"Editorial: Recall old, flawed screening? It seems lawmakers don't"

Monday, October 17, 2005

Editorial
Recall old, flawed screening? It seems lawmakers don't. 
USA Today


Air travelers may soon see a change in security procedures - one that takes
them back toward the bad old days when passenger screening was a sieve.

An obscure provision in a bill President Bush is scheduled to sign Tuesday
will make it easier for airports to dump federal screeners in favor of
private companies - exposed as utterly inept after 9/11. It exempts airports
from being sued for failings of private screeners in the event of a
terrorist attack.

This is a triumph of ideological rigidity and political scheming over common
sense.

It's hard to imagine a level of incompetence greater than that shown by the
private companies. In the bright, post-9/11 spotlight, one report after
another found low pay, high turnover, vague standards and low morale
combining to make screening nearly useless. After weeks of debate, Congress
created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and put it in
charge of a new public workforce. Though the system has its flaws, few
fliers would argue that the new screeners aren't more professional than the
old.

Yet some Republican lawmakers cling to the past. They've been pushing to
return to a variation on the old system, allowing airports to contract with
private screeners, trained and supervised by the TSA.

That's about as smart as encouraging the FBI or local police to subcontract
their law-enforcement duties, which is why Congress and the administration
have nudged the changes along out of public view. That maneuvering, too, is
reminiscent of the pre-9/11 era, when industries with clout, bungling
federal agencies and a politically weak Congress let air security
disintegrate.

The erosion began earlier this year. The Homeland Security Department, TSA's
parent, granted similar protections against lawsuits directly to two private
screening companies. They handle test security programs at the San Francisco
and Kansas City airports. 

Lobbyists for airports then pressed for comparable treatment, and Rep. Hal
Rogers, R-Ky., complied, inserting broad airport protection in the final
version of the Homeland Security Department's 2006 spending bill, a
must-pass piece of legislation. The screening companies that airports employ
could also be exempted by Homeland Security. The bill passed the House by a
wide bipartisan margin and the Senate by a voice vote.

A large part of the motivation is ideological. Several Republicans in
Congress, notably Rep. John Mica of Florida, who chairs a key subcommittee,
wanted to keep the old system all along. They preferred a private-sector
strategy, despite its glaring failures.

The private security firms, which stand to profit the most, pushed their
agenda with strategic campaign donations. For instance, a political action
committee (PAC) run by FirstLine Transportation Security, which provides
screeners in Kansas City, Mo., gave $2,000 to Mica. Its president, John
DeMell gave $1,000 to Rogers' leadership PAC.

Mica argues that the private sector, under government supervision, will
maintain high standards but be more flexible and efficient - reasoning we
often favor in this space. But not in circumstances where it has failed.
Surely, the TSA has invited some of the push for private screeners through
its own inability to respond to airports' needs.

The solution is to fix that problem, not to undermine the system built
through trial and error over the past four years. A variation on the dismal
security that 19 hijackers foiled in 2001 is no way to make the public safe.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************