[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10539-S10546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FEDERALIZATION OF AVIATION SECURITY

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Hollings and 
Senator McCain for their hard work and diligence in getting the 
aviation security bill passed this evening. I congratulate them for 
this accomplishment.
  Let me also thank and commend my colleague from Montana, Senator 
Burns, for his contribution to this bill. I cosponsored and I spoke 
earlier today in support of his amendment to put certain aspects of 
aviation security in the hands of the Justice Department.
  I support this effort because the Justice Department is in the law 
enforcement and security business. The Department has a law enforcement 
mindset, a security mindset, and that is the mindset, a way of 
thinking, that is essential to making sure our airports and aircraft 
are safe and our people are secure.
  Having said that, the bill we passed today, though it has some very 
good and very important provisions, also has, in my opinion, a very 
significant problem. That problem is the bill as currently written 
mandates all security functions at the Nation's major airports be 
handled exclusively by Federal employees. I believe this is a problem 
because this provision does not allow for the hiring flexibility 
necessary to protect the traveling public. How can this Congress say 
with absolute certainty that a 100-percent federalized security force 
will in every case do the best job in carrying out security measures? I 
do not think we really can say that.
  The reality is we do not know right now. Yes, we do know we need the 
Federal Government to be in charge at our airports, and this bill, 
thank Heavens, does that. I also believe strongly that flexibility is 
key to determining the best makeup of the security workforce. 
Flexibility in hiring between Federal workers and private contractors 
is absolutely essential.
  At the same time, we need the Government to establish and enforce 
higher, more stringent security standards. That is clear. The 
Government must set the security standards. The Government must be in 
charge. The Government must assess the risks, set the standards, and 
then test compliance with those standards. The standards, yes, must be 
strict and they must be tough and they must be comprehensive.
  The public demands we do this, and the public is right. That does not 
necessarily mean a 100-percent federalized security workforce at our 
airports is in every case going to be the best security; that somehow a 
Federal takeover and full Government presence at our airports will 
restore the public's confidence in air travel. Rather, higher standards 
and enforcement of those standards by our Government will give the 
public back its trust in the system.
  There are certainly gaps in our current airport security system. The 
way security works now is the airlines that have the biggest presence 
at a given airport usually are the ones responsible for hiring contract 
security employees. Not surprisingly, the jobs normally go to the 
lowest bidders. It should come as no shock that current security is not 
what it should be. Screeners of baggage are low-skilled, low-paid 
employees. Turnover is subsequently often as high as 100 percent in a 
given year, with the average employee today staying no longer than 6 
months in that job.

  The fact is, unless there is accountability, unless there is a way to 
ensure the security personnel are doing their jobs, we cannot protect 
the traveling public. If private sector personnel are not doing the 
job, we will and can cancel their contract. It is that simple. They 
have a very real and very practical incentive to do a good job.
  Further, it is difficult for the Government to be in the business of 
``regulating security'' and carrying out its actual operation. Other 
nations around the world don't do it that way. Israel, with one of the 
best security records and one of the most dangerous terrorist-ridden 
parts of the world, does not do it that way. They do not do what this 
bill mandates.
  Most nations in Europe had total federalization, and now they have 
changed to a mixed system. Most of the countries in Europe, as the 
chart indicates, contract out well over a majority of the security 
operations while the government maintains the regulatory role.
  The average Federal private personnel split in airport security 
across Europe is 85-percent private employees, mostly handling 
screening; 15 percent are government employees, performing the main law 
enforcement duties. The chart clearly shows this. European passenger 
screening is the responsibility of the government, not the airlines, 
but the European governments, in turn, have the flexibility to use 
either civil servants or private contractors to do the job. This works 
and it works very well. It is a public-private mix.
  A recent FAA study found airport screeners in an unnamed European 
country were twice as likely as their American counterparts to spot 
dangerous items in scanned baggage. Additionally, in European airports 
they have a 2.5 times greater personnel outlay than in the United 
States. They pay more. The cost is 2\1/2\ times for security in Europe 
than in the United States. We see the results.
  The fact is, privately contracted security personnel in Europe are 
seen as

[[Page S10546]]

professionals. They take their jobs very seriously and the public 
respects that. It is no secret that there is a perception problem at 
home at our airports about the image of the current airport screening 
workforce. I understand that. But the way to repair that image is by 
setting better standards, repair that by raising the bar.
  Like the U.S. Marshals I spoke about earlier today, the men and women 
tasked with protecting our Federal buildings and our courtrooms, we 
respect them. They do a fine job. The Marshal Service is able to do 
this great job largely because it sets high standards and then 
contracts out many of the functions of its security in the protection 
of our courtrooms and courthouses. For example, the Federal Marshal 
Service hires and manages about 3,300 contracted court security 
officers, CSOs. They are mostly, as we would expect, former law 
enforcement personnel who assist with the court security. They get the 
job done. They do it well. That blend works very well. The Marshal 
Service stays in charge, they are the professionals, but they contract 
out a portion of what they do.
  There is no question we need to pay people better. We need to train 
them better, and we need to make this a professionalized workforce, one 
that gets respect and reflects the importance of the work they do. We 
need to think about things differently. The first step in doing so 
involves improving and enhancing security measures at our airports. 
That means we need better standards; we need better enforcement.
  I hope by the time this bill reaches the President, we will have 
given the executive branch more flexibility. What we really need to do 
is to say to the executive branch and through our legislation, set 
higher standards. Then give them the job. Whether that is the Justice 
Department, the FAA, give the administration the job to get that job 
done and then hold them accountable.
  When you give someone a job, when you say you are going to hold them 
accountable and when you set high standards but give them the 
obligation to get the job done, it only makes sense to allow them some 
flexibility in deciding how best to get that job done. Judge them by 
the results but give them the flexibility.
  I hope we will look at this again, and by the time this bill finally 
reaches the President of the United States, we will give the President 
the tools he needs to get the job done for our security.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________