Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/29/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB321 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 321 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 321-STATE/MUNI. AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENING
2:09:48 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 321, "An Act requiring certain airports in the
state to apply for the federal security screening opt-out
program; providing reimbursement to a municipality that applies
for the federal security screening opt-out program; and
providing for an effective date."
2:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced herself and her staff.
2:11:23 PM
ANNA WHITE, Staff, Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, stated that in early
December 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
began installing and using full body scanners at four Alaska hub
airports. Since then residents in the Lower 48, constituents,
and Alaskans have complained of personal losses of carry-on
items, embarrassment, harm to themselves and their necessary
medical equipment, and of inappropriate touch and treatment by
Transportation Security Agency (TSA) personnel. She reported
Alaskans fly eight times more than the national average.
Additionally, the TSA has greater impact on Alaska's
transportation mobility given the necessity of using commercial
airlines for interstate and intrastate travel. This bill would
add a new section to Alaska's uncodified law to require Alaska's
airports covered by the TSA screening apply for participation in
TSA's Screening Partnership Program (SPP) by December 31, 2013.
The federal SPP application is a simple four-page form.
Inclusion in the SPP allows airports to opt-out from the TSA's
hands-on management screening by specifically enabling
privatization of that function, which will return high quality
local control of security screening. The bill would also
require the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) to reimburse reasonable costs incurred by
airports for the SPP application process. She highlighted that
opting out of TSA's screening by participating in the SPP will
enhance security, bring local oversight, local accountability,
and local jobs to Alaska's residents at the state's key
airports.
2:13:15 PM
MARK SABEL Staff, Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, recapped that HB 321 would require Alaska's
airports covered by the TSA must apply for the federal SPP. He
explained that the TSA developed the SPP to meet mandates
outlined in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in
order to benefit from private sector expertise. Under the
program, airports work in partnership to hire private screening
companies to provide screening services under federal oversight.
She stated that until recently the TSA was reluctant to initiate
the program. He read a portion of a letter dated March 13,
2012, from the U.S. House of Representatives Chairman John Mica
sent to all relevant airports, as follows:
Given the newly enacted changes to the SPP and the
importance of good customer service and efficiency for
airport operators, the Act provides you with the
opportunity to consider converting to a certified
private screening operation. Our committee is pleased
to offer support should you consider such action at
your airport.
MR. SABEL also read from the page two of the March 13, 2012
letter Chairman John Mica - the second to the last
paragraph - which read:
I strongly encourage you to look closely at this
program and to consider what participating in the SPP
can do for your airport and the travelers that you
serve ... In addition, security will not be
compromised while screening costs and oversight will
continue to be the responsibility of the TSA.
2:15:42 PM
MR. SABEL referred to the fiscal note, noting the state would
not incur any expenses. He also referred to the application and
instructions, which he characterized as a simple four-page
application, including a signature page. Once approved, a
private screening company would take over airport security
screening, under supervision, noting the control would be by
Alaska's companies. He pointed out that an airport can
recommend specific screening companies as vendors, but are not
required to do so. The recommendation does not need to be
followed either, he said. He stated that U.S. Representative
Mica would like further enhancements by allowing airports to
control who they would like to hire for private screening. He
referred to a list of Alaska's airports in members' packets. He
related that most of the airports are owned by the DOT&PF,
except for Red Dog mine, Ketchikan, and Juneau. He reiterated
that the bill has a zero fiscal note, is pro-Alaska business,
and would return control of screening to Alaskans.
2:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern that the X-ray process
TSA currently uses may cause health problems. The larger
problem exists with the DHS's TSA since that agency does not
receive oversight by the Congress or the DHS due to an agreement
made in about 2005. She emphasized that the lack of oversight
means the public does not have any proof of problems. She
viewed herself as somewhat of an authority since she had a
personal experience with TSA and was public about it. She said
she received about a thousand e-mails and letters in response to
her personal experience. She estimated she received another
1,000 letters, telephone calls, emails, and personal contacts in
the past year - often daily.
2:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that she has found the
inconsistencies are consistent throughout airports. She related
that the government and the Congress recognized additional
screening was necessary in the early days after 9/11. She said
she thought the TSA was put in place at that point. She offered
her belief that while the Congress recognized the need for the
TSA to provide screening, the SPP was developed to allow local
airports to do an even better job. It began as a pilot program,
which after several years became a permanent program to allow
airports to privatize the service.
2:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to the four-page application,
which has been completely revised by the federal government.
She pointed out that while the application process existed, the
TSA's administrator did not approve any private contractors.
The Congress held hearings and recently approved and demanded
that the TSA accept the applications unless the airport could
not prove it can meet the newly-enacted standards. She recapped
the form was recently approved as part of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, which was signed by President Obama.
She recapped that the Act mandates that the TSA shall approve an
SPP applicant if the newly-enacted standards are met. She
referred to the outcome as a partnership with TSA ensuring that
the airport screening is done in a professional manner.
2:23:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA alleged that unimaginable things have
happened to people. She has heard two horror stories from
Juneau alleging personal possessions have been stolen, other
possessions have been removed from their hands, things are
missing from their wallets, and people have experienced the
types of touch that can be traumatic for people who have had
prior trauma. She pointed out that this bill is critical since
many competent companies exist and local companies benefit. She
emphasized the importance of local oversight, since local
Alaskans understand the necessity for air travel in Alaska and
to the Lower 48. She offered her belief that with DOT&PF's
oversight, local companies can train personnel, which will help
ensure that inappropriate touching does not occur. She
suggested that some bizarre behaviors have resulted at airports.
She further emphasized that with the appropriate supervision -
and passengers have reported some Lower 48 airports in which
they never experience problems - airports can treat people
appropriately. She pointed out that the SPP program would
initially be available to four airports in Alaska, which could
be expanded to about 20 airports. She stressed that personnel
will receive appropriate supervision and can perform the
screening services appropriately, which will lead to local
control. She predicted that the time is right and the
likelihood for airports to be able to opt-out of the TSA's
screening program. She offered her belief that Alaskans are
different than other states. She suggested that this bill
offers the potential for a very good solution.
2:28:49 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the title, which read, in part, "An
Act requiring certain airports in the state to apply for the
federal security screening opt-out program...." She questioned
why the legislature would require airports to apply for an opt-
out program.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA responded that she previously stated the
reasons for the bill. She reiterated that Alaskans travel eight
times more than the national average. She explained that every
time Alaskans travel, in particular, to the Lower 48, many of
them tend to combine trips and extend their travel, which
results in numerous stops at airports during their trips. She
related her understanding that people will not experience
problems at some airports, but will at others.
2:30:17 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out the bill does not give any control
over airports in the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed. She related that most states have
laws prohibiting touch and sexual actions. She said, "And in
our state and in huge percentages of these other states the way
that the TSA employees are told to touch are illegal." She
characterized the way the TSA touches people as immoral touch.
She acknowledged the reason is for security, but she pointed out
that not one person in U.S. in the past 10 years who has boarded
a plane with anything that came close to explosives. She
acknowledged two incidents happened that originated in other
countries, but the perpetrators were apprehended by passengers
on the planes. She said, "We have ten years of zero cases where
the TSA has caught someone or for that matter we haven't had any
cases where someone tried to get on a plane with explosive
devices or trying to do any real damage."
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related she is hyper vigilant due to
issues she experienced in her childhood, noting that is a mental
health issues, but approximately 2,000 people have been touched
inappropriately, lost things, or had damage. She noted that
federal law trumps state law, but this bill would give a doorway
to ensure the administrative procedures provide some remedy for
people who cannot handle touching.
2:33:51 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to page 2, line 3, indicates this is
subject to appropriation. She interpreted that to mean every
municipality will need to apply to the program without any
guarantee they will receive reimbursement for their costs.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA deferred to the DOT&PF. She added that
the DOT&PF has submitted a zero fiscal note because after
application, the costs are covered by the TSA.
2:34:57 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding the only costs covered
by TSA is the application process.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA reiterated that Alaska is unusual as a
state since most airports are owned by the DOT&PF or municipal
airports. She pointed out that the TSA does not pay rent or
fees to the municipal or state airports.
MR. SABEL pointed out that the bill would establish a
contractual arrangement between TSA and the private screeners.
He quoted from a March 15, 2012 New York Times article which
read, " ... The private screeners have to follow T.S.A.
guidelines and fall under its supervision, although the agency
will not conduct private screeners' training. The T.S.A. will
pay for the private screeners." He recapped that the screening
process would be done through a contractual arrangement between
the private contractor - the security company - and the federal
government.
