"That's a step in the right direction," said Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, but he said he plans to go forward with his bill, which is scheduled to be considered by the House on Friday. "This legislation is going to protect people's dignity, and it's an effort to protect their freedom to travel."

Sen. Dan Patrick, the Houston Republican carrying the measure in the Senate, said backers' goal has been for the TSA "to listen to the people and address this policy."

"If fighting the federal government with our legislation resulted in this change, then that is our first victory," Patrick said by email. "They now need to end this procedure for the remaining 2 percent of the flying public who could still be subjected to it."

TSA said in a statement that planned changes regarding pat-downs would "give security officers more options for resolving screening anomalies with young children" and that it is working to implement the decision in airports.

Spokesman Luis Casa­nova said TSA has had a "modified pat-down" for children under 12 and that Administrator John Pistole is talking about further changes. Casanova said the process is being designed and would be implemented "in the very near future" but could give no more details.

"This decision will ultimately reduce - though not eliminate - pat-downs of children," the TSA statement said.

Wording is critical

The Texas legislation, as drafted, would make it a crime of official oppression if federal employees perform a search that involves touching a person's private parts without probable cause to believe the person has committed an offense.

The bill died in the regular legislative session in the wake of warnings from federal officials that it would conflict with federal law and could force flight cancellations if the safety of passengers and crew could not be assured.

Gov. Rick Perry added the measure, which has strong backing from tea party activists, to the Legislature's special session agenda. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst asked the state attorney general's office for guidance to ensure the measure is in line with the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

The attorney general's office suggested wording to make clear that only federal agents could be subject to prosecution if they violate travelers' constitutional rights.

Simpson said he planned to incorporate that change and to reword the standard from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" that someone has committed an offense.

Dan Rodriguez, a professor who specializes in state and federal constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin, said the bill as originally drafted would violate the Constitution because the federal government has clear authority over interstate transportation.

Changing the bill as advised by the attorney general to address constitutional questions would make the legislation "wholly irrelevant" except as a symbolic statement, since someone whose constitutional rights are violated already would have a cause of action against the government, Rodriguez said.

With those changes, he said, "It's no longer an unconstitutional statute. It's just a statute that really has no important, practical purpose."

Simpson disagreed, citing his overall view of the pat-downs: "We don't believe that touching private parts without reasonable suspicion or probable cause is constitutional."

TSA response

TSA officials, in a statement earlier this week, said the agency is monitoring the Texas legislation. "Americans expect the federal government to use effective methods to keep the traveling public safe from evolving threats - no matter what state they happen to travel in," the officials said.

"We will carefully review the bill that the legislature brings forward," the statement continued. "Should a bill pass that limits the ability of TSA and its employees to perform its responsibilities and jeopardizes the safety of the public, we will take whatever legal action is appropriate to ensure travelers are safe when they fly from Texas or any other state."

pfikac@express-news.net