[Senate Report 116-237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 485
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-237
_______________________________________________________________________
TRUSTED TRAVELER RECONSIDERATION AND RESTORATION ACT OF 2019
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
H.R. 3675
TO REQUIRE A REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY TRUSTED TRAVELER PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 25, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-010 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
Joseph C. Folio III, Chief Counsel
Christopher S. Boness, Professional Staff Member
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
Roy S. Awabdeh, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 485
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-237
======================================================================
TRUSTED TRAVELER RECONSIDERATION AND RESTORATION ACT OF 2019
_______
June 25, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3675]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 3675) to require
a review of the Department of Homeland Security trusted
traveler programs, and for other purposes, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................4
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Act, as Reported.............5
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 3675, the Trusted Traveler Reconsideration and
Restoration Act of 2019, requires the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS or the Department)
Trusted Traveler Programs. Specifically, within one year of
enactment of this Act, GAO is required to review the extent to
which DHS monitors trends in identity matching errors,
coordinates with state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT)
entities to redress disqualifying offenses not covered by the
agency's redress processes, coordinates with SLTT entities to
improve disqualified individual's reconsideration procedures,
and travelers are informed of reconsideration procedures. The
Act also grants an individual extended enrollment equal to the
time the individual was removed from a trusted traveler program
should their enrollment be revoked in error.
II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
A primary mission of DHS is to provide security at ports of
entry throughout the United States, while also ensuring the
legitimate flow of people and commerce.\1\ To more efficiently
achieve this mission, DHS established trusted traveler programs
to expedite persons determined to be low-risk after going
through an enhanced security vetting process. These programs
include: TSA Pre-Check, Global Entry, Secure Electronic Network
for Travelers Rapid Inspection (or SENTRI), NEXUS, and Free and
Secure Trade (or FAST).\2\ As enrollment in these programs
increases, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)\3\, the two DHS components
tasked with implementing the trusted traveler programs, can
focus more attention on screening higher-risk travelers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Mission, https://www.dhs.gov/
mission.
\2\U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Trusted Traveler Programs, https://
ttp.dhs.gov/.
\3\CBP manages the Global Entry, SENTRI, NEXUS, and FAST programs
while TSA manages the Pre-Check program.
\4\U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., DHS Unveils Trusted Traveler
Comparison Tool, (Aug. 14, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/04/21/
dhs-unveils-trusted-traveler-comparison-tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of factors are considered when determining whether
an individual's application for acceptance into DHS's trusted
traveler programs will be approved or denied. As part of the
initial vetting process, prospective applicants are subject to
a criminal background check, review of employment history,
residential information, as well as biographical and
citizenship information.\5\ More specifically, CBP's Vetting
Center reviews the information obtained from an individual's
application, and checks the information against criminal and
terrorist databases to determine risk.\6\ If the applicant is
approved, conditional approval is granted and the individual is
required to go through an in-person interview with an officer,
as well as provide biometric information such as
fingerprints.\7\ After the interview process, a final
determination of approval or denial is issued.\8\ In addition
to the severity and number of criminal offenses found during
the vetting process, there are a number of other reasons an
applicant for participation in a trusted traveler program will
be denied. These reasons include inadmissibility to the U.S.
under immigration laws, violations of U.S. customs laws,
providing false information on the application or the
application is incomplete or inaccurate, or other reasons found
to be ineligible by CBP, such as not satisfying the CBP low-
risk profile.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-14-483, Trusted Travelers:
Programs Provide Benefits, but Enrollment Process Could Be Strengthened
(May 2014), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663724.pdf.
\6\Id.
\7\Id.
\8\Id.
\9\U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Office of the Inspector General,
Ensuring the Integrity of CBP's Secure Electronic Network For Travelers
Rapid Inspection Program (Feb. 2014), available at https://
www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Mgmt/2014/OIG_14-
32_Feb14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBP Ombudsman reviews all redeterminations and
reinstatements for the four trusted traveler programs
administered by CBP. In recent years, there have been reports
of complaints about the redress process, mostly with the Global
Entry program, which checks criminal records back to during the
applicant's adolescent years and has been criticized for the
length of time the redress process takes.\10\ In contrast,
TSA's Pre-Check program reports that denials and revocations
are rarely contested, accounting for less than one percent of
total applications.\11\ Additionally, TSA contacts the
individual who was rejected and explains the process to seek
reconsideration or redress.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Catharine Hamm, Global Entry Program Turns This Traveler Down,
Then Reconsiders--and here's why, L.A. Times (Feb. 29, 2016), https://
www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-tr-spot-20160228-story.html.
