[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: WHY IS A JOB-CREATING, PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP MEETING RESISTANCE AT TSA?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 and FEBRUARY 16, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-512 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Janice Hahn, California
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Mike Rogers, Alabama, Chairman
Daniel E. Lungren, California Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Tim Walberg, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois, Vice Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Mo Brooks, Alabama Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Amanda Parikh, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Vacant, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Security....................................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation Security........................................ 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Security....................................................... 23
WITNESSES
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Mr. John S. Pistole, Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Mr. Mark VanLoh, A.A.E., Director, Aviation Department, Kansas
City International Airport:
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
Mr. Stephen D. Amitay, Esq., Federal Legislative Counsel,
National Association of Security Companies:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Mr. John Gage, National President, American Federation of
Government Employees:
Oral Statement................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 40
FOR THE RECORD
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Security:
Letter From Chairman Rogers to Administrator Pistole........... 9
SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: WHY IS A JOB-CREATING, PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP MEETING RESISTANCE AT TSA?
----------
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:01 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, Lungren, Walberg,
Cravaack, Turner, Jackson Lee, and Thompson.
Also present: Representative Mica.
Mr. Rogers. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee
on Transportation Security will come to order.
This subcommittee is meeting today to examine the
Transportation Security Administration's Screening Partnership
Program. I apologize for the delay, but they don't let me have
any say-so over when votes are called on the floor. But I do
appreciate your patience and your participation.
I will start by recognizing myself for an opening
statement. I want to thank Administrator Pistole for being here
and the time it takes to prepare for this.
Today the subcommittee will examine the Screening
Partnership Program and TSA's willingness to work with the
private sector to improve transportation security.
Let me state first and foremost that I am a strong
supporter of the Screening Partnership Program, or SPP, and was
disappointed with the TSA's decision last January not to expand
the program beyond the existing 16 airports utilizing private
screening services.
I am aware that last week the TSA approved one airport but
denied two others from participating in the SPP. Limiting SPP's
growth is the wrong approach, in my opinion, especially since
both TSA and GAO have determined that the performance of
Federal screeners and private screeners are roughly the same
and that the security standards set for the SPP and non-SPP
airports are completely identical.
Rather than trying to insulate a giant Federal workforce,
TSA should be working to strengthen and improve the private
screening program and make it more cost-efficient so that U.S.
businesses can take on a more meaningful role. Then TSA could
concentrate on implementing the management, oversight,
contracting, procurement, and training reforms it desperately
needs.
Last April, the full committee Chairman and I introduced
H.R. 1586, the Security Enhancement and Jobs Act of 2011. The
bill requires TSA to approve any SPP application that would not
compromise security and provide a written explanation to
Congress and the airport concerned if an SPP application is
denied. I am pleased that language similar to our bill was
included in the FAA reauthorization conference report, which
recently passed the House.
In addition, the huge number of TSA personnel working in
airports that do have private screeners troubles me. Recent
data provided to the committee reveals that at certain airports
where contractors do screening and TSA is just there to oversee
the screening process, there are upwards of 50 TSA employees on
the payroll.
While we can agree that strong oversight in this area is
critically important, having 50-plus TSA officials in a single
airport where they are not responsible for conducting screening
is just plain overkill, and it is costing taxpayers huge
amounts of money. We will look at this issue and other
contracting and management issues throughout the hearing.
I look forward to all the witnesses and now recognize the
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, my friend, the gentlelady
from Texas, for any opening statement she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are
friends. We have worked on this committee because we both have
an abiding commitment to the security of this Nation.
I am delighted to see Administrator Pistole and thank him
before he even starts for his leadership. This is a time for
tough choices, tough decisions, and strong commitments to
secure this Nation.
I would offer to say that, because of this committee and
the leadership of Ranking Member and Chairman, that in
actuality the United States has through some very, very
difficult times managed to secure itself since 9/11, a horrific
act that no one will ever forget throughout history and the
annals of history of this Nation. It was on that day that the
security of this Nation through airports was privatized. It was
on that day that private security entities allowed individuals
who ultimately sent planes into the towers in New York to kill
thousands of persons.
So I have a vigorous disagreement, and I am hoping that the
administration will courageously hold the line. This is not a
time for politicizing and making people happy, and it is not a
time for humoring small businesses. I am, in my mind, in the
work that I have done, considered an avid supporter of small
businesses, medium-size businesses, large businesses, and the
work that is done in procurement to ensure that the American
business has an opportunity to serve its Nation.
But on this one, I believe in one point of the Chairman; he
is right that we need to be fiscally responsible. We need to
assess our needs. We need to ensure that individuals are placed
and utilized in the TSA structure and the transportation
security officer structure in the most efficient, appropriate,
and secure manner that we possibly can have.
Mr. Chairman, you were right about that question. But I
cannot adhere to a massive reform that would provide for an
expansion of the Screening Partnership Program without the
appropriate limitations that are presently in place today.
So I would like to thank the witness and witnesses for
joining us today to discuss TSA's Screening Partnership
Program, commonly referred to SPP. Under this program, airports
may apply to opt out of using the Federal screening workforce.
In January 2011, based on their review, Administrator
Pistole decided not to expand the SPP beyond the 16 currently
participating airports unless there was a clear and substantial
benefit to doing so. I might add, there should be a security
analysis in this, as well. I hope my words, ``substantial
benefit,'' in his testimony or questioning, we will discern
that ``substantial benefit'' or ``clear and substantial
benefit'' does not ignore the security ramifications.
According to TSA, operating the SPP costs taxpayers more
than using the Federal screener workforce. In light of that
fact, in these tight budgetary times, that would be reason
enough to support the administrator's decision not to expand
the program, but the list goes on.
Further expansion of privatized screening hampers TSA's
ability to push out intelligence information to front-line
workers. It adds to inconsistency. It makes changing procedures
based on threat more complex. That means you not only have to
vet the front-line officers, you have to vet the company, vet
the executives of the company, vet the ownership, vet the
financial structure of this, vet the banks that the private
company goes to, who is paying whom to turn their head and to
overlook some dastardly act that is prepared to attack American
citizens as they travel the skies of America.
There has been much discussion of whether privatized
screeners perform better than their Federal counterparts. I am
always supportive of making sure that our Federal employees
across the board are respected but also do their job. There is
no conflict with insisting on excellence in performance to the
idea that I have that privatized screeners are not adequate.
Make the Federal employees excellent. That has been done in
many, many places.
We certainly don't criticize our first responders in terms
of their service, and we have no criticism of the young men and
women who have come into our military service, non-privatized,
who have offered themselves to serve. We would expect no less
from transportation security officers. They are on the front
line.
TSA informs us that the performance of privatized screeners
is comparable to that of the Federalized workforce. I want our
TSO to be better than privatized workers, and I believe our
focus should be on how we achieve that. We don't need equals in
this business; the Federal Government is always expected to be
better than. We have the responsibility of millions of
Americans all across this Nation. They look to us, this great
Nation who uses the terminology ``great,'' to be great and to
be excellent.
The reality is that security incidents have occurred at
both airports with privatized and Federalized screeners. Under
the watch of privatized screeners at San Francisco
International Airport, a woman pushed through a closed
checkpoint lane, boarded a plane, and flew to Baltimore without
ever being screened.
The statute establishing the SPP did not endeavor to
micromanage TSA's decision to include or exclude an airport
from participation. It was to show a sense of openness. Sixteen
is enough. Rather, it gave proper deference to the
administrator's judgment by stating that he may approve an
application.
Now, I know from this very hearing we will see the
potential amendments coming in, Mr. Administrator, trying to
demand and say that you shall, just as we have seen in the
language of the FAA bill. That is unfortunate. I am sorry that
we are having this hearing after the fact. But I will live to
rise again, and I will find a way, just like others did, to
undo that, because I think it is wrong.
Unfortunately, despite having never been debated by this
committee, the committee of jurisdiction, and no Members being
appointed as conferees on behalf of the committee, the
controlling statute was amended in the FAA Reauthorization Act,
which will soon become law. That is called midnight
legislating--in the dark, no transparency, and adhering to the
voices of one tune.
The new standard limits TSA's flexibility to approve or
deny an application from an airport to opt out, places a time
limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether to approve
an application, and provides a waiver for the requirement that
a private contracted screening company be owned and controlled
by a United States citizen.
Now, just a few years ago, everyone was up in arms about
the potential of ports being owned by foreign entities. We have
resolved and/or studied that issue, and I assume that it is
still being studied. But there is no doubt that aviation still
remains one of the most attractive entities for individual
franchise terrorists. Now we suggest waivers, even if the
company is owned by a foreign entity or the airport is owned by
a foreign entity? How outrageous.
I look forward to hearing from the administrator on his
views of the changes to the SPP statute and how he intends to
continue to develop TSA into the Federal counterterrorism
network he envisioned. He comes with years of experience with
the FBI, who I understand and he knows full well are meticulous
in their responsibilities, ensuring the security domestically.
We can do no less when it comes to this Nation's skies and as
well for those who travel internationally on our soil, into our
area.
As we look forward to what I hope will be a productive
year, Mr. Chairman, let us not forget the lessons of the past,
one of which is that the system of privatized screeners failed
us on 9/11. There is no further sentence that I need to make.
The 9/11 day of horror was partly on the watch of privatized
screeners.
The wisdom of the United States Congress in the immediacy
of those tragic days was to come together and find a way to
ensure that TSO was a Federal system over which we had the
opportunity to provide intelligence, training, oversight, and,
yes, security for the American people. I see nothing has
changed today, and I would hope we change nothing in spite of
the FAA legislation. I ask the administration to reject the
premise of that legislation, even as it has been signed.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
We have been advised we are going to be called for votes
between 3:45 and 4:00, so we will try to move.
But now I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, the
Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, for any
statement he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased that Administrator Pistole could join us today
to discuss TSA's Screening Partnership Program. I would like to
also extend a welcome to our second panel of witnesses.
It is my hope that some of the myths and rhetoric
surrounding this program can be put to bed today.
By this hearing title, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have implied that the current use of Federal
screeners impedes job growth. There is no proof in law or fact
for that assertion. The number of screeners at an airport is
determined by an analysis of the risk threat and volume at that
airport. These factors will not change based on whether the
screeners are private contractors or Federal employees, so the
number of jobs will not change based on whether the screeners
are public- or private-sector employees.
Under the Republican suggestion, the only thing that will
change is whether the jobs will be public or private. We know
that both types of screeners are effective and face challenges,
follow the same rules, and receive the same training. We also
know that private screeners cost up to 9 percent more than
Federal screeners. We know that public and private screeners
can join unions. So the only real difference is cost. What we
want to know is why the Republicans seem to be willing to pay
more for the same service and how doing so will create jobs.
