these kinds of technologies as a way to get security before people 

enter the United States, and we think this is an important question. She and I have worked on the biometrics for quite some time 

now, and we think we should continue forward. 

Senator Duckworth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I 

want to thank you and also the Chair for convening today’s hearing, and I want to thank our witnesses for participating in this important conversation. 

As this Committee moves closer to consider legislation to enhance TSA programs, including TSA’s rail security efforts and improving aviation security, I’m encouraged that industry is actually 

engaged in working with us to address policy gaps and identify appropriate solutions. 

Mr. Alterman, as Chairman of TSA’s Aviation Security Advisory 

Committee, can you speak to the agency’s efforts to deploy credenVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\34309.TXT JACKIE
32 

tial authentication technology for detecting fraudulent identification documents at airport passenger checkpoints? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. This goes to—we started that effort in ASAC as 

a result of insider threat issues that developed out of the Atlanta 

airport, and the ASAC gave 28 separate recommendations on insider threat, and many of those recommendations had to do with 

credentialing. We made those recommendations to TSA, and they 

have been moving forward on them. They’ve done a pretty good job 

on that. There were a couple of issues involving interagency issues 

that they couldn’t do right away—the FBI’s Rap Back program so 

we could figure out—we could get access to those. 

That’s an ongoing issue. I personally don’t know exactly where 

we are in detail on that. But, certainly, the credentialing issue is 

one that is of constant concern to us because of the potential ability 

to get fraudulent credentials. So the agency is working on that in 

response to our recommendations, and they are making progress on 

that. I honestly can’t tell you exactly where they are in that process. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Well, we’ll have to follow up with you on 

it. I want to also touch on the air cargo advanced screening pilot 

program that took place. As you know, it was established after authorities discovered two U.S.-bound packages from Yemen, and 

they contained viable bombs, capable of bringing down aircraft, and 

it was determined by forensic experts that they were designed to 

detonate midair over Chicago. They attributed the plot to Al Qaeda 

and the Arabian Peninsula. 

What’s the current status—because it was a pilot program—of 

the air cargo advanced screening pilot program, and what are the 

plans for developing this into something that’s industry-wide? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. That’s a very good question. It is not—the pilot 

program is not finished. The pilot program is ongoing. It’s been ongoing for 6 years. We are currently waiting for a CBP rule that 

would make mandatory the filing of certain information to CBP. 

This is a cooperative program between CBP and the TSA. TSA 

would be then responsible for doing the checking when CBP got information that some of the packages might be suspect. 

We need to do that. We need to make that final. We need to 

make that final as quickly as possible, and we need to make it applicable to everybody. The hang-up as I know it right now is that 

we’re still waiting for a CBP rule to make it mandatory, and I 

think that one of the problems that they’re encountering is we do 

have this new administration’s rule that you can’t put in new rules 

without taking two away and the cost implications of that. My 

guess is that, bureaucratically, it may be hung up in that issue. I 

don’t know. Mr. White may know a little bit more than I do on 

that. 

But you’re absolutely correct. It’s an issue that’s ongoing. Our 

members have been participating. There are millions of packages 

that are screened that way now—not screened, but the information 

is given—and we need to make that universal. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. White, do you want to address that? Is that rule ready to go 

but it just can’t be posted because of the new Trump administration—— 

33 

Mr. WHITE. It has been going between CBP, TSA, and DHS. It’s 

our understanding that the rule is very close, according to meetings 

with CBP last week, and that it’s in its final version for proposed 

rulemaking. They may be able to not even have to have a proposed 

rule. They’re looking to see if they can actually implement it under 

current rules. 

But the same as Mr. Alterman mentioned, we are very supportive of the ACAS program. We think that’s something that— 

technology actually brings information together to enhance screening, and it’s proven very well that it can be done. There are still 

some technology challenges that will be needed, but I think once 

it’s implemented, it’ll become the norm. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Senator BLUNT [presiding]. Senator Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. I have sort of two lines of questioning. 

Mr. Alterman, I wanted to talk to you about the segmentation at 

airports, and I want to ask you questions from a layman’s perspective. We have Trusted Traveler, we have TSA Pre, we have now 

Clear, we have your regular lines, and I guess from a logistics 

standpoint, my question is at what point are we sort of taking a 

one-lane highway, widening it to five, and then having it merge 

back into one a mile later? 

