Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) online

private sector security professionals to control crime.

It establishes a 12-member Commission coniposed of Members of
the House and Senate and representatives of public law enforce-
ment agencies and the private security industry. Financing of the
Commission and its activities will come from corporate foundation
and individual contributions. There are no appropriations of Fed-
eral funds involved.

After 2 years, the Commission will submit to Congress and the
Attorney General a final report concerning methods and activities
that promote cooperation between public sector law enforcement
and private sector security professionals, including new or changed
procedures, rules and regulations.

And it represents, this bill does, an effort on the part of this Con-
gress to tap the underutilized resources in a fight against crime,
and I think that, quite frankly, the private security sector has a
great deal to offer in that regard.

Those are the three bills. And as I said, as Mr. Schumer has
done, I have not given a statement completely on each one but
summarized them because we expect the Department of Justice to
comment on them as well as on all the bills here today when their
testimony comes.

Mr. Heineman, did you wish to make an opening comment?

I understood that you did, but perhaps not at this point.

Mr. Heineman. Not at this point.

Mr. McCoLLUM. All right.

Then I think we should go to our witnesses, unless somebody else
has a really critical thing.

We have Members sitting out here.

I think Mr. Martinez and Chrysler were next in order, or listed
here.

Mr. Hee^man. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Yes.

Mr. Heineman. Is this the time to introduce my bill or was that
just for an opening statement?

Mr. McCoLLUM. Well, I think you can make your comments on
your bill at this point.

Mr. Heineman. OK.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Either way you prefer.

Now, we have got Mr. Martinez and Mr. Chrysler waiting out
here. Maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to recognize you
after they have had their chance, and then we can move on so we
don't hold them up. I think that is probably a good idea.

Mr. Heineman. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCollum. Mr. Martinez, I think you are next in the order
out here.

STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCollum. And I think Bob, Mr. Barr, has had a role to
play in this particular bill.



64

You introduced it originally, is that correct, in some way?

Mr. Barr. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Do you want to make a comment and then Mr.
Martinez, or how would you like to do that?

Mr. Bark. I would be honored to have my colleague Mr. Mar-
tinez, so we don't hold him up, make his statement and then I can
follow with my statement at the appropriate time, Mr, Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. So everybody knows the order, Mr. Chrysler,
you are next in line, and then we have got — ^right, we have got a
regular line up here. If you don't know what it is, check with staff.
They are right here.

Aerin is right over there, if you are waiting to find out where you
are on the list.

Mr. Martinez, you are recognized.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Barr.

Mr. Barr did introduce this bill in this session of Congress. This
is a similar bill to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress.

I am very grateful for the hearing here today. I wasn't able to
achieve that hearing in the last Congress, other than the hearings
that were held in my own subcommittee as joint jurisdiction.

But I join with Mr. Bob Barr in support of this bill, H.R. 2092,
which I believe would achieve a legislative objective that I have
supported for a long time. For several years, we have been working
to enact legislation to help provide assurances to the public that
the security guards they see at work, at the grocery store, in the
mall or on the street are well-qualified and trained and, more im-
portantly, that there is not someone there with a uniform that has
a criminal record.

H.R. 2092 will enable us to do that, I believe, without really put-
ting a mandate on the States and without placing an inordinate
burden on the private security industry. Private security has actu-
ally, in a way, sponsored this bill.

In the 103d Congress, the House Education and Labor Sub-
committee on Human Resources, conducted 2 days of hearings on
a bill similar to this one, and what we heard at those hearings is
that this bill is wanted, first of all, by the State regulatory agen-
cies, and by the private security industry, because they recognize
the public danger posed by inadequately trained security officers.

We have learned fi*om witnesses such as Monica Worth who was
attacked in a mall, where there were security guards unable to
help her, the devastating effects of inadequate background checks
and training.

Now, those stories have been repeated and amplified in television
and news exposes and articles from Los Angeles to New York. One
of the most famous incidents was that of the gentleman — a security
guard in Texas who, while in uniform, carrying a gun, and wearing
nis badge, attacked and killed a woman and was subsequently ap-
prehended, only to find out that he had a criminal record in Louisi-
ana which would not have allowed him to hold that job, yet he was
able to move to Texas and get a job.

This bill is supported by the National Association of Security
Companies, the National Armored Car Association and the Na-
tional Association of State Security and Investigative Regulators.