If the added cost to taxpayers fails to convince you that
this program should not be expanded, consider that it takes us
back to a model similar to the one in place during 9/11.
Administrator Pistole performed a full review of TSA's policies
and practices and determined that the SPP should not be
expanded unless there was a clear and substantial advantage to
doing so.
Contrary to claims made at the time, the administrator did
not shut down the program. Rather, he set a reasonable standard
for expansion. That standard was met last week by a low-risk
seasonal airport in Montana, and TSA approved their
application. TSA did so because the net impact was advantageous
to Government.
On the same day, TSA denied the applications of two
airports because they failed to demonstrate an operational,
security, or cost advantage over Federalized screening
applications. Both of these directions are perfectly logical.
Regrettably, this hearing comes a day late and a dollar
short for the committee. Last week, the FAA Reauthorization Act
was passed by the House and soon will be signed into law. As
described by subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee, that
aviation safety bill contained a security provision within this
committee's sole jurisdiction altering the law controlling the
SPP. In summarizing this provision, it amounts to a
Congressional attempt to micromanage the SPP by stripping the
administrator of his discretion.
Without this committee having held one hearing, markup, or
debate on the changes proposed, Homeland Security Members were
denied a seat at the table by the Speaker when the provisions
went to Congress. Chairman King and I sent a letter to the
Speaker just 2 weeks ago requesting that jurisdiction over DHS
be consolidated. Apparently, under this leadership, even when
you have jurisdiction you get left out.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank my colleague from Mississippi.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that the
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have two distinguished panels of
witnesses with us today.
The first panel, we would like to welcome the Honorable
John Pistole. He has been the administrator of the TSA at the
Department of Homeland Security since 2010. As the
administrator, he oversees the management of approximately
60,000 employees, the security operations of more than 450
Federalized airports throughout the United States, the Federal
Air Marshal Service, and the security of our highways,
railroads, ports, mass transit systems, and pipelines.
Welcome, Mr. Pistole. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. PISTOLE, ADMINISTRATOR,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Pistole. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
Rogers, and Ranking Members Jackson Lee and Thompson, Members
of the committee. It is good to see you.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Transportation Security Administration's mission to
protect the freedom of movement for people and commerce. I also
appreciate the opportunity to update the committee on the
progress we continue to make in our efforts to develop and
deploy a range of risk-based intelligence-driven initiatives to
prevent terrorist attacks while facilitating the movement of
people and goods across the United States and internationally.
Our goal and No. 1 priority is to provide the most
effective security in the most efficient way. TSA accomplishes
this vital National security mission through a series of
public-private partnerships. For example, last year alone, TSA
invested nearly $2.5 billion in the private sector in critical
services, technology, and equipment across all transportation
modes. Since 2002, our experienced workforce has safely
screened more than 5 billion passengers through a multi-layered
security system.
Throughout 2011, we began evaluating the benefits of
several risk-based security screening concepts, including TSA
PreCheck, an initiative which, as many of you know and some
have experienced, began last fall and is currently operating in
seven of our country's busiest airports. Participation in TSA
PreCheck is currently open to U.S. citizens who are members of
existing Customs and Border Protection trusted traveller
programs as well as certain airline frequent fliers.
In the few months since we began this initiative, over
310,000 passengers have gone through TSA PreCheck, and the
feedback we have been receiving from participants has been
consistently positive. As a result, we have plans to expand
this initiative to other airports and other U.S. airlines
throughout 2012.
There is much more to risk-based security than just TSA
PreCheck. Other efforts recently developed and deployed include
S-90 screening of over 300,000 airline pilots in 10 airports,
changes in screening procedures for the 60,000 or so children
12 and under traveling by air every day, and the expanded use
of behavior detection techniques in 2 airports. Additionally,
we are taking steps to further develop our layered approach to
security through state-of-the-art technologies, additional
canine teams, better passenger identification techniques, and
other actions which strengthen our capability to keep
terrorists off aircraft.
By continuing our efforts to move away from a one-size-
fits-all approach, risk-based security is helping to move TSA
toward becoming a high-performing organization with a
counterterrorism focus. The goal behind all of this is to look
for ways to conduct the most effective security in the most
efficient way. Doing so allows us to focus our resources on
those travelers we know the least about or those on the
terrorist watchlist, thereby reducing the size of the haystack
in which a terrorist may hide. Combine that focus with a more
comprehensive use of classified and other intelligence and we
are in a better position to inform the security screening
process.
As has been mentioned, through ATSA, Congress also created
a means to assess the effectiveness of privatized screening
through the SPP program beginning in 2002 with five airports.
Currently, among the more than 450 airports with security
overseen by TSA, there are, as has been mentioned, the 16
airports in the SPP. As you may know and as was noted, I
recently approved one more application, West Yellowstone, and
if a contract for private screening is awarded, the number will
be 17. I have also recently denied two applications that did
not provide a clear and substantial advantage to the taxpayers
and our ability to achieve our mission.
Given Senate passage of the FAA bill last night and
assuming the President's signature, we will assess the
implications of the new law, and I will direct appropriate
resources and engagement to carry out its intent, all in
coordination with this and other oversight committees.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
[The statement of Mr. Pistole follows:]
Prepared Statement of John S. Pistole
February 7, 2012
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Screening Partnership
Program (SPP). TSA employs risk-based, intelligence-driven operations
to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the vulnerability of the
Nation's transportation system to terrorism. Our goal at all times is
to maximize transportation security to stay ahead of evolving terrorist
threats while protecting passengers' privacy and facilitating the
secure and efficient flow of legitimate commerce. TSA's current
security measures create a multi-layered system of transportation
security that identifies, manages, and mitigates risk. No layer on its
own solves all our challenges, but, in combination, they create a
strong and formidable system.
TSA has an experienced Federal workforce that has safely screened
more than 5 billion passengers since TSA was created and has
established a multi-layered aviation security system reaching from the
time a ticket is purchased, throughout a passenger's flight, to the
time the passenger exits the secure area of their destination airport.
Every day we see the effectiveness of these security measures with TSA
Officers (TSO) detecting hundreds of prohibited items. In fact, over
the past decade TSOs have confiscated approximately 50 million
prohibited items, and last year alone TSOs prevented more than 1,200
guns from being brought onto passenger aircraft.
As our risk-based approach evolves, we must ensure that each new
step we take strengthens security. In addition to exploring new ways of
focusing our attention where it is most needed, we are continually
reevaluating existing programs to ensure that our resources are
directed in a manner that yields the greatest level of security
overall. This continued reevaluation includes the SPP.
Along with the creation of TSA itself, Congress determined that
aviation security would be most effectively served by having passenger
screening as a predominantly Federal responsibility. The Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107-71) nevertheless
established a privatized security screening pilot program (see 49
U.S.C. 44919). Under the pilot program, TSA was required to select five
airports from five airport security risk categories, as defined by the
administrator, to participate. Screening companies that met statutory
qualifications were selected to provide comparable screening services
through contract with the Federal Government, using employees who met
the same qualifications and were compensated at the same level as
Federal Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), and who met the same
rigorous security standards as those in effect at airports with Federal
security staffs. In addition, ATSA established a program through which
the administrator could contract with additional qualified private
screening companies for screening at other U.S. airports after
completion of the pilot program (see 49 U.S.C. 44920). Under the SPP,
airports may apply to TSA to have screening carried out by a qualified
private screening company. As with the pilot program, private screeners
must meet the same qualifications as TSOs and must be provided
compensation and benefits at a level equal to or greater than the
compensation and benefits provided to TSOs. Still, regardless of
whether an airport has private or Federal screeners, TSA remains
ultimately responsible for security, with Federal Security Directors
overseeing the contracted operations as well as the other airport
security operations, such as air cargo and facility security compliance
inspections that continue to be conducted only by Federal employees.
Currently, among our 450 airports with Federal screening, there are
16 airports participating in the SPP. These include the original five
pilot airports--San Francisco International; Kansas City International;
Greater Rochester International; Jackson Hole; and Tupelo Regional--and
11 others--Sioux Falls Regional; Key West International; Charles M.
Schultz-Sonoma County; Roswell Industrial Air Center; and seven small
Montana airports: Frank Wiley Field; Sidney Richland Regional; Dawson
Community; L.M. Clayton; Wokal Field; Havre City County; and Lewiston
Municipal. In the most recent study conducted by TSA and examined by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) comparing the cost of
screening at SPP airports and airports with a Federal screener
workforce, we estimated that the cost to TSA of contracted screening is
generally between 3 and 9 percent more than the cost of Federal
screening. While GAO identified limitations in our initial cost
estimates, their updated review in March 2011 noted that they believed
``TSA has made progress in addressing three of seven limitations
related to cost we identified in our January 2009 report and now has a
more reasonable basis for comparing the cost of SPP and non-SPP
airports.''
Shortly after I was confirmed as TSA Administrator, I directed a
full review of TSA policies and programs with an eye toward helping the
agency evolve into a more agile, high-performing organization that can
detect and respond to evolving security threats. The SPP is just one
program that I reviewed. At the time, I did not see any clear and
substantial advantage to expanding the program, though I remained
committed to maintaining contractor screening where it then existed.
Now, as then, I am open to approving new applications where a clear and
substantial benefit could be realized.
That being said, TSA remains a U.S. Government counterterrorism
agency. To fulfill our responsibility in this mission, it is important
to maintain our flexibility--as new and emerging threats are
identified, we must be able to adapt and modify our procedures quickly
to protect the traveling public and promote the flow of legitimate
commerce. As such, contracts with private service providers must
include the flexibility to deliver screening comparable to that
provided by Federal screening. Additionally, with a Federal workforce
we have greater flexibility to more easily augment staff in the event
of exigent circumstances such as natural disasters, or for surge
capabilities, with National Deployment Office (NDO) screeners or
screeners from nearby TSA-operated airports. Nevertheless, as noted
above, I remain committed to maintaining a contractor workforce where
such existed as of January of 2011, as appropriate.
As noted at the outset, we strive to maximize security not only by
keeping ahead of current threats identified by intelligence, but by
maintaining security systems that focus our resources on areas where
they will yield the optimal benefit. This is consistent with our risk-
based approach to security and critical in times of budget austerity.
The SPP, no less than any other security program, must be implemented
in a manner determined by cost as well as demonstrable benefits.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I will be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize myself first for questions, and then we
will alternate from side to side in the order Members arrived.
Mr. Pistole, about 4 months ago, I sent a letter to you.
By the way, I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer
that for the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Chairman Rogers to Administrator Pistole
October 14, 2011,Washington, DC.
The Honorable John S. Pistole,
Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th
Street, Arlington, VA 20598.
Dear Administrator Pistole: I am writing to express my strong
concerns regarding the September 27, 2011 ruling of the United States
Court of Federal Claims in the case of FirstLine Transportation
Security, Inc. (FirstLine) vs. The United States and Akal Security,
Inc.