I mean, I know that sounds, you know, borderline sassy. But it’s 

a real question, because those of us who travel a lot sort of wonder 

whether there’s not a point at which this just becomes how effectively an individual experienced traveler can sort of work the arbitrage in this system rather than increase throughput capacity. So 

I wonder how much thought has been given to that question. And 

can you reassure me that there is a strategic plan here and there 

is some strategic thinking rather than just new product offerings 

for individual travelers as we go along? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. I’m probably the wrong one to ask that question 

of. We may have an airport that would have a better idea. But I 

sort of smiled when you mentioned that, because we have about 

five different ways of getting through security, and they all seem 

to converge at one point. 

Senator SCHATZ. At the security line, yes. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. At the security line. I don’t actually know the answer to that question. 

Mr. WEILER. Senator, I could speak to that a little bit. 

Senator SCHATZ. Sure, please. 

Mr. WEILER. I manage a small hub airport, so we have about a 

million passengers, and I actually had that same question about 

our checkpoint. We have two standard lanes and one PreCheck 

lane, and we’re just about ready to get a Known Crew Member 

lane. So it’s kind of that same thing. I do think the focus should 

continue to be on making all the main lines as efficient as possible. 

But even on like the Known Crew Member line, my understanding, from talking to our TSA personnel, is it’s not like that’s 

going to have to be staffed all day long. When they get a peak 

34 

group in—we have a lot of pilots that live in our area that are traveling to other hub airports to do their things, and they’ll get 10 of 

them in, put them in that line behind a long line, and then deploy 

assets over there to deal with them and move it on. 

So I agree. I’m kind of a believer now. We’re excited about getting the Known Crew Member, but I also share your concerns. The 

focus should continue to be on increasing throughput through the 

main line. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Alterman—and feel free to hand it off, as you just did—I 

want to talk to you about the biometric data collection. I know 

there are a couple of pilot programs being implemented. Generally 

speaking, I think this is an exciting space, and even if I had reservations, which I do from the civil liberties standpoint, I think 

this is inevitable. I think faces will be in databases, but the question becomes sort of how you manage this process, recognizing our 

Fourth Amendment rights. 

So the question is: My understanding is that DHS has a requirement for a privacy impact assessment, and they’re doing that on 

the CBP side. I’m wondering, you know, where we’re going to be, 

first of all, specifically on the privacy impact assessment, and then, 

second, more generally, if you have private sector companies that 

do this biometric data analysis and provide these services to airports and hubs, do they keep the data? What’s the understanding 

with respect to where those facial recognition data go? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. I’m getting very good at not answering questions. 

I don’t know the answer to that, but Mr. White has mentioned the 

biometrics in his testimony, and we have a technology expert here. 

Am I allowed to turn it over to them? 

Senator SCHATZ. Sure. This is working fine. 

Mr. WHITE. From an airline perspective, as I mentioned earlier, 

our issue is we have emerging technologies of biometrics and which 

one is best or not. We see advantages, but where the data is stored 

is an issue, in general, from a global standard, because we have the 

European requirements on just the passenger data as to what we 

have that we submit already to the government. 

So I think some of that that we’ve already learned from the passenger data, your personal information when you make your reservation, that we’re providing in the Advanced Passenger Information System is already—some of that information is probably related to the biometric side. So there’s probably some preexisting 

study that’s been done from that point. 

Senator SCHATZ. Ms. Pressnell, did you want to add anything? 

Ms. PRESSNELL. I cannot speak directly to biometrics, sir. 

Senator SCHATZ. So it just seems to me that for the Committee 

and staff and others to consider that it’s not at all clear as we move 

forward—and we are. We’re going to move forward with biometric 

data collection, and we should. But it’s not a trivial question to 

ask—who gets the data? Does a private sector company own this 

IP? Is there a requirement for the destruction of these data sets? 

Does this need to be in statute? 

I think these are important questions, because we’re moving forward apace on all of this, and it’s a non-trivial question whether 

or not a private sector company will now be in possession of not 

35 

just personally identifying information in the traditional sense, but 

also your face. 

Thank you. 

Senator BLUNT. Another question, Senator Schatz, another point 

that came up earlier, too, is if we’re going to do biometric data, do 

we need to have different models that use different biometrics, or 

would we be better off if we sort of directed this into one direction 

so it’s not everybody’s fingerprints and everybody’s facial or 

everybody’s iris or—what do we—are we letting everybody collect 

everything, which would be another thought along that path you 

were pursuing? 