65

This is commonsense legislation, narrowly focused to meet a spe-
cific need, to provide State regulators with an expeditious way to
obtain multistate criminal histories on those who would be selected
to private security.

When I first learned how long it takes to secure a response to
local fingerprint checks, I was appalled. The average career tenure
of a private security officer with one employee is, I am told, less
than 2 years. You have to understand that these are mobile work-
ers. Yet in some States, it takes as much as 18 months or more
to secure a response as to whether the guard has a criminal record
or not. That is simply too long.

This legislation will enable the States to cut that turnaround
time down to that experienced by the banking industry and the
parimutuel betting industry. Certainly if they can have that con-
venience at their nands, I think the security industry ought to as
well. And that is just a matter of weeks.

The bill also contains a Sense of Congress Resolution urging the
States to require these background checks and to ensure tnat em-
ployers provide training appropriate to the job the security guard
will be doing. The bill does not mandate action on the part of the
States, but it does follow closely the suggestions of the State Regu-
lators Association as to what is appropriate to be included in the
State law.

The Attorney General cannot provide expedited fingerprint check
responses without this bill. This bill is necessary for them to do
that. I hope that all the members of this subcommittee will support
Mr. Barr's bill, and I thank you for allowing me to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]



66

Prepared Statement of Hon. Matthew G. Martinez, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California

THANK YOU MR- CHAIRMAN

I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK
MR. SCHUMER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND YOU, CHAIRMAN MC COLLUM,
FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT BILL UP TODAY
AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY.

I JOIN MY COLLEAGUE, BOB BARR, REPUBLICAN
OF GEORGIA, IN BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT OF H. R.
2092, WHICH WOULD ACHIEVE A LEGISLATIVE
OBJECTIVE THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED FOR A LONG
TIME.

FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I HAVE BEEN WORKING TO
ENACT LEGISLATION TO HELP PROVIDE
ASSURANCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE SECURITY
GUARD THEY SEE AT WORK, AT THE GROCERY, IN
THE MALL, OR ON THE STREET, IS WELL
QUALIFIED, TRAINED AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY,
NOT A CRIMINAL POSING AS A SECURITY GUARD.



67



H.R. 2092 WILL ENABLE US TO DO THAT - WITHOUT
PUTTING A MANDATE ON THE STATES, AND
WITHOUT PLACING INORDINATE BURDENS ON THE
PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY.

IN THE 103RD CONGRESS, THE HOUSE EDUCATION
AND LABOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN
RESOURCES, UNDER MY CHAIRMANSHIP,
CONDUCTED TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS ON A BILL
SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.

WHAT WE HEARD AT THOSE HEARINGS IS THAT
THIS BILL IS WANTED BY THE STATE REGULATORY
AGENCIES AND BY THE PRIVATE SECURITY
E^DUSTRY BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THE
PUBLIC DANGER POSED BY INADEQUATELY
TRAINED AND VETTED SECURITY OFFICERS.

WE LEARNED FROM WITNESSES SUCH AS MONICA
WORTH, THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF
INADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND
TRAINING.

THOSE STORIES HAVE BEEN REPEATED AND
AMPLIFIED IN TELEVISION NEWS EXPOSES AND
ARTICLES FROM LOS ANGELES TO NEW YORK.



68



THIS BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SECURITY COMPANIES, THE
NATIONAL ARMORED CAR ASSOCIATION, AND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE SECURITY AND
INVESTIGATIVE REGULATORS.

THIS IS COMMON-SENSE LEGISLATION NARROWLY
FOCUSED TO MEET A SPECIFIC NEED-TO PROVIDE
STATE REGULATORS WITH AN EXPEDITIOUS WAY
TO OBTAIN MULTI-STATE CRIMINAL HISTORIES ON
THOSE WHO WOULD BE SELECTED TO PROVIDE
PRIVATE SECURITY.

WHEN I FIRST LEARNED HOW LONG IT TAKES TO
SECURE A RESPONSE TO A LOCAL FINGERPRINT
CHECK, I WAS APPALLED.

THE AVERAGE CAREER TENURE OF A PRIVATE
SECURITY OFFICER WITH ONE EMPLOYEE IS, I AM
TOLD, LESS THAN 2 YEARS - THESE ARE MOBILE
WORKERS.