According to the ruling, the Court found that TSA's acquisitions
process in this case was fundamentally flawed and must be set aside.
The Court specifically found that TSA awarded a Screening Partnership
Program (SPP) contract to Akal Security to provide screening services
at Kansas City International Airport in Kansas City, Missouri (MCI)
despite the fact that its proposal was found to be significantly weaker
overall than the proposal submitted by FirstLine, the contractor
currently providing screening services at MCr. The Court specifically
cited, among other criticisms, that:
The best-value analysis performed by TSA's Source Selection
Evaluation Board was both irrational and inconsistent with the
evaluation criteria set forth in the Request for Proposal
(RFP), and that the award to Akal Security was fundamentally
unfair; and
TSA not only ignored the dramatic difference in the number
of strengths assigned to each of the proposals, but that it
also irrationally minimized the significant differences between
the proposals.
These findings call into question TSA's ability to make responsible
contracting decisions, and whether taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily
wasted in this process. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that a
contractor was selected to screen passengers and help secure our
aviation system despite TSA's own admission, according to the Court's
ruling, that it would pose more operational risk and require
Governmental intervention. This type of poor judgment is unacceptable
in my view, considering the continued threats to aviation security. I
hope you will agree that TSA runs the unnecessary risk of endangering
travelers and causing serious economic damage by narrowly focusing on
the cost advantages of one SPP proposal over another, rather than a
true comparison in the ability to carry out security screening
services.
SPP was authorized by Congress in 2001 and it has been a successful
program over the last 10 years. TSA has repeatedly certified that all
private screeners perform at or above the level of Transportation
Security Officers. Kansas City International Airport is one of the
largest U.S. airports participating in SPP, first entering the program
in 2002. I am concerned that, particularly in light of your decision in
January to limit expansion of this program, TSA's improper contracting
decision involving one of the programs largest airports and one of its
highest-performing private screening companies seems to indicate that
TSA is not serious about the program and would rather see it fail than
succeed. I continue to feel strongly that the private sector has an
important role to play in security and must be properly leveraged, not
forced out of the process in favor of a larger Federal workforce.
While it is my sincere hope that the poor handling of this RFP
resulted from human error and was not intentionally flawed, I am
requesting your full cooperation and assistance to bring greater
transparency to the rationale behind this decision and ensure that any
deficiencies are addressed quickly. I request that you provide by no
later than October 24, 2011, copies of all documents and communications
created by or in the possession of TSA that pertain to the RFP issued
by TSA on April 2, 2010, and the subsequent related contract award
decision made on March 17, 2011, to perform SPP contract screening
services at the Kansas City International Airport. The terms
``documents'' and ``communications'' are intended to mean all records
including, but not limited to, files, reports, analysis, assessments,
memoranda, notes, and presentations, in all forms of media, including
emails or other electronic communications, and including any archived
materials.
Additionally, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Security, I intend to hold a hearing on SPP and the handling of the MCI
contract in the coming weeks, and I respectfully request that you
provide testimony at this hearing. I understand that TSA has already
made a decision to issue a new RFP for the MCI contract following the
Court's ruling. I urge you to postpone any action on this RFP until the
subcommittee can complete a review of the documents requested and
conduct necessary oversight of TSA's acquisitions process in support of
a robust SPP and proper use of taxpayer dollars.
Thank you for your prompt and personal attention to this matter. I
appreciate your continuing efforts to secure the Nation's
transportation systems and look forward to working with you to improve
TSA's performance in carrying out its critical mission.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation Security.
Mr. Rogers. I sent a letter to you expressing my concern
over the ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the case
of FirstLine v. U.S. and Akal Security, Inc. I have just
submitted that for the record.
The curious thing about the SPP contracting problem at
Kansas City is the timing of it. Specifically, it came on the
heels of your public statement that SPP doesn't fit into your
vision for a Federal workforce. My concern is whether the
decision made in the Kansas City case could have been affected
in some way by the fact that TSA does not want SPP to be
successful and an integral part of its operations.
We have the director of the Kansas City aviation here
today, who will offer his perspective on the second panel, but
before we hear him, I would like for you to address this
concern. Why did the Kansas City contract go so wrong?
Mr. Pistole. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There were several issues that we found in the Court of
Federal Claim's decision where we could have done a better job.
Part of that was in our assessment of not only the best value
but the cost and the security aspects that were inherent. Of
course, this was an SPP airport that was continuing as an SPP
airport; it was just a question of which private screener was
the best value to the taxpayers and could provide the best
security.
The other finding that the court made was that we did not
do as good a job as we could have--and I agree with this--in
documenting our findings, both between the board that reviewed
this and then the source selection authority.
I do note that the court ruled in our favor on six of eight
issues, but the key takeaways were we could have done a better
job on both our analysis and our documentation. Then the
question became, how should we move forward?
So, clearly, we and I am supportive of Kansas City. They
have had a good provider there, in terms of their private
screening. The whole intent, as evidenced by this, was to
continue that. It was a question of which private company was
best suited to provide those services.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
The former Federal security director of Kansas City
Airport, Mr. Richard Curasi, was working as an advisor for Akal
Security at the time the company submitted its proposal and won
the bid to take the screening services at the Kansas City
Airport. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Pistole. I was not.
Mr. Rogers. Now, did anyone at TSA who was involved in
making the award have direct contact with Mr. Curasi starting
from the time the RFP was issued until the contract was
awarded?
Mr. Pistole. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Rogers. Are you concerned at all about the influence a
former senior TSA employee could have had on the contracting
process given his connections inside your agency?
Mr. Pistole. Well, given that I was not aware of that--
obviously, there is always the appearance that we need to be
mindful of. But I was assured, in terms of review of this and
looking at the court decision, that there was no improper
influence, that everything was done according to the
procurement, the acquisition process.
But with the court's findings, in terms of both our
assessment and our documentation of our findings, we could have
and should have done a better job. So, as a result of that
court decision, I have changed the procedures to ensure that
that does happen and that we don't repeat the mistakes that we
did in that instance.
Mr. Rogers. Great.
In the same letter I referenced earlier, I also urged you
to postpone any action on the new RFP for Kansas City until the
subcommittee could conduct necessary oversight. Despite my
request, I understand that TSA intends to issue a full
recompete of the Kansas City SPP contract.
Why did you decide to go back to square one on that
contract?
Mr. Pistole. I looked at the court opinion, Mr. Chairman,
and, in that, they noted that the permanent injunction was in
the public interest because, and I quote, ``It will promote
full and open competition in the procurement process.'' That is
from page 73 of the decision.
So, given that and the belief that by opening it up again
we would have the opportunity to look at perhaps another
contractor that could come in and do at least as good, if not a
better, job than the two who had competed, that, coupled with
several changes in the statement of work from 2010, added to my
belief that we should simply open it back up.
As I would also note from the court decision, they
concluded, the judge concluded, ``What course of action TSA
chooses to pursue after the contract is cancelled in order to
maintain security screening services at MCI''--Kansas City--
``is not for this court to decide.'' So I took that
discretionary function and exercised it.
Mr. Rogers. Do you know how much it has cost so far for
this recompete and how much it will cost?
Mr. Pistole. I don't know the details. I would be glad to
get that and get back with you on that.
Mr. Rogers. I would appreciate that.
I see my time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for any
questions she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and
thank you to all the Members.
Mr. Pistole, I am going to be speaking quite quickly so I
can get some quick answers from you. Thank you, first of all,
for your testimony and your service.
Administrator Pistole, you state in your prepared testimony
that TSA is a U.S. counterterrorism agency. What other domestic
counterterrorism agency has outsourced the work of their front-
line employees at an extra expense to taxpayers? Do you know of
any?
Mr. Pistole. None that I am aware of, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
As I addressed in my opening statement, a provision
fundamentally altering your discretion to approve or deny an
application to participate in the SPP will soon become law via
the FAA Reauthorization Act. Since this committee never debated
these changes and was shut out of the conference by the
Republican leadership, I would like to take the time to review
some of the key changes made and to get your response.
I also want to join my colleague, Mr. Thompson, and
indicate that I am aghast at the emphasis of lack of
employment, when obviously people who work in the Federal
Government--you might just answer this, Mr. Pistole--are they
people who are not unemployed? If they are working for you,
they are not unemployed. Is that my understanding? If someone
is working for the Federal Government, they are not in the
unemployment line.
Mr. Pistole. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, in essence, we are creating necessary
jobs. Is that----
Mr. Pistole. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
The language of this specific legislation requires you to
approve an airport's application to the SPP if the approval
would not compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-
efficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers
or property at the airport.
What impact will this language have on your decision not to
expand the SPP unless there is a clear and substantial benefit
to do so?
Mr. Pistole. Well, let me first say, ma'am, that obviously
we are just assessing this at this point. So this is just an
initial response.
But, obviously, it is changing the burden, if you will,
on--and the discretion that I have in terms of making that
decision, which is to be in the taxpayers' best interest in
terms of cost, but also, obviously, the bottom line is who is
providing best security. So if I am required to accept
something unless I can prove affirmatively that it does not
meet that criteria, it obviously changes the standard.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That burden, I think, makes everyone--
well, makes your job more difficult, not that you are opposed
to difficulty, but more difficult in securing this country.
Mr. Pistole. Well, obviously, Congress has passed this law
and the President is intending to sign it, I believe. So I look
forward to working with the committee to figure out the best
way forward on this.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I would argue to say that a non-
security committee passed the bill. So I would make that point.
Does this language have the potential to increase the cost
to taxpayers for administering the SPP due to the need for
increased oversight and management?
Mr. Pistole. Well, clearly, if there is a flood of
applications that come in, we will have to increase our
headquarters staffing to handle those, as we have a small staff
now to handle the 16 and now 17, potentially 17, SPP airports.
But, yes, hypothetically, if every airport, all 450, or the
remaining came in, then, yes, we would have to increase our
staffing substantially.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So now this process opens it up to all 450
airports in the United States; is that correct?
Mr. Pistole. That is my understanding, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, then, my comment, we are looking
forward to returning to 9/11.
The language requires you to approve or deny an airport's
application within 120 days. Does that pose a stressful time
frame? Is that adequate for you to conduct full review of the
security implications?
Mr. Pistole. Well, there are a lot of aspects to that, but,
yes, that is a compressed time schedule. For example, if there
is one application, it is much easier to comply with that than
if there are 10 or if there are 100.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to go back to the thought that I
raised in my opening statement. The language contains a
provision waiving the requirement that any company contracted
with for screening services be owned and controlled by a United
States citizen. Thankfully, that language contains a clause
that affords you complete discretion to reject any application
that requires this waiver.