So the Chairman of the Full Committee always comes in with 

really the hard questions very near the end of the hearing when 

the witnesses are basically worn out and least resistant. So I’ll turn 

it over to the Chairman. 

Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blunt, and I know at this 

point in the hearing, too, that everything has been asked, so I’m 

sure you’ve answered these questions. But I do want to thank you, 

Senator Blunt, for having the hearing today to discuss the TSA 

Modernization Act that we introduced yesterday along with Senators Nelson and Cantwell. 

As with the FAA reauthorization, I’m pleased that we came to 

agreement on a package of practical reforms to improve aviation 

security, and building on the successful enactment of a host of security enhancements last year, I think this authorizing legislation 

would make important improvements to aviation security as well 

as the passenger travel experience. In developing the legislation, 

the Committee engaged with TSA officials and with industry stakeholders to ensure that workable solutions with the greatest impact 

were included. In particular, I appreciate the effort of those represented on this panel, the TSA, and others to help shape the legislation. 

We plan to consider the bill at our markup next week, and so I 

just have a few questions that perhaps build on or maybe are redundant ones that have already been asked. But you talked a little 

bit about some of these issues, I know already. But this past May, 

the Aviation Security Advisory Committee—and I’ll direct this to 

Mr. Alterman—which you chair, released a Checkpoint of the Future report required by the FAA Extension Safety and Security Act 

of 2016. The report made a series of industry and stakeholder recommendations to TSA outlining how the agency can improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of passenger screening checkpoints at 

U.S. airports. 

The question is: In the Modernization Act, we would formally authorize the Innovation Task Force to assess the impact of using 

some of these exciting new technologies such as biometrics. Do you 

think that these and other provisions in the bill will truly help TSA 

to develop a Checkpoint of the Future while also increasing security, and what are the key things to look for in implementation of 

that? 

36 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we’re 

moving forward well on that issue. I have to do a little bit of a 

shout-out to our new Security Technology Subcommittee, which is 

a committee that was actually formed after the recent Act. They 

did one heck of a job in turning out that report, and they should 

get the credit for that. 

TSA has accepted that report and is moving forward. I think in 

combination with the Innovation Task Force, either as it is today 

or as it will be after this legislation, hopefully, I think that the 

agency is committed to doing those things. But the devil is always 

in the details, and there are a whole lot of moving parts in working 

toward a Checkpoint of the Future that both enhances security and 

enhances passenger acceptance of them and passenger throughput. 

Those are tough issues, and I think that what the report did is 

set down a baseline for TSA to consider, and I hope that that report is used by the Innovation Task Force in developing new recommendations for TSA. It’s a fairly new report. I believe it was 

submitted to the Congress in July, and things don’t always move 

as quickly as a lot of us like. But I think it was a very good start, 

and I’m hoping that we can look forward to some good results out 

of that. 

I might say that in terms of ASAC and in terms of what we do, 

there has been sort of a change in the way we operate. It used to 

be—we understand that we’re just an advisory committee. We can’t 

tell TSA to do things. We just give them advice. What we have told 

them, though, in the past few years is ‘‘If you accept our recommendations, we are going to follow through on implementation.’’ 

We’re not just going to let it sit. So we intend to follow through and 

find out exactly how they’re going to react and how they’re going 

to implement those recommendations. I’m not sure just having 

them accept recommendations is good enough. We need to follow 

through on the implementation. 

The question is a good one, and it’s a little early to tell exactly 

how it’s going to come out. But I think it’s a good start. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we would look forward to working with you 

to ensure that those do get implemented, given the advisory role 

of your Task Force. 

Ms. Pressnell, one of the major themes of the TSA Modernization 

Act is finding ways to speed up TSA’s deployment of the latest security technology at airports. For example, one provision instructs 

TSA to authorize the third-party testing and evaluation of security 

screening equipment in an effort to enable faster deployment of the 

latest and most effective screening technologies. 

Can you explain how this and other provisions in this bill will 

assist TSA in getting the most advanced technology out into the 

field at a faster rate than it is currently able to? 

Ms. PRESSNELL. Mr. Thune, thank you so much for that question. 

