In response to the events of September 11, the Senate voted 100-0
to make fundamental changes to our aviation security system. One
of the most critical safety provisions in the Senate bill, the Aviation
Security Act (S. 1447), would require all security screeners to be
federal employees under the direction of the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
Unfortunately, ideological Republicans in the House of
Representatives - with support from the White House - want to
maintain the status quo by continuing to permit private contractors to
screen baggage at U.S. airports. Democrats and Senate
Republicans believe private contractors' negligence and
well-documented security lapses are not acceptable, and are
working in the conference committee to replace the current
ineffective system with a reliable, professional system that will
enhance aviation security.
Problems with the current screening process. The performance
of screeners employed by private contractors has been subjected to
great scrutiny since September 11, although the general
ineffectiveness of the current screening process has been
well-known for several years. The Department of Transportation's
Office of the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office
(GAO) have both issued scathing reports critical of screeners in
recent years. Some of the highlights of these reports include:
Lack of pre-employment testing. More attention needs to be
paid to a screener's aptitude for the job. As required by
legislation enacted last year, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) had planned to issue guidelines for
pre-employment testing of screeners, but these were never
released.
- Ineffective training. On-the-job training of screeners is often done by
supervisors who have been screeners for six months or less. According to the
GAO, 90 percent of all screeners at any given airport checkpoint have less than
six months experience.
- Poor performance. The detection rates of screeners at the nation's largest
airports have decreased. In 1988, FAA tests indicated a 13 percent failure rate.
Although the exact detection rates for more recent years is classified, the failure
rate has continued to increase.
- High turnover rates. One of the root problems with the current system is the
high turnover rate of airport screeners. The average annual turnover rate in the
United States is 126 percent. At every foreign country that the GAO investigated,
the annual turnover rate of airport screeners was less than 50 percent, and in
Belgium it was just 4 percent.
The private contracting system has failed. Last year, Argenbright Security Inc., the
nation's largest airport security firm, was fined $1.55 million and placed on three years
probation for failing to comply with FAA standards. In October, DOJ filed another action
against Argenbright because the screening company was not living up to the terms of
its probation.
The contracting out of our national security to private firms that continually betray the
public trust is no longer an option. As the Argenbright case demonstrates, direct
accountability over screeners is required, not indirect oversight over a contractor who
allegedly hires, trains, and checks the background of screeners.
New screening lapses at airports. Argenbright came under criticism last week for
lapses by security screeners at O'Hare's International Airport in Chicago, where a man
made it to gate with seven knives, a stun gun and a can of pepper spray in his carry-on
bag ("Two cleavers found in bag after screening," Chicago Tribune, November 14,
2001). On November 13, Argenbright had new screening lapses at O'Hare and Boston
Logan airports. A chef from Hong Kong was being held by police after it was
discovered by airline personnel that his carry-on baggage at O'Hare contained two
meat cleavers ("Two cleavers found in bag after screening," Chicago Tribune,
November 14, 2001). Also, an Argenbright security guard at Logan left her checkpoint
unattended for several minutes causing hundreds of passengers to be forced out of a
gate area to be re-screened. ("Two cleavers found in bag after screening," Chicago
Tribune, November 14, 2001).
Israeli aviation security system is a model. Israel does not contract out any of its
security functions. Airport and airline security are handled by employees who work
directly for the government under the Israel Security Agency (ISA) - a government
agency. All training, supervision, and control over these government employees who
screen passengers and their carry-on and checked baggage is handled by ISA.
Employees who work for ISA in a security-related position, such as checkpoint
screening, receive extensive background investigations and are issued security
clearances.
Broad support for federalizing airport screening. There is overwhelming support for
federalizing airport screening; among the groups supporting S. 1447 are: the
Association of Flight Attendants, Air Line Pilots Association, Air Transport Association,
Association of Professional Flight Attendants, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Business
Travel Coalition and Consumers Union.
Democratic Approach Provides Solutions to Troubled Baggage
Screening System
|
PROBLEM
|
SOLUTION
|
Senate bill (S. 1447)
|
House bill (H.R. 3150)
|
|
Insufficient
supervision and
ineffective training
|
Provide salary
scale so that
supervisors are
encouraged to
remain on the job.
Increase
evaluations of
supervisors.
Better human
resources training
for supervisors.
|
Creates stepped-scale
based on management
responsibilities and
seniority.
|
Wage scale and
management decisions
left to low-bid
contractor.
|
|
Inadequate
screening of
employees
|
Federal
employees with
training mandated
in legislation.
|
Federal employees with
training mandated in
legislation.
|
Pre-selection testing
and increased
on-the-job training by
private companies.
|
|
Poor performance
incentives
|
Better wages,
benefits. Provide
sense of
ownership of job
through increased
awareness of
national security
implications.
Citizenship
requirement.
|
Higher morale -
Screeners are civil
servants, serving as
front line of nation's
defense.
Sets forth citizenship
requirement for
employment. Training
and compensation is
commensurate with
federal law
enforcement. Incentives
for career advancement.
|
Low wages and high
turnover would probably
continue to contribute to
poor screener morale.
|
|
High turnover
|
Better wages,
benefits.
|
Provides government
salary and benefits.
|
Would not increase
wages and benefits.
|