As you well know, Administrator Pistole, we live in a
complex world with shifts in allegiances and a dynamic threat
environment. One need look no further than to some of the
activities that are going on with our neighbors in the Mideast,
the pending complexity of Iran and its nuclear weaponization;
some of the individual franchise terrorist acts that have
occurred over the last decade, even after 9/11, though this
Nation has been very fortunate; and, of course, the concern
about, as you mentioned, the idea of sharing intelligence.
My question to you: Will you commit to us today that during
your tenure as administrator you will not approve any
application that requires a waiver of the citizenship
requirement on the basis of the need for the securing of
intelligence and the securing of this Nation?
Mr. Pistole. Well, clearly, madam, I would need to review
any application. The fact that it would be a foreign-owned
company, I would need to look at the intent of Congress, but
that does give me concern about the--potential concern about
the issues that might be inherent in that business.
But, again, I am just seeing this language for the first
time, so I need some more time to assess that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I just have--let me just
follow up with him----
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, we have----
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. For a moment.
Mr. Lungren [continuing]. Fifteen minutes until we are
supposed to have a vote. There are four Members who would like
to ask questions. Could we proceed in regular order, please?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me do this, Mr. Lungren. Mr.
Chairman, I will defer to you, but let me just put this
question on the record.
Mr. Lungren, you are not the Chairman at this time.
Mr. Rogers. The time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Excuse me.
Mr. Lungren. We have four other Members----
Mr. Rogers. Regular order.
Mr. Lungren [continuing]. Who would like to ask questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Excuse me, Mr. Lungren----
Mr. Lungren. Out of respect to other Members----
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. You are not the Chairman.
I am asking to put this question on the record. I will not
ask for an answer, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lungren is not the
Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I would just ask you to submit it for the
record.
Let's go to Mr. Thompson for any questions he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pistole, I am concerned that comments by some lobbying
for the expansion of privatized screening has resulted in a
misunderstanding of what this would mean for the flying public.
We created this entity, TSA, after 9/11. If a similar
incident occurred today, would you have the authority to direct
private screeners to other locations?
Mr. Pistole. Under the existing contracts, no. They would
be limited to the airport to which they are assigned.
Mr. Thompson. So, basically, the ability to respond based
on an incident is hampered by your inability to move private
screeners where that situation could potentially be.
Mr. Pistole. Yes, that is one of the limitations that is
part of the contract process which we could address in future
contracts. But under existing contracts, that would be a
voluntary aspect of that, so I cannot direct them.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
In your experience in negotiating public and private
contracts, has it been your experience that private contracts
for screeners cost more than Federal contracted screeners?
Mr. Pistole. Under the existing SPP contracts, they have
all, I believe, except for one, cost more than it would have
cost for the Federal Government to have the TSOs there.
The incidence last week where I approved the application
from West Yellowstone is another exception because they--I
believe they will be able to come in with a bid that will be
less than what we would be able to do because we are sending
people in on temporary duty assignment for the 4 months that
West Yellowstone is open. So that would be another exception.
Mr. Thompson. Can you clarify for us what screening
protocols must be followed by privatized screeners?
Mr. Pistole. The same as for all other Federalized
airports.
Mr. Thompson. Do privatized screeners, in your experience,
perform better than their Federal counterparts?
Mr. Pistole. I believe that they--every assessment is that
they perform comparably to the Federalized workforce, both in
terms of security and in terms of customer engagement.
Mr. Thompson. So, again, all things being equal, at this
point your experience is, other than the cost associated with
private screeners versus Federal contracted screeners, we are
pretty much on par.
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Now, one other issue. Does maintaining a mixed-use, public-
private model of screening cost taxpayers more or less if the
entire system is Federalized?
Mr. Pistole. So, it costs us slightly more to have both the
Federal and the SPP airports. Is that what----
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Pistole. Yes, it does.
Mr. Thompson. What your testimony basically is, is that one
system would allow the taxpayers a greater savings than
managing a two-part system?
Mr. Pistole. Well, yeah, I mean, the taxpayers are paying
either way, whether it is to the Federal employees, the TSOs,
or to the privatized screeners, who also have overhead for a
private company.
Mr. Thompson. But they are paying more.
Mr. Pistole. Right. So, in the past--and now we have driven
that down, but, in the past, it has been anywhere from 3 to 9
percent more than the Federal approach.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Thompson. We need to go on with some of the----
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Minnesota is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cravaack. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to
yield--I will not yield at this time.
Mr. Pistole, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate
it.
Just in the spirit of what I believe this committee should
be all about, which is finding solutions to the problems, I
would like to yield 30 seconds of my time to answer Ms. Jackson
Lee's question. Would that be all right?
Mr. Pistole. That is fine with me.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Jackson Lee, you are recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Pistole, TSA has a veterans preference. In privatizing,
would you be able to ensure that there would be a veterans
preference for private companies?
Mr. Pistole. We would be able to negotiate that as part of
the contract. As I think you are aware, approximately 24
percent of the overall TSA workforce are veterans.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would it be an extra cost, sir, for
privatized?
Mr. Pistole. I don't know that. I would have to look into
that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. We appreciate the yielding of
the gentleman, and I will pursue that further with the
administrator. I thank the Chairman for his kindness.
Mr. Cravaack. I will reclaim my time.
First off, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate
everything you have done. I have gone through that PreCheck. It
is slick. What it does--it is fantastic--it concentrates our
limited resources on known and unknown threats, and it is just
absolutely awesome. I commend you on that.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you.
Mr. Cravaack. One of the things I want to bring up, too, is
there is a big difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11
security, whether you are privatized or you are a Federal
employee. As an airline pilot that went pre-9/11, I can
dramatically see the difference.
Mr. Pistole. Right.
Mr. Cravaack. So it is a completely different ball game--
much more professional group, much more adherence and
concentrating on security. As an airline pilot for 17 years, I
can see the big difference.
One of the questions that I want to just really bring out
relatively quickly is, a while back, SPP applications for six
airports in February 2011, TSA denied the applications for the
six, indicated that they did not allow the expansion for the
program. Later in 2011, we walked it back a little bit and we
said there had to be a clear and substantial advantage to the
TSA airport, like you had said.
How did the TSA determine the threshold for the airport
participating in the SPP, in that the airport must demonstrate
that there is a clear and substantial advantage in order to
create that determination?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your
comments about PreCheck. The men and women of TSA are excited
by that because of the service they are able to provide, which,
frankly, they had been hampered on previously. So thank you for
that.
So, obviously, the process is an airport applies. Thus far,
you know, in the 10-plus years that TSA has been in existence,
we have only had 30 or so airports actually apply for the SPP
status. Now, some of those, a couple times because they were
denied. So only 30 out of the 450-plus airports.
So when they apply, then we evaluate that. Under this new
criteria, it would be: Is there a clear and substantial
advantage to the taxpayer, for the one? So is there a cost
benefit that is improved in some way that we can show that
there is a savings to the taxpayer? Then obviously they have to
comply with all the security protocols and regimens.
So it really comes down to, unless there is a clear and
substantial advantage, then what benefit is there in changing
if it would cost more and simply provide the same level of
security?
Mr. Cravaack. The metrics that you were applying, do you
have a copy? Can you forward those metrics to us?
Mr. Pistole. I basically outlined what they are. In terms
of the cost, and so what do we assess the cost as being? Then
the security protocols should be absolutely the same, if not
better than the current standard operating procedures for TSA.
So that is really what it comes down to.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. For the private organizations that did
apply for the SPP program, did you get back to them on telling
how their applications could be improved, why they were
deficient?
Mr. Pistole. What we asked them to do is come in and
provide what they believed would be the clear, substantial
indicia or information that would indicate why they would be a
better proposition than the Federal--so we didn't go back and
say, ``A, B, C, D, E, address these issues,'' if that is what
you are asking.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay, you did not do that.
Mr. Pistole. Did not do that.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay.
I am running quickly out of time, but I guess the big thing
for us is we want to make--everybody here on this panel wants
to make sure that we have an effective and efficient TSA.
Mr. Pistole. I appreciate that.
Mr. Cravaack. You know----
Mr. Pistole. That is my goal also.
Mr. Cravaack. Yeah, I know it. It is a bipartisan issue. We
have worked on a lot of different issues regarding
transportation as well.
The big thing I think we want to make sure that we have
public is that there is a beneficial cost associated with the
privatized, if there is one; and, No. 2, that we have an
effective system that you are able to manage.
So, with that, I am out of time and I will yield back.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
We are supposed to be called for votes soon, but I
understand that Mr. Mica has joined us, the Chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and would like
to sit at the dais. So I would ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to do so.
Without objection.
Welcome, Mr. Mica.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr, Pistole, thank you for the PreCheck
program. I think that is a move in the right direction.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Lungren. Having said that, though, you know my
consternation with respect to this program. Let me ask you, is
there any statutory language that reads that you must find
clear and substantial advantage before you can approve a
private contractor?
Mr. Pistole. None that I am aware of, no.
Mr. Lungren. So it is not part of the statute; it is
something----
Mr. Pistole. No.
Mr. Lungren [continuing.] That you have put as your
additional requirement.
Mr. Pistole. Yes. Trying to understand what I believed the
Congressional intent was in terms of creating TSA, you know,
after
9/11 as a Federalized workforce, with the exception of the SPP,
you know, the initial five and that assessment of whether
privatized airports could add value.
Mr. Lungren. Right. So it is not part of the statute.
Mr. Pistole. Not my knowledge, no.
Mr. Lungren. Would you think it unreasonable for an airport
such as the one in my district to not have applied for this yet
because they believe this is disfavored by you and by TSA?
Mr. Pistole. Well, I would hope that each airport would
make a business decision to assess what would be best for their
passengers, for their----
Mr. Lungren. I understand that. But let me ask you, if you
were told that they have to prove a clear and substantial
advantage, even though everything else must be equal----
Mr. Pistole. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lungren [continuing]. If you observe that the TSA, in
trying to make a comparison of the costs, initially said they
were double-digit, but Government Accounting Office when they
looked at it said, you know, ``TSA, you have forgotten about
the cost of Federal retirement,'' and then you brought that in
and you brought, I think, the difference down to about 3
percent; and if you saw what happened in Kansas City where the
court--frankly, I would be embarrassed if a court said this
about me or my client, that--it was an 81-page decision which
reversed, in the court's words, ``a fundamentally flawed source
selection by the TSA.''
They said, the TSA did not conduct a proper best-value
analysis. The court found, TSA arbitrarily deviated from their
own procedures that they had put in place. It said that TSA did
not document its evaluation and decision. It said that TSA's
price evaluation scheme was irrational. The only way you could
overturn something like this is if you find it arbitrary and
capricious. They found, frankly, TSA to be arbitrary and
capricious.