2:37:19 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that essentially the
state would place the cost extra cost on the federal government.
MR. SABEL answered no. He said that it would not be extra cost,
but a transfer of cost since it would be private contractors and
not the TSA personnel. He referred to an executive summary of a
report that details the potential cost savings to the federal
government from implementing the SPP.
2:37:54 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON did not envision the program. She related her
understanding that private people performing the screening with
TSA supervising, which seemed to translate to more people
providing the services.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that the TSA budget is several
billion dollars per year, with a huge number of employees at
airports. She has not heard any indication that of any cost to
the state, although she acknowledged it must cost something.
She was unsure of the detailed financial information, but stated
that the contract is paid for by the TSA.
2:39:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON questioned who would provide the training.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that the TSA will provide the
training.
2:39:50 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON questioned how this process will improve the
screening outcome since TSA currently trains screening
personnel, which allegedly is problematic, but under the program
the TSA will continue to train the airport screeners, which will
be SPP's personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief that the outcomes will
change with the administration.
2:40:17 PM
BRENDA HEWITT, Legislative Liaison/Chief Communications Officer,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
related her understanding that under the program the TSA will
contract with the private contractor to train private contractor
personnel. She also related her understanding that the cost
will remain the same.
2:40:43 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON again questioned how this process would improve
the screening outcome.
MS. HEWITT answered that different people would conduct the
screening.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how the department knows the people will
be different ones.
2:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed the questions were good ones. She
acknowledged that additional expertise is needed. She offered
from her own experience that she has contracted out services.
She pointed out the DOT&PF will select the private firms to fill
the contractor. She recalled that San Francisco has privatized
airport screening, which has resulted in significantly fewer
complaints, faster service, and with significant less cost to
the TSA.
MS. HEWITT pointed out that 18 airports have privatized the
screening process.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that airports will have until
March 2013 to opt-out. She has reviewed the forms and the
contractors must indicate why their service will be better than
the current service offered by the TSA.
2:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the state would be allowed
to set up its own criteria, which would be different than the
TSA's criteria for an airport that has opted-out by using the
SPP or if the airport would still need to follow the TSA's
criteria.
MS. HEWITT answered that the TSA has the criteria that must be
met and contracts with the private contractor to do so. She
characterized it as more of who wears the shirt; however, she
offered her belief that hiring from the private sector would
likely be hiring someone from Alaska.
2:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she has a strong belief hiring
screening can be put in place so pedophiles cannot be hired.
She emphasized that information is not available, that TSA does
not have open reports. Further there is not any third-party
oversight so it is not possible to determine if a TSA employee
has been arrested. She surmised from conversations she has held
that some people have problems.
2:45:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled an earlier comment that people
are able to go through the screening process more quickly in San
Francisco. He questioned what might account for that and
whether the San Francisco airport decided not to search babies
or wheelchairs, which takes considerable time. He suggested
that screeners could use more common sense and judgment since
the likelihood is pretty low a mother would strap a bomb on her
baby so he suggested that eliminating that type of search could
lead to security screening lines that flow more quickly and be
less intrusive.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief that the TSA employees
are not trained to screen people who are medically needy or have
contagious diseases, including those who have just have had
surgery. She pointed out that Alaskans regularly travel to
major hospitals in the Lower 48. She expressed concern that she
heard from people that TSA's personnel have put their fingers in
open wounds or bandages have been removed. She offered her
belief that those types of things would not happen if airports
had local control. She pointed out that the current costs are
astounding in this multi-billion dollar screening program.
While the Congress is slow to act it seems to be a hot topic
right now. She offered her belief that privatizing the TSA
screening may end up helping Alaskans gain employment. She
surmised that the SPP program process may help change TSA rules.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that the TSA employees at the
Wrangell airport are local people.
2:49:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the TSA employees are
unionized.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled unions may something the Congress
is currently considering, which could open up the process and
would be a good thing.
2:50:17 PM
MR. SABEL referred to the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure report dated June
3, 2011 in members' packets. He then referred to page 3, item
(9), which read, "There is evidence that TSA officials
erroneously claimed no communication with union representatives
about the SPP."
2:51:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether they are trying to be
unionized.
MR. SABEL answered he was unsure of the current status.
