David Price: “the amendment, as the gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the number of aviation screeners.…”

“the amendment, as the gentleman has stated, would impose a statutory cap of 45,000 on the number of aviation screeners. I'm reluctantly opposed to this, because under the Committee mark, we fund considerably fewer than that amount, that number. We fund only 43,688 screeners. So we're nowhere close to the statutory cap that the gentleman would impose. The budget is what really controls how many screeners TSA can fund, as 53 percent of TSA's aviation security budget goes to screener salaries and benefits. Now, I agree with the gentleman that our goal should be to provide more efficient explosive detection systems, ones that rely less on humans and more on machines that identify possible threats. Instead of the cap, I think a better way to provide the funding for additional explosive detection systems for passengers and carry on baggage and checked baggage and air cargo is to fund those systems adequately. And the bill before us does that. It has $251 million more than the President's request for these systems. To make sure that DHS spends funding for better detection systems, we've withheld funding from a key asset, namely, their new headquarters building, until the Department submits an expenditure plan for checkpoint and explosive detection systems. We do believe that this will provide a rather powerful incentive for TSA to become less people dependent and more technology driven in the near term.”