Then it is extended out over time, and if I am an operator
of an airport, that doesn't suggest to me that TSA is going to
be objective in this; it sounds to me like TSA is going to make
it extremely difficult for me.
So, I mean, I have an airport in my district that would
want to do it. They have not applied to you, at this point in
time. But I just want to set for the record that that is not
because they do not wish to.
So you keep quoting this number that, out of 400-and-some-
odd airports, only so many have applied. Then you have told me
you don't want to approve very many--you just approved West
Yellowstone?
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Lungren. How many flights do they have a day?
Mr. Pistole. I don't know.
Mr. Lungren. Have you ever been to West Yellowstone?
Mr. Pistole. Never been there.
Mr. Lungren. I have been to West Yellowstone. It is not one
of the large metropolises of America. Although I did get good
ice shaving there one time. If you ever want to find some good
ice shaving and you are coming out of Yellowstone, you will
find that that works very, very well.
There have been things that have been said on this dais
today that don't insult the Federal employee, and I do not wish
to insult the Federal employee, but to insult the private
employee I think is irresponsible, to suggest that the private
employee cannot do a good job.
Are you suggesting to us that the security at San Francisco
International Airport, the largest airport that has a private
contractor, is less than what it is at any other airport?
Mr. Pistole. Absolutely not.
Mr. Lungren. Would you allow that to be the case?
Mr. Pistole. Absolutely not. If they didn't do the job,
then we would seek another company or whatever other options.
Mr. Lungren. I mean, I do not understand why we have to sit
here and suggest that if you have a private employee, that
private employee is less than a public employee. Frankly, we
ought to Federalize the entire American workforce and have 138
million people all working for the Federal Government if that
happens to be the case.
I know that you oppose the proposition that was in the law,
but you have said that you will work to enforce that.
Mr. Pistole. Absolutely.
Mr. Lungren. I know, from your record, that you will do
that.
Mr. Pistole. Absolutely.
Mr. Lungren. I just hope you will not add any additional
things, such as ``clear and substantial advantage'' or whatever
else you would come up with, to undo the intent of Congress, as
you suggest that we are trying to follow the intent of
Congress.
With that, I see my time is over, and I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
We have been called for votes, but I want to recognize Mr.
Mica for his set of questions.
You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thanks for joining us.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson,
Members of the committee, for affording me a few minutes.
Hopefully--well, I will definitely finish within my 5.
I am pleased to have Administrator Pistole. He has probably
one of the toughest jobs in Washington. It is very difficult.
Of course, you know my history, having been involved--I was
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. The good Lord gave me
that task in 2001, and the President wanted a bill on his desk
by Thanksgiving after the attacks in September. Of course, we
don't have jurisdiction. I try to conduct oversight. I am also
on Government Reform and try to do our, you know, good job in
protecting the taxpayer and the flying public. It is an
important mission.
But that being said, we are here now, and there is great
frustration, as you know. You have probably heard some of it
today. We have talked, and I think that we need to get to a
risk-based system. I was pleased also--I wasn't here but I
heard of your willingness to work with the committee to
implement the new language, and that is important. I will work
with you. We want this to be successful. We want to work with
you, tried to work with Members of the Homeland Security
Committee in that regard.
But, you know, I have the most recent meltdowns--Honolulu,
you know, was a meltdown; Charlotte Douglas; most recently,
Liberty International. It is not just a couple, it is quite a
few of the TSA employees you had problems with. Every time you
pick up the paper--here is just last week's headlines: ``TSA
Workers: The Theft Cops'' and then ``TSA Agent Arrested for
Stealing iPads.'' Those are a couple from last week.
Then the recruitment and training, we spent $2.4 billion on
recruitment and training. We trained 137,000 people. Actually,
more people have left. I think we need to find a more efficient
way. If we can incorporate that into the SPP model, I think we
can have great savings there. That is something that I don't
think was in the GAO report.
Then, you know, you have resorted--I know the difficulty in
hiring people. You have advertised on the top of pizza boxes.
This is pizza boxes. This was on the top of--I saw this on a
National--well, I buy cheap gas. I went to a discount gas
station and actually took that picture. I was stunned to find
that Washington Reagan National, one of our most-targeted
probably, and need-to-be-secure airports, is now hiring
transportation security officers--it tells all the benefits--
above the ``cheapest gas in town'' pump ad.
You have gone to a huge number of screeners, 51,000; pretty
substantial administrative staff, somewhere between 12,000 and
14,000 out there. But right now, folks, for everyone in the
administrative realm, we are looking at about 30 people--well,
I will say 25 people, just a little lower, in administrative--
because have you marshals and others, we don't want to count
them in--overseeing this.
We have looked at all the models. I looked at them before;
I have looked at them around the country. The United States is
now one of only a few Western countries--Poland, Romania,
Bulgaria, and the United States. Libya did have an all-Federal
screening force. But you went and saw the models in Israel. I
went before, I went back after you went there, and Napolitano.
The United Kingdom, which had huge incidents of terrorists,
probably faced terrorism far worse than we did, they all retain
private screenings.
No one is saying, do away with the Federal Government. No
one is saying Federal employees do a bad job. But I want to get
you out of the personnel business and into the security
business--and I think that is so important, because we do have
a threat--so you can focus.
So, again--and the union issue. You know, the SPPs they
joined unions before the Federal employees. Those in San
Francisco and other places we looked at, sometimes the private
screeners pay more money to retain people. The turnover is
great. Maybe we could submit this comparison if it has it
between San Francisco and Los Angeles. There is room for that.
My only question, sir, is--you had stated to the committee
that you would work with us, and I hope you will work with me,
to try to improve this and implement the law that the
President, we expect, will sign in a few days.
Mr. Pistole. Yeah. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to ask you open-endedly before we go to vote,
where do you see this going? Do you envision a time horizon in
which you see an expansion of SPPs? Or is that something you
really don't want to see?
Mr. Pistole. I think it is hard to forecast, Mr. Chairman.
It is a good question because we, frankly, don't know.
You know, before my decision last year not to expand beyond
the 16 unless there is some clear and substantial benefit, as I
mentioned, there had only been the handful, less than three
dozen, that had applied. So even before that decision, it
wasn't like they were knocking down our doors. Now, to
Congressman Lungren's point, maybe there was a belief that we
wouldn't accept them.
So I, frankly, don't know what it will look like, but
obviously we have to be prepared for any substantial number.
If I could comment----
Mr. Rogers. Certainly.
Mr. Pistole [continuing]. On Congressman Mica's points, you
raised a number of good points and, obviously, some
philosophical differences. I don't know, I don't have
visibility into the private workforces, but just as there are
some outstanding security officers within the Federal
Government and not so, I assume that is the same in the private
sector.
What we don't hear about, for example, are some of the
great stories. For example, the security officer at Newark who
found $5,000 and turned it in. Another officer saw a second
officer taking the $5,000 and reported that. So, you know, good
with the bad there. Then just last week in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, a security officer whose apartment that he lived
in caught on fire, the apartment building. He went back in and
helped saved the lives of 10 people.
So those things aren't out there, but it just demonstrates
that we have great people within the Federal Government. There
are great people in the private sector. But, yeah, so, to
answer your question, it is----
Mr. Rogers. Yeah, I don't argue that. I mean, I think we
all admire the great employees that we have in the Federal
system. But we do have some good examples, like in San
Francisco, where the private contractors are working
wonderfully.
So I am anxious to see, as the next few months unfold, if
more people do pursue it, and if so, you know, how you view it.
Because I just don't want to close the door. I think there are
some great opportunities out there for us to transition, as
long as we can maintain comfort----
Mr. Pistole. Sure.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. That it is being done well.
There is a real concern on my part, though, that we have
seen the ratio of supervisors at the airports where we have SPP
programs be pretty high--40 or 50 folks supervising at one
airport. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Pistole. Yeah----
Mr. Rogers. Do you know what the ratio is?
Mr. Pistole. Well, for example, at SFO, with over 1,000
security officers, TSOs, I don't know the exact figure, but I
think that 40 to 50 is probably right. Because the private
company is simply doing the front-line workers and what we call
the leads and I believe the supervisors. But all the managers
and all the, as Congressman Mica refers to, the administrative
staff, those things still have to be done. The private
companies aren't paying for that; we are paying for that. So--
--
Mr. Rogers. Is that because you have contracted that you
want to keep those responsibilities? So the private company
could do it but you chose to maintain that authority?
Mr. Pistole. I don't know the specific contract provision
on that, Chairman, so I will have to take that back and look at
that. But that is the model. Whether that is by design or
simply--and, obviously, the Federal security directors and the
deputies in all the airports are still TSA employees.
But there is a certain efficiency of doing that. So, for
example, whether it is one of the small, Montana 7 or
something, yeah, there has to be some TSA presence in order for
us to oversee and make sure the protocols are being followed
accordingly.
So I will look into that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, and I will probably need to get back with
you in a classified setting, because I have some pretty glaring
examples that--they may be legitimate, they may be wrong, but
also they may have some security reasons why. But I would like
to know more about this ratio of TSA personnel to contract
personnel in airports, as well as some TSA folks that are in
other roles at airports. But I don't want to bring that up in a
public setting and----
Mr. Pistole. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Compromise anything that might be
inappropriate from your perspective.
I hate that votes have been called. I have a whole lot of
things I want to talk to you about, and these other guys and
gals did too. But we don't have control, and I don't want to
inconvenience you any further.
I hate to delay the second panel, but I have to go vote. As
soon as we get back, we will have our second panel.
So, with that, Mr. Pistole, thank you for being here.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. We are in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: WHY IS A JOB-CREATING, PUBLIC-PRIVATE
RELATIONSHIP MEETING RESISTANCE AT TSA? DAY II
----------
Thursday, February 16, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Transportation Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:07 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, Cravaack, Turner, Jackson
Lee, and Richmond.
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will come to order. I would
like to welcome everybody back to this important hearing, and
thank our witnesses for not only being here, but being so
patient and accommodating to our schedule. Today the
subcommittee will continue to examine the Screening Partnership
Program and TSA's willingness to work with the private sector
to improve transportation security. Last week we had a very
productive dialogue with Administrator Pistole on the role of
private screeners under the SPP program. I appreciated
Administrator Pistole's testimony and candid responses to my
questions and other Members' questions.
I now look forward to hearing from individuals who are
directly impacted by the decisions TSA makes with regard to
this important program. I hope that we can identify ways to
improve this program and TSA's relationship with the private
sector. I now would like to recognize our panelists.
We have Mr. Mark VanLoh is the director of aviation for the
city of Kansas City. Mr. VanLoh oversees all aspects of the
management, development, operation and maintenance of Kansas
City International Airport and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown
Airport. Prior to his tenure in Kansas City, Mr. VanLoh served
with Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority, where he was
president and CEO since 2001. From 1998 to 2001, Mr. VanLoh was
commissioner of airports for Cleveland Hopkins International
Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland, Ohio.