2:51:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled four airports with existing
private programs. She inquired as to whether they were approved
through this process.
MR. SABEL answered that 16 airports nationwide are privatized.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether they were approved using the
opt-out process.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that Juneau is municipal airport.
She was unsure of the Ketchikan airport's administration.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ clarified that she was interested in the
Lower 48 airports that have been privatized, such as San
Francisco airport.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that initially they were approved
post 9/11.
2:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the Lower 48 privatized
airports had demonstrated any cost savings and if any cost
comparisons were available.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she did not know.
2:53:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether has the TSA has the authority
to deny an application.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that TSA Administrator Pistole
makes the decision. In further response to Representative
Munoz, Representative Cissna answered that she believed this
would apply to municipal and state-owned airports.
2:53:42 PM
MS. HEWITT explained that HB 321 requires the DOT&PF to apply to
opt-off of the TSA screening for 24 airports - 18 state and 6
municipal airports.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that once the
application is made the state is not guaranteed a positive
response.
MS. HEWITT answered no. She related her understanding that if
the program is reinstated there is not any guarantee.
2:54:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the DOT&PF's position on the
bill.
MS. HEWITT answered that if the legislature directs the
department to apply for the federal SPP program, the DOT&PF will
apply for the federal program. Thus it does not necessarily
affect the department since the DOT&PF only needs to provide
screening at airports.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the department does not
seem vehemently opposed to the bill.
2:55:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled that a program is being created
so people can obtain background checks and obtain cards that
will allow them to walk around the screening device. He asked
whether large numbers of people have made such applications and
if it may be a program that the legislature could encourage
Alaskans to use and also inform them the program exists.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed Alaskans should be encouraged to
fill out those forms. She has not heard of great success with
the program. It is difficult to know whether the program is
actually issuing cards, but if so, that would be one way to
address the issue; however, she pointed out Alaskans travel more
and use different modes of travel. Sometimes people use
multiple modes of transportation, such as boat or ferry to get
to the airport. She highlighted that in some places people
can't even obtain driver's licenses let alone a TSA form. She
suggested that educating the public is a really tough thing to
do. She has observed an increase in the numbers of people that
are affected. She emphasized she wants to provide help to
people. This bill would provide some certainty in the future.
2:58:40 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that she set aside this meeting in
anticipation of a significant amount of testimony. She
suggested that thus far the testimony has been supposition in
terms of TSA's rules. She planned to set the bill aside and
indicated the committee needs some experts from TSA to explain
the program. She suggested uncertainty about the necessity of
the program exists since reimbursement for costs is not
guaranteed. She noted reimbursement is subject to
appropriation. She asked the sponsor to research whether the
TSA would allow the state to operate its screening programs
differently or if it would need to adhere to TSA's rules. She
asked whether the municipalities would receive total
reimbursement. She further asked whether the TSA would provide
training or if the state [DOT&PF] would provide the training to
the private vendors who will conduct the screening. She
emphasized that it is difficult to determine the fiscal impact
unless these questions are answered.
3:01:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether it would be possible to have
someone from TSA answer questions at a subsequent hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered to do so. She suggested it may
take a great deal of effort to compile the information and
wondered if the legislature will still have time to address the
bill this session. In further response to Chair Wilson,
Representative Cissna remarked that things are happening to
Alaskans at our airports. The Congress has not made progress
for over a year, but they are just now beginning to address the
issues. She would like the state to protect Alaskans in every
way possible. She said she was fairly positive the federal
government will pay for the SPP program since TSA currently has
the program and the Congress has passed [the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012] which authorizes changes to screening at
airports.
3:03:44 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON reiterated that the committee needs to know
whether Alaska can do the training or if TSA needs to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered to meet to discuss this further.
3:04:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Representative Cissna's
staff could recap the questions for her.
MR. SABEL agreed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding of the
direction the sponsor was taking, but he was not certain if the
issue was totally fleshed out. He offered to help.
[HB 321 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 321- Bill.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB 321- Sponsor Statement- v3 22 2012.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB 321 Mica_letter_to_Pistole_2-03-13.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB 321 NY Times Article.docx |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB 321 TSA_SPP_Report Exec Summaryt.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB 321- Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |
| HB321-DOT-AV-3-26-12.pdf |
HTRA 3/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 321 |