The bottom line is it takes too long. It simply takes too long to get 

technology from start to finish and deployed in the airports in large 

part because the process for testing and—setting requirements and 

then testing gets bogged down. So lots of times, we have a technology that goes through the lab, it gets certified, and then we go 

on to operational testing, where we end up getting through testing, 

and then we get bogged down by administrative type reports. 

37 

What the third-party testing process would do—and it would be 

extraordinarily helpful to us—is that it would cut down significantly on the time that it would take to get us through the process. 

That primarily would be because we could be testing things that 

are the non-requirements that could get us through a lot faster. We 

spend a lot of time testing and then re-testing and then, of course, 

going through the reporting phase that can sometimes take 

months. But going through a third-party testing process would certainly help us field technology a lot faster simply because we’re 

able to, in some cases, with your bill, maybe do some of the testing 

in our own facilities and other contracting facilities where this type 

of thing could occur. 

The bottom line for third-party testing to really make it work, 

though, is to make sure that when it’s complete that TSA will readily accept the results. That’s a key factor for us because we’re taking our technology—it takes a lot of money to go through the process, but if it’s not accepted at the end, it’s just going to slow down 

the process even more. So that would be the only limitation that 

we can see, and we would certainly recommend that TSA accept 

the results at the end of the testing process. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank 

you. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to ask members of the panel—and I know you’re familiar 

with the shift in financial burden with TSA’s budget moved onto, 

in effect, passengers. Do you agree that the airlines themselves 

ought to pay for a portion of TSA’s costs? Why don’t we begin on 

your right and go down the panel. 

Mr. WEILER. Senator, I don’t know that I have a position on that 

one way or another. I do know that the airports are concerned 

about the cost being passed along to them in the environment that 

we’re currently operating under. Airports are very concerned about 

keeping cost—we all want to deploy new technology. At the end of 

the day, for us, it’s law enforcement, and we’re very pleased with 

the bill, that it does increase and puts more scrutiny on public 

areas, which should be, but also it provides funding for that. As far 

as the airlines, I don’t know that I can make a position on that, 

sir. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. I’m not sure I have a position on that, either, 

Senator. It’s a tough issue because when you talk about airlines— 

and maybe Mr. White can answer this better than I can. I’ve gotten 

very good at passing questions to Mr. White since I don’t represent 

the passenger side of the industry. When airlines—my impression 

is that when airlines have to pay for it, eventually the passenger 

has to pay for it because there’s a pass-through. But I’m not sure 

that’s the case, and, actually, I hate to duck the question, but I 

really haven’t thought about that enough to really give you a definitive answer. 

38 

Ms. PRESSNELL. Mr. Blumenthal, I’m sorry to have to—to not be 

able to answer that, either. Our coalition has not taken a position 

on that, sir. 

Mr. WHITE. So someone that does represent the airlines—if you 

take a look at the security fee, I guess the issue—this is a national 

security issue. This isn’t just airline security. This is a national security issue, and when it comes to that, it affects governments and 

it affects the economies. So we do not believe it’s necessarily the 

need for the airline to pay that fee, because we’re just a portion of 

the user. But we also affect your economies and bring that transport that makes your economies work around the world. 

So we look at it that way, that we’re just part of that system, 

and where does it come down at the end of the day. We’ve been 

talking about this issue ever since 9/11, but from my honest perspective, no, we don’t believe we should have that fee. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, as you know, all of you—and, unfortunately, the consumer side of this argument is not represented, 

and I respect that your organizations have not taken a position. 

But Congress acquiesced to the airlines’ request—maybe I should 

say demands—to eliminate their responsibility to contribute about 

$400 million, which they had been contributing, correct? 

Mr. WHITE. Correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And they had been required to do so since, 

I think, September 11. One of the publications—I’m looking right 

now at my notes—called this one of the top lobbying victories of 

2013. So that victory blew a massive hole in TSA’s budget. When 

we talk about the effectiveness of TSA, we’re really talking about 

what it does with the resources that it has. If the resources are deprived, then its effectiveness is undermined. 

Next week, we’re going to consider a long-term TSA bill—I think 

it’s next week—and that bill proposes shifting the increase that 

was enacted in 2013 back to TSA. But I guess the question of the 

moment is whether—in shifting the security fee that customers pay 

back to TSA, shouldn’t we also require that the airlines at least 

pay a portion of it, because it would give them some real skin in 

this game. 

