Washington - Congress and the White House are disputing provisions to be included in an airline/airport security bill, particularly whether to federalize passenger and baggage screeners and how to pay them.
In President Bush's outline of his airport security plan, he proposed that the federal government take over managing the screening function from the airlines. The Administration envisions setting up a federal agency that would assume management and control of the screening and security functions. Private contractors would continue to operate the airport screening checkpoints, however. Airlines presently spend about $1 billion annually for private companies to handle airport screening.
Bush also called for a significant expansion of the federal air marshal program, the expenditure of $500 million to fortify cockpit doors and the use of the National Guard to beef up security at 420 airports offering commercial service for the four to six months it likely will take until his entire program can be put in place. The duty of the National Guard will be to provide a visible, armed deterrent at airport security checkpoints.
Bush also pledged, "We will invest in new technology for aircraft security, with grants to develop transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit, video monitors in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin and technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land them by remote control."
The Administration did not address how to pay the long-term costs of its initiative.
A number of Democratic and Republican congressmen already are promoting bringing the screening function under total federal control and making the screeners civil servants rather than contract workers. Proposed legislation to totally federalize the screening function would pay the cost through new passenger surcharges.
Under one compromise scenario, Congress would have federal employees screen passengers and baggage in certain large airports, while smaller airports would use federally regulated private contractors. Yet, members of Congress are split on the issue.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) said Bush's proposal doesn't go far enough, explaining, "With federal employees conducting the screening, we can greatly improve the quality of the screening process. The government can pay salaries commensurate with the law enforcement responsibilities of screening, which involve not only the ability to read X-rays, but also the ability to size up individuals and conduct more thorough inspections in suspicious circumstances." Paying wages comparable to those received by other federal inspectors will attract a higher caliber workforce, Oberstar said, and will eliminate the current problem of high turnover among screeners.
Another benefit of using federal employees is that this will give the government complete control over the background checks required before an employee is hired and the training each employee receives, Oberstar said. He argued that using federal employees as screeners "need not mean that we will be unable to quickly remove employees who are not doing a satisfactory job. We can develop a special system of personnel rules for security screeners that would not have the constraints of the regular civil service model."
Oberstar referred to reports from the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general that show, nationwide, there is an average 126 percent turnover rate for screeners. At some major airports, turnover is as high as 400 percent, meaning a complete staff turnaround occurs about four times a year.
Further, in many tests of the system, screeners have failed to detect a significant number of knives and guns. The reports note that, in most cases, airlines select the security company with the lowest bid. Those companies, in turn, pay low wages to their employees.
Following Bush's announcement, a senior official briefed reporters on details of the proposal, noting that the Administration will be working with Congress "over the next few days and weeks as to how to achieve that airline security." He defended the President's proposal to continue using private contractors to handle security screening by saying, "One of the reasons for that, is that when you have private contractors, the federal government has much more flexibility in terms of hiring and firing. And I think that a lot of people will come to see that that actually contributes to safety, because the federal government will have much more latitude to take employment actions when they think that safety standards aren't being met." The official declined to specify how many air marshals the Administration will hire, but characterized it as "a dramatic increase."
The Business Travel Coalition echoed Oberstar in calling for all airport security personnel to become U.S. government employees. BTC supports legislation introduced by Sens. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to make screeners civil servants.
A recent BTC survey of 232 corporate buyers of air travel revealed that 91 percent of respondents support making airport security personnel government employees. "If assured that funds would be used to create a world-class airport and airplane security system," BTC said the survey showed, "79 percent of large buyers would be willing to pay between a $3 and $5 airline ticket security surcharge. Some 21 percent are willing to pay up to a $10 surcharge."