\11\Suzanne Rowan Kelleher, TSA Check, Fewer Than One Percent of
Pre-Check Applicants Get Rejected, Forbes (June 15, 2019), https://
www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2019/06/15/tsa-check-fewer-
than-1-percent-of-precheck-applicants-get-rejected/#6c1a38ef4753.
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there have been a number of independent audits and
reviews of the overall performance of DHS's trusted traveler
programs, reviews of the redress process and reinstatements
into trusted traveler programs have been limited. In May 2014,
GAO conducted the most recent review that incorporated denials
and revocations.\13\ The review found that denial and
revocation rates varied by the type of program, and if it was
the individual's first time applying or if they were renewing
their application.\14\ However, GAO found that there were
significant variations in denial rates across different
enrollment centers and stated this may be due, in part, to a
lack of consistency in the interview process across all
enrollment centers since denials are partially based on the
results of the in-person interviews.\15\ GAO recommended two
actions that CBP take to remedy potential inconsistencies
throughout the interview process, including establishing a
mechanism to track interview questions and applicant
information to help drive consistency across programs, which
remains unaddressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-14-483, Trusted Travelers:
Programs Provide Benefits, but Enrollment Process Could Be Strengthened
(May 2014), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663724.pdf.
\14\Id.
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3675 requires GAO to conduct the first review solely
addressing the Department's trusted traveler program redress
process, reinstatement and reconsideration procedures, and
disqualifying offences, and make recommendations for
improvements.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Representative John Katko (R-NY-24) introduced H.R. 3675 on
July 10, 2019. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Homeland Security. The House Committee on Homeland Security
considered H.R. 3675 at a business meeting on July 17, 2019.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3675 by suspension of
the rules on September 26, 2019.
The Act was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs on October 15, 2019. The Committee
considered H.R. 3675 at a business meeting on March 11, 2020.
During the business meeting, the Act was agreed to without
amendment by a voice vote en bloc. Senators Johnson, Portman,
Lankford, Romney, Scott, Enzi, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan,
Harris, Sinema, and Rosen were present for the vote.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Sec. 1. Short title
This section names the bill as the ``Trusted Traveler
Reconsideration and Restoration Act of 2019''.
Sec. 2. Comptroller general review
Within a year of enactment of this Act, GAO is required to
conduct a review of DHS' trusted traveler programs.
Specifically, GAO is required to report on the extent to which
the Department tracks and monitors data and trends, including
the causes of errors in matching identities where the
adjudication of those cases lead to a reinstatement. GAO is
also required to report on the Department's coordination with
SLTT entities, and other Federal agencies, to address offenses
not included in the Department's redress procedures, but impact
individuals' applications in the trusted traveler programs. In
addition, the report is to provide information on how DHS can
improve the redress process that involves coordination with
SLTT entities, and other Federal agencies, and improvements on
instructions and access for individuals who wish to have their
application reconsidered should there be a disqualifying event.
Finally, GAO is required to provide information on the extent
to which individuals are informed about the reconsideration
procedures regarding enrollment in a trusted traveler program.
Sec. 3. Enrollment redress
This section requires DHS to provide a period of active
enrollment equal to the period in which the individual's
enrollment was revoked during the redress process.
V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2020.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3675, the Trusted
Traveler Reconsideration and Restoration Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Madeleine
Fox.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 3675 would require the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) trusted traveler programs, which expedites the
security process at airports. Using information about the cost
of other GAO studies, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3675
would cost less than $500,000.
On August 6, 2019, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
3675, the Trusted Traveler Reconsideration and Restoration Act
of 2019, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland
Security on July 17, 2019. The two pieces of legislation are
similar, and CBO's estimate of their budgetary effects are the
same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Madeleine Fox.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any
provision of current law, it would not make changes in existing
law within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
[all]