I understand the airlines affect the economy. So do the railroads. 

So does every method of transportation. They all need some security, and I respectfully suggest that maybe you can ask your organizations whether they should take a position, and that they 

should. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Chairman Thune, any other questions? 

[No verbal response.] 

Senator BLUNT. Well, thanks to the panel for being here. I believe it’s the Chairman’s intention to mark this bill up maybe even 

as early as next week, and your testimony helped a lot today. 

Thank you all. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

BRIAN WEILER

Airport Security Infrastructure Funding 

In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced threats on airports and 

air travelers. However, as threats become more complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted, I believe airports need additional assistance to 

implement the necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the 

traveling public. 

When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I introduced two 

bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill that would help airports 

use existing funding sources for security infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I 

asked him about creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he 

said he would look into it. 

Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively meet their security needs? 

Answer. Unfortunately, there are no existing ‘‘TSA security focused grant programs’’ of any significance for airports to apply for at this time. However, airports 

would welcome new Federal resources from TSA to help meet existing Federal mandates and to further enhance security. If grant funds were made available, we would 

ask for flexibility to meet the most pressing needs at individual facilities. Specific 

needs can vary airport to airport depending on local conditions. 

While additional flexibility would be welcomed, such as giving airport operators 

the discretion to utilize AIP funds or PFCs for some security-related items, we urge 

Congress to avoid targeting those programs for significant security investments. AIP 

and PFC revenues are already scarce, and further diluting those resources would 

have a negative impact on many other critical airport infrastructure priorities. 

Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated government funding, back 

to aviation security purposes? 

Answer. The airport community fully supports efforts to redirect aviation security 

fee collections from deficit reduction to aviation security purposes. These revenues 

could be utilized to support a robust TSA grant program envisioned in question 1 

and to meet other security needs across the aviation system, which include LEO reimbursement to airports, the acquisition and deployment of enhanced security technology, and other high-priority imperatives. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

STEPHEN ALTERMAN

Airport Security Infrastructure Funding 

In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced threats on airports and 

air travelers. However, as threats become more complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted, I believe airports need additional assistance to 

implement the necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the 

traveling public. 

When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I introduced two 

bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill that would help airports 

use existing funding sources for security infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I 

40 

asked him about creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he 

said he would look into it. 

Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively meet their security needs? 

Answer. Although I have no direct experience in the area of airport grant programs, it is clear that, in a time of limited resources, such programs would be appropriate to help airports meet their growing security responsibilities. Such grants 

might be used to help airports reconfigure passenger checkpoints to include new 

technologies and to implement more robust strategies to address the issue of insider 

threats. Having said that, since I am not an expert in this area (or in the area of 

how to pay for such grants), it might be more appropriate to address this question 

to the airport community. 

Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated government funding, back 

to aviation security purposes? 

Answer. I absolutely support a proposal to ensure that airline passenger security 

fees are redirected to pay for security enhancements and not for unrelated purposes. 

It is simply unconscionable that these fees are being used for purposes wholly unrelated to their stated purpose. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO

STEPHEN ALTERMAN

Question. You are to be commended for your work as Chairman of the Aviation 

Security Advisory Committee, or ‘‘ASAC.’’ The ASAC provides advice to the TSA Administrator on aviation security matters. Its efforts are well-regarded. 

The aircraft maintenance technician community is not represented on the ASAC, 

although pilots and flight attendants do have representation on the ASAC. Aircraft 

maintenance is among the primary career fields in the airline industry. Would a 

craft specific voice on behalf of aircraft maintenance technicians contribute to the 

ASAC mission? 

Answer. Positions on the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) are appointed by the TSA Administrator to provide a broad representation of aviation 

stakeholders. The labor community is currently well represented by various organizations and, without knowing more, it is unclear to me whether having maintenance 

technician representation would, or would not, be appropriate. That decision is up 

to the Administrator. 

Having said that, much of the work of ASAC is done at the subcommittee level. 

ASAC subcommittees consist, not only of ASAC members, but also of Subject Matter 

Experts who lend their experience in areas being discussed. It occurs to me that 

input from the maintenance technician community would be appropriate when 

issues within its area of expertise are being discussed by one or more subcommittees. 