Previously, he served as director of airports for the Toledo-
Lucas County Port Authority in Toledo, Ohio, and director of
aviation for the Greater Rockford Airport Authority in
Rockford, Illinois. Mr. VanLoh is an accredited member of the
American Association of Airport Executives, and serves on the
board of directors for Airports Council International.
Mr. Steven Amitay is the Federal legislative counsel for
the National Association of Security Companies, NASCO, the
Nation's largest contract security association. For the past 12
years, Mr. Amitay has represented ASIS International, the
world's largest association of security professionals, and was
involved in the Congressional passage of the Private Security
Officers Employment Authorization Act. Mr. Amitay previously
served as a professional staff member of the then-Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency, Federalism, and the District of Columbia.
Also Mr. John Gage is with us. He is the national president
of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest
Federal employee union, representing 600,000 Federal and D.C.
government workers Nation-wide and overseas. He has held this
position since 2003. Mr. Gage has been involved in the American
Federation of Government Employees and the labor movement for
more than 25 years. Welcome all of you.
Again, thank you for being here and devoting your time and
attention to this effort. The Chairman now recognizes Mr.
VanLoh for his summarization of your testimony for 5 minutes.
Your full statement will be put in the record.
STATEMENT OF MARK VAN LOH, A.A.E., DIRECTOR, AVIATION
DEPARTMENT, KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. VanLoh. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Mark VanLoh,
as you said, director of aviation for the city of Kansas City.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today
to discuss the airport Screener Partnership Program. First I
want to describe Kansas City International Airport. It is one
of the country's major medium hubs. We are served by 23
passenger and cargo airlines, with approximately 200 daily
flights, and generate over 10 million passengers a year. Kansas
City International Airport is particularly conducive to
Screening Partnership Program because of its unique
configuration. Designed in the late 1960s, we have three
separate semicircular passenger terminals that are not
connected. It was designed so that the distance between the
curb and the jet bridge is 75 feet.
The lack of a central concourse also creates the need for
multiple security screening locations, and does not allow for a
central screening checkpoint that most modern airports have. My
testimony today addresses the airport Screener Partnership
Program based upon Kansas City's nearly 10 years of experience
under this program since it began shortly after 9/11. In the
aftermath of 9/11, Congress made fundamental changes to the way
airport passengers and property are screened. It took screening
out of the hands of the airlines and Federalized it under TSA.
However, Congress wisely decided to allow private screening
in two ways: First, it established a pilot program covering
five airports. Second, it established an opt-out program. Once
the pilot program expired, airports had the ability to opt out.
Kansas City was selected by TSA in 2002 under the pilot
program, along with four other airports, San Francisco,
Rochester, Tupelo, and Jackson Hole. It has been a partnership
that has worked extremely well at Kansas City. I have been an
airport operator for 28 years. In my view, the Screening
Partnership Program has provided a level of screening services
and security protection at least as good as, indeed we think
better than, levels that TSA would have provided using Federal
personnel. It has done so with operational efficiency and high
levels of customer satisfaction. By ``customer,'' I mean the
traveling public, the airport, and TSA. Because of the success
of the pilot program, we enthusiastically elected to continue
the Screening Partnership Program under the opt-out program. In
fact, all the original five airports selected have also elected
to continue to participate in this program. The advantage of
the Screening Partnership Program can be summarized as follows:
Enhanced flexibility and efficiencies in personnel use and
deployment; greater flexibility to respond to increased or
decreased service requirements; greater flexibility to cross-
train and cross-utilize personnel. We are not subject to the
Federal employee hiring freezes or employment caps that we have
all come to know. More effective in dealing with nonperformers.
That is key.
The private screening company has greater flexibility than
the Federal Government to redeploy screeners on short notice,
to reschedule screeners' shifts to and from off-hours, to add
or delete checkpoints on short notice. In fact, several airport
directors have recently complained about a decrease in staffing
and an increase in wait times at their Federalized airports. I
have the luxury in Kansas City of making one local phone call
to resolve any issue at my airport, and make immediate changes
without having to wait on a response from Washington.
Based on our nearly 10 years of experience under the
private program, I can report that the Screening Partnership
Program has been very effective in providing high-quality
service to our passengers at a security level equal to, if not
better than, that level using Federal Government employees. It
is a cost-effective program that can be used to increase
private sector opportunities and reduce costs to the Federal
Government. Using private contractors to perform critical
safety and security missions is quite common. There are many
safety and security functions carried out by private entities
with strong Federal oversight, as my written testimony points
out. One comes to mind is there are 200 private air traffic
control towers in the United States run by private operators
under the supervision of the air traffic control system.
While I firmly believe the program has worked well for
Kansas City, there are a number of areas I think it can be
improved. First, TSA needs to be more flexible in its
supervision of private screening companies as to better foster
improvements and innovation. TSA should set minimum levels of
security standards and operational procedures, but give the
private screeners the flexibility to provide security in a new
and innovative and creative way. However, as we understand it,
TSA requires all Federal and private screeners to operate under
the same procedures, including centralized procedures for
screener hiring and assessments, and coordinating all of it
through TSA headquarters.
I do not believe that the law requires a one-size-fits-all
approach. Second, TSA should develop staffing resources based
on the operational requirements of each airport, not on some
arbitrarily wide system capping based on salary caps and
staffing caps that it uses for the Federal workforce. Such an
approach would more effectively account for the unique
requirements of each airport, including the need for part-time
screeners. Once again, one size doesn't fit all. For example,
staffing requirements in Kansas City, which does not have a
single checkpoint, as I mentioned, would be markedly different
than the requirements for airports that have these facilities.
Third, private screening companies should have the flexibility
to vary compensation and benefits to enhance screener
performance. The law requires only that the private screeners
receive compensation and benefits not less than the Federal
screeners. But private screening companies should have the
flexibility to develop their own compensation plans, especially
when we compare the costs of living for Kansas City as compared
to Washington, DC, or the New York areas.
Fourth, there needs to be greater coordination with the
airport operator. Of course, TSA has the ultimate legal and
operational responsibility for screening. But more can be done
to get the airport operator's input on rational procedures,
staffing, and other critical activities. For example, TSA
recently chose to replace Kansas City's long-time private
screening company, yet they never asked us for our input on the
incumbent's prior performance, even though Kansas City
International received first place in the J.D. Power awards for
passenger satisfaction in 2010. We were not unhappy when the
TSA's decision to switch providers was challenged and
overturned in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Fifth, the choice of screening companies should be based
largely on technical capabilities and performance, not on cost.
Basing selection primarily on cost considerations, we will
return to the poor performing system we had prior to 9/11,
where contracts were generally awarded to the lowest bidder,
manned by screeners who lacked experience, critical skills, and
performance incentives.
In conclusion, the Screening Partnership Program has worked
very well at Kansas City International Airport. It has shown
that private screeners under the direct control and supervision
of the TSA will perform excellent security and customer service
at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be pleased to address any questions you or Members of the
subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. VanLoh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark VanLoh
February 7, 2012
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the
Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am Mark VanLoh and I am the
Director of Aviation for the City of Kansas City, Missouri. Thank you
for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on the airport
screener partnership program.
My testimony today addresses the airport screener partnership
program based upon Kansas City's nearly 10 years of experience under
the program since it began in June 2002. Kansas City International
Airport is one of the country's major medium-hub airports. We are
served by 23 passenger and cargo airlines with approximately 200 daily
flights and generate over 10 million annual passengers.
Based on our experience, the screening partnership program has
worked extremely well at Kansas City. It has provided a level of
screening services and security protection at least as good as, indeed,
we think better than, the levels that TSA would have provided using
Federal personnel. It has done so with operational efficiency and high
levels of customer satisfaction. As I will discuss later on, there are
a number of areas of improvement that TSA should implement to make the
program even more effective and efficient.
Prescreening of airline passengers and baggage had been a component
of the commercial aviation landscape for almost 40 years. The FAA
implemented universal prescreening on January 5, 1973, placing
prescreening responsibility on the airlines. Since this became a
component of airline costs, this approach resulted in a security
screening workforce based generally on the lowest-cost bidder, with
employees paid at minimum wage, lacking experience, skills, and
performance incentives, and with relatively poor training. In addition
to the United States, only two other countries in the world--Canada and
Bermuda--relied on air carriers to foot the responsibility for aviation
security screening.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
Congress promptly began to address enhancements to aviation security
and made fundamental changes in the way airport passengers and property
are screened. On September 21, 2001, a bill was introduced in the
Senate that would place security screening responsibility in the hands
of the Federal Government, manned by a Federal security workforce. A
competing House bill proposed to utilize private screening companies
under the direct supervision and control of the Federal Government. The
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) was passed by Congress
on November 16, 2001 and signed by the President on November 19, 2001.
ATSA created a new Federal agency, the Transportation Security
Administration within the Department of Transportation (subsequently
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security), with
responsibility for security of all transportation modes. ATSA
Federalized security screening at more than 440 commercial airports in
the United States.
As a compromise between the Senate and the House approaches to
private versus Federal security screeners the ATSA provided for two
private screening options:
First, under 49 U.S.C. 44919, Congress created a mandatory 2-year
``pilot program'' directing the TSA to establish a ``pilot program''
for private screening involving not more than five airports (one from
each of the five security risk categories defined by TSA). Under that
program, TSA, not the airport or the airlines, is required to contract
with a private screening company at the selected airports.
Second, under 49 U.S.C. 44920, Congress authorized a ``security
screening opt-out program'' beginning November 19, 2004, under which
airports can ``opt out'' of the Federal screening program and have
security screening performed by qualified private screening company
under a contract with the TSA rather than Federal screeners.
Kansas City applied for participation in the pilot program in May
2002 and was selected on June 10, 2002, as one of the five airports to
participate in the pilot program, also known as PP5, along with San
Francisco, Rochester, Tupalo, and Jackson Hole. These airports
represented a balanced cross-section of the different airport security
risk categories.
At the end of the pilot program, Kansas City had the automatic
right to ``elect to continue to have screening carried out by screening
personnel of a qualified private screening company'', and Kansas City
enthusiastically chose to continue with private screening through the
``opt-out'' program. Actually, all of the original five airports in the
program have elected to continue this partnership.
It is vitally important for Congress and TSA to recognize that a
``one-size-fits-all'' approach to airport security would not work.
There are vast differences in the physical layouts among the Nation's
airports. One of the reasons we believe Kansas City International
Airport was a perfect candidate for the pilot program was because of
the airport's unique physical layout and the unique requirements for
security facilities and personnel.
