PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 10, 2013
Contract Screener Reform and Accountability Act - Repeals the authority of the Under Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration [TSA]) to waive the requirement that a private screening company be owned and controlled by a U.S. citizen for any company that is a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign-owned corporation that has implemented a foreign ownership, control, or influence mitigation plan approved by the Defense Security Service of the Department of Defense (DOD).
Repeals the requirement that an airport operator, when submitting an application for a private screening company at the airport, to recommend to the Under Secretary which company would best serve the airport's security screening and passenger needs.
Prohibits the Under Secretary from: (1) entering a screening services contract that would allow for a subcontractor to perform such services, or (2) providing funding (for bonuses or other awards) to any private screening company in excess of the amount required for the performance of screening services.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Repeals specified requirements to grant the Under Secretary discretion in whether to approve airport operator applications to have screening operations carried out by a private company.
Allows the Under Secretary to take up to 270 days to award a screening contract to a qualified screening company after approving the application.
Directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to provide to the Under Secretary guidance on how to analyze the total annual cost incurred by the federal government with respect to screening services by private companies. Requires the Under Secretary to use such guidance to identify costs incurred by the government from overseeing the performance of private screening companies, compared with costs incurred at airports using federal personnel for passenger and baggage screening.
Requires any airport operator using contract passenger and baggage screeners employed by a private screening company to display signs prominently to notify the flying public that screening is conducted by contract screening personnel and not by federal personnel.
Requires the Under Secretary to inform any airport operator opting to discontinue screening by a qualified private company in favor of screening by federal government personnel on how transition to TSA screening services will be carried out.
Directs the Under Secretary to develop and implement a system to enhance monitoring of private screening company performance by the contracting officer overseeing each respective company.
Requires a private screening company that provides screening services at an airport to report to the Under Secretary each security breach at that airport.
Requires the Comptroller General to conduct annual covert testing of airports where private screening companies do the screening.
Makes it a condition for the Under Secretary on contracting with a private screening company to provide screening at an airport that neither the private screening company, nor its parent company, if any, has knowingly compromised any covert security testing, especially by notifying its employees that it was occurring.
Directs the Under Secretary to require each private screening company to provide all its employees with annual training for the proper handling of all sensitive information, including sensitive security information.
Adds to the qualifications of a qualified private screening company that it will provide the right of first refusal of employment to the federal government personnel who performed screening services at an airport before it was awarded the screening services contract.
Requires each private screening company with a contract for screening services to provide the Under Secretary each month with: (1) information on retention rates of screeners and supervisory personnel it employs at an airport, and (2) a detailed description of adverse employment actions taken against any of such screeners or supervisory personnel.
Directs the Under Secretary to establish a process by which any person may report problems, deficiencies, waste, or vulnerabilities with respect to screening services provided by a private company. Prohibits a private screening company from discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment because of such reporting, or related testimony to Congress, or any refusal to engage in any unlawful practice.
People & committees
Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.697 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.697 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.697 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.697 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.