Finally, with respect to full ASAC membership, it is my understanding that TSA 

will shortly be soliciting new applications for membership by publishing a notice in 

the Federal Register. To the extent that any maintenance technician representatives 

are interested, they should be encouraged to apply. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

SISSY PRESSNELL

Airport Security Infrastructure Funding 

In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced threats on airports and 

air travelers. However, as threats become more complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted, I believe airports need additional assistance to 

implement the necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the 

traveling public. 

When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I introduced two 

bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill that would help airports 

use existing funding sources for security infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I 

asked him about creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he 

said he would look into it. 

41 

Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively meet their security needs? 

Answer. Airports must be able to meet the growing demands of air travelers and 

must be provided with the financial resources to help meet critical mission needs 

to ensure that the highest level of screening capabilities are in place. The Security 

Manufacturers Coalition (SMC) supports the recommendations contained in the 

Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) report titled ‘‘Improving Checkpoints 

at U.S. Airports’’ to establish a multi-year program that includes a capital fund for 

equipment that is similar to the mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund that 

provides $250 million annually for the Electronic Baggage Screening Program 

(EBSP). Creating a reliable and consistent funding resource is needed to ensure the 

highest screening capabilities are deployed at U.S. airports. 

Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated government funding, back 

to aviation security purposes? 

Answer. The Security Manufacturers Coalition (SMC) recognizes that Congress 

must deal with substantial funding constraints and demands on its limited resources in an attempt to meet the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) 

to pay for aviation services as well as the acquisition, operation, and maintenance 

of equipment. However, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 directed the diversion 

of a portion of the fee through 2023 to pay for non-aviation activities such as debt 

reduction. Approximately $1.28 billion of the fee will be diverted in FY 2017. The 

SMC believes that inconsistent funding levels as well as the diversion of fees make 

it difficult for TSA to sustain its mission and keep pace with the recapitalization 

and acquisition of next-generation security technology equipment. The SMC supports the recommendations of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to 

end the diversion of a portion of the Passenger Security Fee that is now dedicated 

for deficit reduction to pay for checkpoint development and deployment of new technology enhancements. Longer term, we support a multi-year approach that includes 

a checkpoint equipment capital fund, similar to the checked baggage program, to 

provide consistent availability of resources for technology acquisitions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

MICHAEL WHITE

Airport Security Infrastructure Funding 

In recent years, airports have been improving and expanding their security infrastructure to deal with an increasing number of enhanced threats on airports and 

air travelers. However, as threats become more complex and nonsterile areas of airports are more frequently targeted, I believe airports need additional assistance to 

implement the necessary airport security infrastructure improvements to protect the 

traveling public. 

When this Committee marked up the FAA Reauthorization bill, I introduced two 

bipartisan amendments, which were included in the bill that would help airports 

use existing funding sources for security infrastructure projects. And when TSA Administrator Pekoske testified before this Committee at his nomination hearing, I 

asked him about creating an airport security-focused grant program at TSA and he 

said he would look into it. 

Question 1. Can you talk about your experiences with existing TSA airport security-focused grant programs, and what you would like to see in a TSA grant program to ensure that airports are able to effectively meet their security needs? 

Answer. We would like to see grant money put into a joint effort between IATA, 

the TSA, airports, educational institutions, and other strategic partners to develop 

future screening technologies and processes to improve passenger facilitation while 

also enhancing aviation security. There also needs to be more focus on cyber security threats, the use of biometrics, IT programming for risk targeting, and the development of new systems. 

We also think there is a need to look at many of the current security programs 

to determine if they are of value and are truly reducing risk. For instance, do certain manpower intensive programs, such as the Federal Air Marshal program, offer 

as much risk reduction value versus using the same funds for visible canine teams, 

new terminal designs, or improved screening technology? Further, we support increased participation in trusted travelers programs like TSA Pre✓® to reduce security screening wait times. 

42 

Question 2. Do you support the proposal that would redirect airline passenger security fees, which are right now used to offset unrelated government funding, back 

to aviation security purposes? 

Answer. Yes, we strongly supports using passenger security fees for their intended 

purpose of aviation security as opposed to being diverted and used for unrelated 

government purposes. As you may be aware, Congress has diverted a total of $15.79 

billion in passenger security fees through Fiscal Year 2025 to the general fund. We 

also believe the TSA should be held accountable for providing more timely and accurate justifications for what it plans to spend on aviation security programs. 

Æ 

43 

This page intentionally left blank.