Kansas City International Airport has three separate semi-circular
passenger terminals. The airport was designed in the 1960's with the
passenger convenience objective of shortening the distance between the
terminal entrance and the points at which passengers board aircraft.
Consequently, Kansas City International Airport is unique among major
airports as it is configured so that the distance between curbside and
boarding bridge is only 75 feet. This unique design minimizes the
distance between curbside and gate, shortens the time between arrival
and boarding, and maximizes customer convenience. The lack of a central
concourse also creates the need for multiple security screening
locations and does not allow for central security screening that is
common with more modern airport designs.
Although the airlines and our passengers are well-served by the
current configuration, we are in the initial design-stage of a program
to modernize Kansas City International Airport which, when completed,
will have one large terminal, rather than three separate terminals.
However, that project is many year away.
Based on our nearly 10 years of experience under the private
screening program, we think that the public-private screening program
is very effective in providing high-quality service to our passengers
at a level of security equal to, if not better than, the level that
would be provided at the airport using Federal Government employees. It
is a cost-effective program that can be used to increase private-sector
job opportunities and reduce costs to the Federal Government. The
private screening program at Kansas City has been a success and is a
model for expansion of the public-private screening program for other
airports throughout the country.
Relying on private entities to perform critical safety and security
missions is common. There are many safety and security functions
carried out by private entities with strong Federal oversight. These
include consumer products and medical products manufacturing, travel
through the National airspace, physical security at Federal facilities
(like the U.S. DOT and FAA, for example) are activities that are
conducted by private companies. These products and services are
important to the safety and security of U.S. citizens but are conducted
by private entities under the appropriate supervision of Federal
regulation, certification, inspection, and enforcement. There is no
sound reason why screening services at U.S. airports cannot be
delegated to private entities. We think that the public-private program
has proved that it can be done so successfully, safely, and with the
highest level of security.
The ATSA statute ensures that the level of security provided under
the private screening program remains high. This is because the law
mandates that the level of screening provided at the airport under the
contract program ``will be equal to or greater than the level that
would be provided at the airport by Federal Government personnel.'' 49
U.S.C. 44920(d)(1).
The advantages of public-private screening can be summarized as
follows:
enhanced flexibility and efficiencies in personnel use and
deployment.
greater flexibility to respond to increased or decreased
service requirements.
greater flexibility to cross-train and cross-utilize
personnel.
not subject to Federal employee ``hiring freezes'' and
employment caps.
more effective in dealing with non-performers.
less expensive to the Federal Government.
Kansas City has been quite satisfied with the level of performance
of the private screener at Kansas City International Airport--Firstline
Transportation Security, Inc., a company with long-standing experience
in providing security. The quality of screener performance is high and
they have demonstrated a commitment to providing a high level of
customer service while not sacrificing their over-arching security
responsibilities.
At the outset of the pilot program, we provided input to the TSA
Federal Security Director on the critical goals and objectives for the
private screening program, focusing on the external customer service
issues, short lines, courteous behavior and professionalism, efficiency
coupled with thorough and quality screening of our customers. Based
upon the experience to date, the quality of performance of the private
screeners has been very good. Kansas City is particularly conducive to
a private screening workforce because of the need for flexibility to
re-deploy screeners on short notice, to reschedule screener shifts to
and from off-hours, and to add or delete screening checkpoints on short
notice as airline services increase or decrease. In fact, several
fellow airport directors have recently complained about a decrease in
staffing and an increase in passenger wait times at their airports. I
have the luxury in Kansas City of making one local phone call to
resolve any issues and make immediate changes without the need to wait
for a response from Washington.
While we believe the program has worked well for Kansas City, there
are a number of areas in the way TSA oversees the private security
program that should be improved.
First, TSA needs to be more flexible in its supervision of private
screening companies so as to better foster improvements and innovation.
The law provides for TSA oversight and requires that TSA ensures that
the level of screening services and the protection afforded ``will be
equal to or greater than the level that would be provided at the
airport by Federal Government personnel.'' To fulfill that
responsibility, TSA should set minimum levels of security standards and
operational procedures, but give the private screeners the flexibility
to provide the security in new, different, innovative, and creative
ways. However, as we understand it, TSA requires Federal and private
screeners to operate under the same procedures, including centralized
procedures and facilities for screener hiring and assessments, and
coordination or hiring through TSA headquarters. The law doesn't
mandate a one-size-fits-all approach.
Second, with respect to screener staffing, instead of establishing
arbitrary staffing caps based on a system-wide staffing model, TSA
should conduct staffing analysis and operational requirements for each
specific airport. We believe that this approach does not effectively
account for the unique requirements of each airport, including the need
for part-time screeners. Again, one size doesn't fit all. For example,
staffing requirements for Kansas City International Airport's, which
does not have a single central security location but are spread
throughout several terminals, will be markedly different than the
requirements for airports that have centralized security screening
facilities.
Third, private screening companies should have the flexibility to
vary compensation/benefits to enhance screener performance. The law
requires only that the private screeners receive compensation and
benefits ``not less than'' Federal screeners, but private screening
companies should have flexibility to develop their own compensation
plans--especially when comparing the cost of living in areas such as
New York with the Midwest.
Fourth, there needs to be greater coordination with the airport
operator. While TSA has the ultimate legal and operational
responsibility for screening, more can be done to get the airport
operator's input in the operational procedures, staffing, and other
critical activities.
Fifth, screening companies must be selected on the basis of
technical capabilities, performance and not just on cost. When our
long-term private screening company's contract expired, TSA selected
another company in large part based on price. That company TSA selected
did not match the incumbent's experience and technical capabilities.
These decisions simply should not be based primarily on cost otherwise
we will return to the system that existed pre-9/11 where contracts were
generally awarded to the lowest-cost bidder, with employees paid at
minimum wage, lacking experience, critical skills, and performance
incentives. The low-cost bidder would be hard-pressed to retain
experienced workers because of the need to reduce salaries/staff. And,
TSA never asked Kansas City for our input on the incumbent's prior
performance. The TSA's decision was challenged and eventually
overturned by the United States Court of Federal Claims. Firstline
Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-375C, issues
September 27, 2011.
In conclusion, the public-private airport screening program has
worked well and has demonstrated that under appropriate circumstances
private screeners under the direct control and supervision of the TSA
will provide high levels of security, on an efficient and cost-
effective basis, with enhanced customer service.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks and I would be
pleased to address any questions you and the Members of the
subcommittee may have. Thank you for this opportunity to present Kansas
City's views on this important topic.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Amitay for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN D. AMITAY, ESQ., FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITY COMPANIES
Mr. Amitay. Chairman Rogers, distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. As the Chairman said, my name is Stephen Amitay,
and I am Federal legislative counsel to NASCO, the National
Association of Security Companies. Founded in 1972, NASCO is
the Nation's largest contract security trade association, and
NASCO works with legislators and officials at every level of
government on issues that affect the use of private security.
NASCO strives to increase awareness and understanding of the
important role of private security in safeguarding persons and
property, and supporting law enforcement and government
entities. At the same time, NASCO has been the leading advocate
for raising standards for the licensing of private security
officers and for firms. Across the Nation, almost 2 million
armed and unarmed security officers are employed by private
companies. Private security is providing protection and
screening of employees and visitors at thousands of Federal
facilities, including DSA and TSA headquarters, CIA and FBI
offices, NASA launch sites, Federal courthouses, National labs,
and National heritage sites.
Private security officers are also on duty at numerous U.S.
military installations. Private security protects the vast
majority of critical infrastructure facilities in the United
States. Today's hearing addresses the use of private companies
to provide passenger and baggage screening at U.S. airports
under the Screening Partnership Program, SPP. More
specifically, the subcommittee is examining why, after 9 years
of a successful partnership with private screening companies,
TSA now believes the expansion of the SPP program will
essentially inhibit TSA's ability to provide effective aviation
security.
First off, the stated justifications for this new non-
expansion policy relating to potentially lessened ability to
modify procedures, redeploy screeners, and distribute
intelligence are alternatively unsubstantiated, or as Mr.
Pistole stated last week, can be addressed through contract
modifications. Furthermore, while anyone can come up with
fanciful what-if scenarios, there is absolutely no tangible
evidence in the almost 10-year history of the SPP that an SPP
contractor has not effectively served the needs of the TSA.
For instance, when TSA virtually overnight implemented the
3-1-1 liquid and gel screening procedures at all airports, the
SPP contractors were right on top of it. There is no indication
that the TSA's needs cannot be similarly met in the future by
private companies if the SPP expands. As to the more general
issue of whether private screeners should be used at all at
U.S. airports, which was a major focus of last week's hearing,
putting aside that using private screeners allows TSA to focus
more on aviation security and less on personnel management,
putting aside that private companies are more adept at screener
management and motivation, hiring, and retaining employees, and
are much more customer-service focused, which also has a
security benefit, putting aside that all cargo screening in the
United States is done by private companies under TSA oversight,
putting aside that virtually all other Western countries have
determined that private screening under Federal oversight is
the most effective screening model, and putting aside that if
TSA was ever able to account for all its costs and conduct a
true cost comparison, it would find SPP airports to be less
costly to operate than non-SPP airports, but for opponents of
the SPP to claim that using private screeners is not as secure
or effective as using Federal screeners is completely unfounded
and contradicted by independent evaluations, covert testing,
and TSA performance metrics.
It came as no surprise then when credit for the TSA's
decision to halt the expansion of the SPP was not claimed by
aviation security experts, but by the union now representing
Federal screeners. At a minimum, and I repeat a minimum, under
the SPP, private screeners must meet the same employment
screening, proficiency, and training requirements of Federal
screeners. They must be provided compensation and benefits at a
level no less than Federal screeners.
Finally, the level of screening services and protection
provided by the private screening company must be equal to or
greater than the level that would be provided at an airport by
Federal screeners. In fact, as is often the case, private
screeners undergo more employment screening and training, their
pay and benefits equal or exceed those of Federal screeners,
and most significantly, as mentioned, covert testing,
independent evaluations, and the awarding of contract
performance bonuses provide clear evidence that the level of
screening provided by private screeners is superior to that of
Federal screeners. Therefore, for anyone to characterize the
possible expansion of the SPP as a ``return to the pre-9/11
screening workforce,'' such a statement not only defies
credulity and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the
SPP operates and is governed, but is also an insult to the
highly-trained, hard-working men and women working as screeners
at SPP companies.
Passenger and baggage screening is not an inherently
Governmental function. Like with many other complex services,
qualified private screening companies possess the real-world
experience, management, and cost accounting tools, flexibility,
and motivation that allows them to provide equal or better
service more efficiently than the Federal Government.
