Panel I of a Hearing of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Committee on Transport. and Infrastructure-Airport Screener Privatization Program

Federal News Service

April 22, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBJECT: AIRPORT SCREENER PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM

CHAIRMAN: REPRESENTATIVE MICA (R-FL)

WITNESSES: ADMIRAL DAVID M. STONE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; CLARK KENT ERVIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MICA: Thank you. Mr. Baker, I know you have to leave. Go ahead.

REP. BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy. Admiral, I just want to get a clear understanding as to checking efficiencies, protecting concerns of security, making modifications to organizational structure. Is there a sufficiently broad grant of authority to you and the agency to engage in any policy changes you feel would be advisable, or are there statutory constraints which would constrain your ability to make the organizational changes you feel appropriate?

MR. STONE: I think there's the flexibility within the current parameters to allow TSA to be creative, innovative, remove the layers between headquarters and the field, and empower the federal security directors, and have them partner effectively with local leadership to get the right answer for each tailored airport.

REP. BAKER: Then in that regard I suggested at an earlier hearing on this subject, given the constraints with which the field personnel have to operate-and I will not enumerate the examples previously given-but there were clearly times when movement of passengers could have been facilitated, but because of the line-by- line requirements that the individual inspector must abide by, or resultingly get written up-needless processes, and therefore travelers' time was consumed while lines were growing. I've made the observation it is a matter of trying to have a uniform protocol, where everybody knows what to do in every situation-understandable. But it would seem that there would be a sufficient reason given all the variables that these screeners must come in contact with, that at least the supervisor, or some person on duty in charge could be consulted with or asked, Is it appropriate to do X or Y in this case? -- and a grant of authority given by that person, so that the routine security personnel would not feel that they were at personal professional risk by allowing something that was obviously not a threat to proceed through the check-in. So, one, a grant of authority to some field personnel to be in effect an appellate, resource or a place where a traveler could go to get relief from a particular problem would be a great advantage. And I fly in and out of Baton Rouge, and it's a very small airport. We certainly don't have the problems the chairman or other members have with the high volume. But I can tell you on a given morning we never know what the wait line will look like when we get to that airport. It could be a matter of a couple of minutes, it can be 30 minutes. And all too often it's some little aberrant thing that's occurred that has caused things to back up. And if there was someone given managerial authority at that location to make judgments, I think it would greatly enhance the ability to flow.

Secondly, as to the international consolidation of security corporations, there are a sufficient number of non-domestic providers who now are on contract for example with the Department of Defense to provide security services to extremely sensitive areas of our government. As I now understand it, TSA has a prohibition on a non- domestic owner being allowed to contract for security services for fear of who those non-U.S. owners may represent.

It seems to me that if you have a fairly large domestically-owned security company, they can employ whoever they want. So the threat of risk from a terrorist-driven enterprise or person exists even within the domestic-owned corporation. It would seem a competitive advantage for us to open the process up as broadly as possible to have subject to TSA screening and background checks as many people providing services as are possible, to get the best qualified people at the lowest price to dot he job. Hence the reason for my initial question. If you have the authority and feel not inappropriately fettered by congressional statute, these are changes I think which could be implemented to provide higher levels of services in a quick time at lower cost, and greatly enhance the movement of passengers and services through the system. And I don't expect a lengthy answer. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to perhaps speak out of order, but time constraints are what they are. And I appreciate your difficult task, admiral.

MR. STONE: Yes, sir, and I'll look into making sure that we comply with the law related to that. And as we review the opt-out process and how we might best also organize our federal airports in the future, the comments that you made will be part of this dialogue that we have in the coming weeks on that.

With regard to the empowerment of the local FSD and having people make decisions locally, having been a federal security director over the old private contract screeners, and then also being one with the new federalized screeners, the difference is night and day. I've been there on the line, I've seen the checks. I've been part of the covert testing for both. There is no comparison between what we had in the past-at LAX for instance-and what we have today. And a lot of that is due to the unity of command, of having a federal security director there to lead people, the clarify of the mission that's provided by that federal entity, standard operating procedures that we have; but also under that system the ability of leaders to be out-like Ken Kasprisin at Minneapolis St. Paul, or Ed Gomez at San Francisco-to lead people, to make judgment calls, to make sure we do the right thing. So we are totally committed to making sure that local empowerment-these leaders that we entrusted for the security of these airports is a major theme and emphasis point for TSA.

REP. BAKER: Thank you, sir.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT