[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H6784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        PRIVATE-PUBLIC CONTROL OF AVIATION WORKFORCE WORKS BEST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it seems that one of the continuing 
objections to the upcoming legislation that is dealing with aviation 
security is the whole question of the federalization of the employee 
workforce at the airport. I rise today in opposition to total airport 
workforce federalization, and I am here to convince my colleagues of 
the same. Mr. Speaker, in general, foreign governments provide an 
average of 10 to 15 percent of security personnel, while the private 
sector provides the remaining security personnel.
  I would like to share my experience in coming up here on United 
Airlines. It was Monday afternoon and I had advanced through the ticket 
counter and the x-ray machine where both my carry-on and myself was 
inspected. The flight attendant and another employee of United Airlines 
politely detained me. It seems that a pair of trimming scissors which I 
carry in a small manicure kit had been detected with the metal 
detector. They asked, of course, permission to open up my bag, which I 
gave them, and they asked me also to turn on my laptop computer. They 
proceeded to investigate my person, in the form of hand metal detection 
and a pat-down, and finally they permitted me to board but, of course, 
not before confiscating my trimming scissors. Throughout the few 
minutes that it took, the two employees were resolute, thorough and 
professional.
  I understand on Wednesday, October 3, a bipartisan group of members 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met with top 
security officials at El-Al, Israel's state airline. This airline is 
widely considered to be the most secure in the world, and any of my 
colleagues who have flown it can probably attest to that fact. These 
experts emphasized that when they find a screener to be negligent, that 
individual is relieved of his or her job immediately. They will simply 
not stand for any incompetent employee to remain in place. In a proven 
example of public-private partnership, the Ben Gurion Airport Authority 
in Tel Aviv conducts training, establishes standards, and manages the 
overall effort, while a private company conducts the pre-board 
screening and other security functions.
  Furthermore, in Europe, following a spate of terrorism, events that 
occurred in the 1970s and the 1980s, the aviation system exchanged 
their previously nationalized workforce to a private sector approach 
and workforce. In these European airports these privately contracted 
screeners are highly trained, paid, and retained. We can glean advice 
from these precedents: London Heathrow and Gatwick, Belfast, Rome, 
Athens, and Paris, and the aforementioned Tel Aviv.
  Now, I know Federal employees can do the job. I have great respect 
for them. In fact, I am one myself. My father was an employee of the 
Federal Government for 35 years. The case, Mr. Speaker, is not against 
government employees, but for the private-public arrangement. It is a 
better model from all of the experience of other airports, and we 
should learn from them.
  The solution also comes from the Transportation Secretary, Norman 
Mineta's aviation workforce proposal, which would combine the best of 
both the private and public sector worlds. It would institute Federal 
Government control and oversight, while retaining the flexibility and 
accountability inherent in the private sector. It would take steps to 
promote the function of baggage screening to a higher level of 
professionalism. Specifically, the administration's proposal would 
implement practices of more stringent hiring, training, and better pay 
and benefits. Moreover, screeners would work in conjunction with law 
enforcement officers, including both local airport police and Federal 
marshals.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the answer to the real problem of 
security at our airports. Based upon a tradition of what works at other 
airports, I believe a private-public arrangement is the best solution. 
I hope my colleagues will support this approach.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this time a sheet 
distributed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, entitled ``Fact vs. Fiction: The Truth About 
Airline Security.'' It further summarizes the arguments for a public-
private arrangement for effective airline security and has the 
statistics that bear out the argument that I have made.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.

           Fact vs. Fiction: The Truth About Airline Security

       Dear colleague: Let me provide you with the truth relating 
     to effective airline security screening.
       Fiction: We must create a new 27,000 Federal employee 
     bureaucracy to model European success.
       Fact: Most airports in Europe provide security through a 
     coordinated effort of public sector oversight and supervision 
     of private screening contractors. In general, foreign 
     governments provide an average of 10 to 15 percent of 
     security personnel, while the private sector provides the 
     remaining 85-90 percent of security personnel.
       Amsterdam: 2,000 private; 200-250 law enforcement.
       Brussels: 700 private; 40 law enforcement.
       Paris-Charles DeGaulle: 500-600 private; 100 police.
       Paris-Orly: 350-400 private; 50 police.
       Lyons: 150 private; 30 police.
       Nice: 150-250 private, 20-30 police.
       Frankfurt: 350 private; 500 federal, with plans to increase 
     private participation.
       Geneva: 250 contract, 250 government.
       Stockholm: 200 private; 40 law enforcement.
       Norway Oslo; 150 private; 20 law enforcement.
       Helsinki: 150 contract; 20 law enforcement.
       Berlin: 450 private; 60 law enforcement.
       London Heathrow: 3,000 private contractors for screening; 
     hundreds doing guard and perimeter security for the private 
     British Airports authority; and 20 federal law enforcement.
       London Gatwick: 1,500 private contractors doing screening; 
     hundreds doing guard and perimeter security for private 
     British airports Authority; and 11 federal law enforcement.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation.

                          ____________________