Senate homeland security leader lambastes security privatization measure in FAA bill

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

A provision in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill approved by Congress on Feb. 7, which would allow airports to privatize their security screeners and essentially opt-out of TSA’s program, is “troubling” and “regrettable,” said the leader of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The bill passed Congress late on Feb. 7 and contains a provision requiring TSA Administrator John Pistole to again approve airport requests to privatize their screeners. It also requires the agency to advise airports on how they can get approval for privatization if their requests are denied.

The provision would aid airport operators who, under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), sought to replace TSA screeners with private screening companies operating under federal supervision and guidelines.

The Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) established the SPP, but in January 2011, TSA Administrator John Pistole announced his agency wouldn’t expand SPP beyond its current 16 airports “unless there are clear and substantial advantages to doing so.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said in the hours before the bill’s passage, that while he supports the overall bill, the SPP measure is particularly troubling, because TSA has proven that privatized operations aren’t as cost-effective as TSA’s screening, weakens security and won’t eliminate the pat-downs, scanners and material restrictions that have angered the public and some in Congress.

“At stake is TSA's management of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows a limited number of airports around the country to replace Transportation Security Officers (TSO) with private contractors to screen passengers and their baggage,” said Lieberman. “TSA has implemented this program at airports where, due to low traffic volume, full time, year-round federal staff is unnecessary. A handful of larger airports take part in the program so TSA can measure and assess its performance and cost effectiveness against the private contractors.  It is telling that TSA's assessment after comparing the two systems is that it can secure airports more economically than private screeners can.”

 Lieberman called the measure’s backing by other House and Senate members “regrettable” and it “undermine (s) the TSA  --  and therefore airport security itself - by advocating for the pre-9/11 system of screening by private contractors. My response to that is: how quickly we forget,” he said.

“I know it is fashionable in some quarters to criticize TSA,” said Lieberman. “Understandably, people are unhappy with pat-downs, body scans, and invasions of privacy. But TSA establishes its policies for a reason. They are a direct response to real terrorist threats,” he said.  

The agency has evolved to suppress the evolution of terror threats, from shoe bombs, to liquid explosives, he said, castigating House and Senate members for wishful thinking. “They are real incidents and the reason that TSA makes so many demands on the flying public. And we should not delude ourselves or the American people into thinking that adopting a contract workforce will eliminate the need for body scanners, pat-downs or any other security procedure TSA determines is necessary to secure air travel; regardless of whether an U.S. airport uses federal screeners or private ones, the security procedures implemented are the same.”

 Lieberman said the provision lowers the bar for airports looking to implement private screeners. “Right now, airports must demonstrate that a private screening workforce would be more effective, secure, and efficient, than the TSA,” he said. “The standard tucked into this bill, however, ‘would only require airports to demonstrate that using private screeners would not compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening.’”

 While the TSA Administrator would still have the authority to deny an application to the Screening Partnership Program, he said, the lower standard would make it far more difficult for him to do so.

This provision also requires TSA to provide recommendations to an airport that was denied its application to the SPP on how that airport can overcome the denial, if it decides to resubmit its application, according to Lieberman. “If TSA believes that it can screen passengers and baggage better and with more cost efficiency than a private contractor, why would it provide tips on how an airport can escape that system?”

 Lieberman added further that private screening could limit TSA's ability to react nimbly to intelligence threats. “If screeners are privately employed and managed airport by airport, TSA may not be able to respond effectively by shifting personnel to where it is most needed or modifying procedures if it cannot exert direct control over screeners.”