YET, IN SOME STATES IT TAKES 18 MONTHS OR
MORE TO SECURE A RESPONSE AS TO WHETHER
THE GUARD HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD.

THIS LEGISLATION WILL ENABLE THE STATES TO
CUT THAT TURN AROUND TIME DOWN TO THAT
EXPERIENCED BY THE BANKING INDUSTRY AND
THE PARI-MUTUEL BETTING INDUSTRY - A



69
MATTER OF WEEKS.



THE BILL ALSO CONTAINS A SENSE OF THE
CONGRESS RESOLUTION URGING THE STATES TO
REQUIRE THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND TO
ENSURE THAT EMPLOYERS PROVIDE TRAINING
APPROPRIATE TO THE JOB.

THE BILL DOES NOT MANDATE ACTION ON THE
PART OF THE STATES, BUT IT DOES FOLLOW
CLOSELY THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE STATE
REGULATORS' ASSOCLITION AS TO WHAT IS
APPROPRIATE TO BE INCLUDED IN A STATE LAW.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT PROVIDE
EXPEDITED FINGER PRINT CHECK RESPONSES
WITHOUT THIS BILL, AND I HOPE THAT ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL SUPPORT
MR- BARR'S BILL.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.



70

Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez,

Do we have questions on this bill?

Mr. Barr, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Barr. I do have a statement.

Would it be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, or would
you prefer to defer that?

Mr. McCoLLUM. It would be appropriate, depending upon the
length of it.

If you wish to summarize it now and introduce it into the record
fine, or if you want to hold it back until after the Members who
are sitting here testify on their bills, it is your choice.

Mr. Barr. Why don't I ask unanimous consent to have my state-
ment placed in the record.

I hope that all Members do have a copy of it. And perhaps the
most important document is a chart that I hope all Members have,
showing a side-by-side of the current very cumbersome and ex-
tremely lengthy svstem, whereby applicants for security positions —
as Mr. Martinez had said, these people are clothed with authority
and engage in activities that very legitimately place a life and limb
at risk. We want to make sure that we have the very best people
for those positions.

The bill does not, as Mr. Martinez said, mandate anything. It is
not an unfunded mandate. The fees will be paid when the applica-
tions are batched and sent up to the FBI. It will not — I do not be-
lieve it will result in any vast increase. The same people are going
to be applying.

We think that actually it may result in fewer because the system
is streamlined. There will be greater certainty that applicants
know — will result from this streamline process, and I think that it
will give all of us out in our private lives, Mr. Chairman, a greater
sense of security, knowing that there is not going to be delays that
typically rim up to 18 months, and really have the tremendous po-
tential for mishaps in the current cumbersome system.

We are very mindful that we do not want to overburden the FBI
and our other Federal agencies. This will not do so. It is not an un-
funded mandate, Mr. Chairman. It is simply a method that we be-
lieve brings the security industry in line witn the reality today, and
that is we have far too many out there, people wearing private se-
curity badges. They want to do a good joD. The companies want to
do a good job, and this will enable them more efficiently to make
sure by streamlining the process whereby these applications and
fingerprints are cleared through the FBI.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:]



71

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Barr, a Representative in Congress From

THE State of Georgia

MR. CHAIRMAN, COLLEAGUES, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
2092, THE PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT TODAY. I
INTRODUCED THIS LEGISLATION, ALONG WITH OUR COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN
MARTY MARTINEZ. TO HELP ASSURE THAT SECURITY OFFICERS UNDERGO
THOROUGH AND TIMELY CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. THE BILL PROPOSES
AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE, SIMILAR TO THOSE IN USE BY THE FINANCIAL
AND PARIMUTUEL INDUSTRIES TODAY, TO MATCH THE FINGERPRINTS OF JOB
APPLICANTS AGAINST RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION.

GROWING NEED

THERE ARE MORE THAN 1.5 MILLION PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS IN THE
UNITED STATES. THE SECURITY INDUSTRY IS DYNAMIC, AND THERE IS AN
ONGOING NEED TO HIRE QUALIFIED PERSONNEL, AS VACANCIES OCCTTR .
THOROUGH REVIEWS OF JOB APPLICANTS' BACKGROUNDS ARE CRITICAL TO
EMPLOYERS, BOTH TO PROTECT ASSETS AND ASSURE PROTECTION FOR THE
PUBLIC. EMPLOYERS MUST DEPEND ON STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION. THEY NEED THIS INFORMATION PROMPTLY,
BUT UNDER EXISTING LAW, THE PROCESS CAN TAKE FROM THREE TO 18
MONTHS.



72



CURRENT PROCESS

THIRTY NINE STATES NOW REQUIRE SECURITY CONTRACTORS TO CONDUCT
BACKGROUND CHECKS OF THEIR PERSONNEL. USUALLY REQUIRING FINGERPRINT
MATCHES. WHEN THE STATE REQUIRES A REVIEW OF FBI RECORDS, A
CUMBERSOME, UNWIELDY PROCESS IS USED, LEADING TO THE LENGTHY DELAYS
I'VE DESCRIBED. TODAY, AN EMPLOYER MUST SUBMIT PRINTS TO THE STATE
POLICE AGENCY, WHICH FORWARDS THEM TO THE BUREAU, WHERE THEY ARE
PROCESSED. THE "RAP SHEET" IS THEN SENT BACK TO THE POLICE AGENCY
WHICH THEN SENDS THESE RESULTS TO THE STATE'S AGENCY CHARGED WITH
REGULATING THE INDUSTRY. THAT AGENCY THEN MUST JUDGE THE FITNESS
OF THE APPLICANT FOR EMPLOYMENT AND A DECISION IS MADE. AT THAT
POINT, IF A PERMIT IS ISSUED IT IS SENT TO THE APPLICANT.

SYSTEM BOGS DOWN

THE EXISTING SYSTEM FOR PRIVATE SECURITY EMPLOYERS TO LEARN WHETHER
AN APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY DISQUALIFIES THAT PERSON IS OFTEN
CUMBERSOME AND TIME-CONSUMING. THE TYPICAL TRANSACTION PROVIDES
MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PROCESS TO BOG DOWN. WITH STATE
AGENCIES COMMONLY STRETCHED THIN BY TIGHT BUDGETS, THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR STAFF TO FORWARD AN APPLICANT'S FINGERPRINTS TO THE
FBI SOMETIMES CONSUMES MONTHS.

STILL FURTHER DELAYS CAN OCCUR AFTER THE BUREAU COMPLETES THE CHECK
AND RETURNS THE RESULTS TO THE STATE. AS RELATED EARLIER, IN MANY
STATES THE RESULTS OF THE BACKGROUND REVIEW GO TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT



73



AGENCY, THEN TO A SEPARATE REGULATORY AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR
SECURITY OFFICERS, LENGTHENING THE PROCESS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS
THAT IN SOME INSTANCES. AN EMPLOYER MAY WAIT MORE THAN A YEAR
BEFORE LEARNING WHETHER AN APPLICANT HAS A SERIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WERE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS UNDER PL 92-544
TO OBTAIN CRIMINAL RECORDS DIRECTLY FROM THE FBI . UNDER THAT
SYSTEM, THE AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION SCREENS FINGERPRINT CARDS
RECEIVED FROM BANKS FOR LEGIBILITY AND FORWARDS THEM TO THE FBI FOR
ANALYSIS. THE "RAP SHEET" IS THEN RETURNED DIRECTLY TO THE BANK.
UNDER THIS SYSTEM, THE ABA HAS INDICATED THE PROCESS IS REDUCED TO
ABOUT 2 BUSINESS DAYS.

CONGRESS CREATED ANOTHER "EXPRESS LANE" FOR OBTAINING CRIMINAL
RECORD INFORMATION WITH ENACTMENT OF PL 100-413, THE "PARIMUTUEL
LICENSING SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 1988." THIS IS A SIMILAR PROCESS
TO THE ONE USED BY THE ABA, BUT THE "RAP SHEET" IS SENT BACK TO THE
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY, NOT THE EMPLOYER. THIS SYSTEM
APPROXIMATES THAT PROPOSED IN H.R. 2092.

SECURITY OFFICER CHECKS

OUR BILL WILL AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NAME AN ASSOCIATION
TO AGGREGATE FINGERPRINT CARDS, SCREEN THEM FOR LEGIBILITY, AND
THEN FORWARD THEM TO THE FBI . THE RESULTS OF THE RECORDS SEARCH



74



WOULD THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE OFFICIALS BY
SENDING THE RECORDS TO STATE OFFICIALS, RATHER THAN TO EMPLOYERS,
WE AVOID POTENTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY RIGHTS OF JOB APPLICANTS.
BY ELIMINATING SEVERAL STEPS FROM THE PROCESS, THIS SYSTEM SHOULD
RESULT IN A FAR MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM. THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN
ENDORSED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE SECURITY AND
INVESTIGATIVE REGULATORS . AS UNDER CtJRRENT LAW, FEES WILL BE
ASSESSED TO COMPENSATE THE FBI FOR ITS COSTS. THIS WILL NOT BE A
CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RESOLUTION

THE BILL ALSO CONTAINS A "SENSE OF THE CONGRESS" RESOLUTION URGING
STATES TO ESTABLISH LICENSING PROGRAMS FOR SECXmiTY COMPANIES. IT
URGES THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS BE CONDUCTED AND THAT SECURITY
OFFICERS BE TRAINED. IT INCUDES ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATES FOR THE
STATES. STATES ARE NOT REOUIRED TO PARTICIP ATE IN ANY PART OF THE
PROPOSED BILL.

I tJRGE YOU TO JOIN WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2092- I ' D BE PLEASED
TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE-



75

Mr. McCoLLUM, You are quite welcome. Your statement will be
admitted in the record, without objection,

Mr. Martinez, I just have one question in mind, and that has to
do with the apparent opposition of the Fraternal Order of Police to
this bill. Are you familiar with that? And could you comment on
why we should go ahead with the bill regardless of their opposi-
tion?

Mr. Martinez. Well, I am not sure that they have that opposi-
tion anymore. They did initially because they felt that somehow or
another, with the training that the security guards would receive,
they would be replacing sworn officers. Well, we have been able, I
think, to convince them by the structure of the bill that that nec-
essarily wouldn't happen.

One little community somewhere in the Northeast had done that,
let go their police department, which was a small police depart-
ment of maybe three or four officers, and then hired a private com-
pany to do the policing. It didn't work out, and they subsequently
went back to the sworn officers.

I think that that probably allayed some of the fears that they
had initially, and the last word I had from them — and there are
some people that interact with that association here today all the
time; you might check with them — ^that they didn't have that oppo-
sition anymore.

Mr. McCollum. Well, the reason I raised it is, we have a letter
dated March 6 to me from the national president expressing res-
ervation. We will give you a copy of it and let you maybe talk with
them about it. I will ask staff to make sure you get a copy of that
letter. I don't know if that is the current thing but that is just yes-
terday. So presumably they still have some reservations on it.

[The letter follows:]




76



FRATERNAL ORDER OF POUCE i

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM A

309 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE. N E • WASHINGTON DC 20002 ^>rT: t=f=V^/r^
PHONE (202) 547-8189 FAX (202) 547-8190 •* " '•• '-^^ «-



GILBERT O OALLEGOS
NATIONAL PRESIDENT

BERNARD M TEODORSKI

NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT

CHAIRMAN NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE



March 6. 1996



The Honorable William McCoUum
Chairman. Subcommittee on Crime
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washmgton. DC 20515

Dear Chairman McCoUum:

On behalf of the 270.000 members of the National Fraternal Order of Police. I want to strongly
state our opposition to H.R. 2092. a bill which would facilitate reliance on pnvate sccunty firms
rather than on the professional law enforcement officers employed by state and local
governments.

This issue first arose m the 103rd Congress when Congressman Matthew Martinez,
unsuccessfully offered it as an amendment to the ommbus crime legislation signed into law on
September 13. 1993. As we stated at that tune, there are several reasons for our opposition.
First, the reliance on pnvate secunty forces creates an illusion of safely not supported by the
'kills, abilities, and track records of pnvate security finns. Second, secunty firms will never
have the same public mandate, or the same dedication, as professional law enforcement officers.
Finally, supplantmg real police with pnvate secunty guards is at vanance with the off stated goal
of both the Democratic Admimstraiion and the Republican Congress: to maximize the numbers
of trained law enforcement professionals on the streets to protect the public.

We have serious reservations about the wisdom of commissioning armed groups of civilians to
enforce the law - whether they are pnvate security forces, or citizens' groups, or unsanctioned
militias. We believe the enforcement of laws should be left to the governments which enact
them, and to the professioiuls employed by. trained by. and responsible to. those governments.



77



page 2



We urge you to oppose this well intentioned but dangerous legislation. Law enforcement should
be undertaken for the public good, irot for private profit.

Sincerely,



}^