From the experiences and lessons learned in the SPP, it is
clear that the use of private screening companies has proven to
be a viable and effective option for airports. Private
screening can effectively be overseen by TSA. It is therefore
unfortunate, and indeed ironic, that at a time with
unprecedented interest and emphasis on Government efficiency
and sustained and meaningful job growth that TSA is trying to
limit and marginalize a successful public-private partnership
that is exceedingly efficient, effective, and customer-focused.
Far from ignoring the SPP and its mission to provide the
best possible aviation security, the TSA should be embracing
the SPP. Private security companies stand ready to work with
TSA to improve passenger and baggage screening at U.S.
airports. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amitay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen D. Amitay
February 7, 2012
nasco and private security
NASCO is the Nation's largest contract security trade association,
whose member companies employ more than 300,000 security officers.
Across the Nation almost 2 million private security officers, both
contract and proprietary are at work protecting (and often screening
persons and bags) at Federal buildings, courthouses, military
installations, critical infrastructure facilities, businesses, schools,
and public areas. In addition, as the Screening Partnership Program
(SPP) has demonstrated, private companies are also effectively
providing passenger and baggage screening services to U.S. airports.
Formed in 1972, NASCO strives to increase awareness and understanding
among policy-makers, consumers, the media and the general public of the
important role of private security in safeguarding persons and
property. At the same time, NASCO has been the leading advocate for
raising standards for the licensing of private security firms and the
registration, screening and training of security officers. At every
level of government, NASCO has worked with legislators and officials to
put in place higher standards for companies and officers. As the
recognized source of information and views for the contract security
industry, NASCO regularly holds seminars and other events for industry
which provide a forum for information and interaction with Members of
Congress, Congressional staff, Federal officials, legal and policy
experts on issues and activities affecting the private security
industry. NASCO recently formed a ``Government Security Contractor
Caucus'' to widen and strengthen its efforts to improve the working
relationship between Federal agencies and private security companies
and since the inception of the SPP, NASCO has worked with companies and
policy-makers involved and interested in the program. Most
significantly, over the past several years NASCO has been very active
in working with Congress and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) to
strengthen the ``public-private partnership'' that is the FPS Contract
Guard Program.
background on the spp
After 9/11 Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA), which stood up TSA and authorized it to assume
responsibility for security in all modes of transportation, including
the creation of a Federal workforce to conduct passenger and baggage
screening at U.S. airports. However, Congress did not make a blanket
judgment that in going forward with more stringent airport screening
only a Federal workforce could provide effective screening. As such,
the ATSA also required TSA to set up a parallel screening program (the
SPP) that would allow airport operators to ``opt out'' of using Federal
screeners. Instead, these airports could have their screening conducted
by personnel from a qualified private screening company chosen by TSA
operating under strict Federal standards, supervision, and oversight.
The SPP was made available to all U.S. airports in November 2004, after
a required 2-year SPP pilot program involving five airports, one from
each of the five ``airport security risk categories.''
Currently, sixteen airports, including all five of the airports in
the original pilot program, have opted out of the use of Federal
screeners with the largest being San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) in California and Kansas City International Airport (KCI) in
Missouri.
For a company to be ``qualified to provide screening services''
under the SPP, the company must only employ individuals ``who meet all
the requirements applicable to Federal Government personnel who perform
screening services at airports.'' The company must ``provide
compensation and other benefits to such individuals that are not less
than the level of compensation and other benefits provided to such
Federal Government personnel.'' Finally, a private company can only
provide screening at an airport if TSA determines and certifies to
Congress that ``the level of screening services and protection provided
at the airport under the contract will be equal to or greater than the
level that would be provided at the airport by Federal Government
personnel.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aviation Transportation and Security Act, Section 108, 49 USC
44920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reiterate, at airports where private screening companies are
used: (1) The screeners at a minimum have met the same employment
screening, proficiency, and training requirements of Federal screeners,
(2) the screeners are provided compensation and benefits at a level no
less than Federal screeners (in fact on its website TSA states that it
has ``conducted an extensive review of the private contractors and
found overall the private screening companies are providing pay and
benefits that equal or exceed the pay and benefits provided by the
Federal Government''),\2\ and (3) the level of screening services and
protection provided by the company must be equal to or greater than the
level that would be provided at the airport by Federal screeners.
Therefore, when John Gage, the head of the AFGE which represents
``competing'' Federal screeners, characterizes the SPP as ``a return to
the pre-9/11 screening workforce of low paid and poorly trained non-
Federal employees'' such criticism defies credulity and shows a
complete lack of understanding of how the SPP operates and is
governed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ TSA website, ``Screening Partnership Program'' FAQs. http://
www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm.
\3\ The TSO Voice; January 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the inference that the use of private screeners at
airports allowed for the tragedy of 9/11 to take place is plain wrong.
FAA regulations in place on 9/11 permitted the weapons the terrorists
used to take over the planes to be brought on board, and the 9/11
Commission Report found that each security layer relevant to
hijackings--intelligence, passenger prescreening, checkpoint screening,
and onboard security--was seriously flawed prior to 9/11.
In fact, over the past 9 years since airports have been using
private screeners under the SPP there is considerable evidence from
covert testing results, GAO reports, independent evaluations, reports
from airport operators, anecdotal information, and other sources that
the public-private partnership of utilizing private screeners under
Federal regulation and oversight is a superior and more cost-effective
security option for airports than using Federal screeners.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Oversight and Investigations, Staff Report: TSA Ignores More Cost
Effective Screening Model, June 3, 2011, [hereinafter T&I SPP Report].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tsa resistance to the spp
TSA has described the SPP as a way ``to benefit from private
expertise and know how.''\5\ Accordingly, during the pilot and the
first several years of the program the screening companies involved
truly felt the SPP was being used by TSA as a ``laboratory'' to see how
the private sector could help improve and innovate airport screening
and the management of screeners. TSA would both bring SPP company
officials to Washington and send TSA ``tiger teams'' to SPP airports to
observe and learn about the screening methods and operations of the
companies. In 2007, TSA even encouraged some smaller airports in
Montana to apply to join the SPP, as the rigid TSA staffing model was
inefficient to staff those airports. Even as recently as 2009, in
awarding an SPP contract to continue private screening for Roswell Air
Center in New Mexico, the TSA Federal Security Director overseeing the
airport called it an ``excellent example of an effective public-private
partnership'' and he ``looked forward to working'' with the private
screening company.\6\ However, while TSA has never fully embraced the
SPP, as the title of today's hearing notes, this public-private
partnership is now (and has been for the last couple years)
encountering serious resistance at TSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/what_is_spp.shtm.
\6\ TSA Press Release; ``Private Screening Contract Awarded for
Roswell International Air Center'' July 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA resistance related to the SPP and SPP companies has taken many
forms. There are no more ``lessons learned'' meetings with SPP
companies. The process for SPP companies to submit innovations to TSA,
a component of SPP contracts, is now ignored or ideas are summarily
dismissed as unworkable. While the level of communication between SPP
companies and local TSA officials, program managers, and contracting
officials remains high, the flow of information from TSA headquarters
to screening companies, and airports, has diminished. The ability for
the screening companies, airports, and TSA to work together has been
limited by a lack of TSA sharing of important performance and service
data and the agency often taking a ``my way or the highway approach''
to doing things. In addition, as TSA gets more secretive and guarded
with its information, TSA is now seeking to limit the ability of SPP
companies to share information. In a recent SPP contract, TSA, without
any notice or explanation, inserted a provision that prohibits the SPP
from publicly disseminating ``any information, oral or written,
concerning the results or conclusions made pursuant to the
performance'' of the contract ``without prior written consent of the
Contracting Officer.'' This includes seminars, professional society
meeting/conferences, and even requests for information from Congress.
Before this ``gag order'' was put in place, SPP companies were already
prohibited from releasing protected Government information under both
previous contract language and various Federal laws. Given the
broadness of this clause, SPP companies are now reticent to discuss
almost any aspect of their performance with anyone without first
receiving TSA's written permission. This could severely restrict the
amount of information available to airports, Congress, and the public
about the SPP.
TSA's mishandling last year of the SPP contract award for the
Kansas City airport could also be seen as resistance to the SPP or
perhaps just incompetence. Either way it showed an irrational lack of
consideration for quality service. TSA was required to make the award
based on a ``best-value analysis tradeoff'' using price and six non-
price factors. However, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined
that the TSA award was ``essentially made on a lowest-cost technically
acceptable basis not pursuant to the best-value determination required
by the RFP.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FirstLine Transportation Security Inc. v. United States, 2011
U.S. Claims LEXIS 1945 (September 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ordering the award to be stopped, the Court concluded that it
was ``clear that the Source Selection Evaluation Board failed to
account for the significant differences between the competing proposals
with respect to technical quality including the four most important
technical evaluation factors in the tradeoff analysis (Management
Approach, Screening Services, Security Training, and Pre-Transition/
Transition).'' In addition, the losing proposal was assigned 33
strengths and not a single weakness, while winning proposal received
only one strength and one weakness. It goes without saying that it is
in the public's best interest for TSA to properly award airport
screening contracts using a ``best value'' analysis, which places a
premium on performance capabilities as opposed to a ``low price
technically acceptable'' basis.
The greatest TSA ``resistance'' though related to the SPP though is
the now year-old TSA policy that it will not approve new airports for
the SPP unless there can be demonstrated a ``clear and substantial
advantage'' to do so. This new policy was announced in the wake of the
denial of 5 SPP airport applications for which TSA provided no details.
It was also preceded by attempts of TSA officials, from the
administrator on down, to discourage airports from joining the SPP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Even though the current TSA administrator has not been known to
have ever visited any SPP airport since assuming his position, as
documented in the House T&I SPP Report, he did make a visit to the
Sanford Orlando Airport to try to personally talk the airport director
out of joining the SPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a plain reading of ATSA language governing the SPP gives TSA
complete discretion in approving application (``The Under Secretary may
approve any application submitted . . . ''); nonetheless, the intent of
Congress seemed clear that if a screening company could provide a level
of services and protection equal to or greater than that of Federal
screeners, and the airport making an application had a good safety and
security record, then that airport would be accepted into the program.
While TSA never embraced the SPP, this interpretation of the SPP
statutory language was followed by TSA--until last January. Essentially
now, airports are cut off from the SPP.
The vague justifications provided for the new policy relating to
agility, cohesive and intelligence sharing, as will be discussed later,
are alternatively unsubstantiated or can be addressed through TSA
working with SPP companies and modifying SPP contracts. And to no
surprise, credit for this new dubious policy was not claimed by
aviation security experts but by the union now representing Federal
screeners.
Fortunately though, help is on the way for new airports wishing to
join the SPP and benefit from more effective, efficient, and customer
service-oriented private screening companies. Under the FAA
Reauthorization bill about to be enacted, Congress has amended the ATSA
to add criteria and time lines under which the administrator must act
in considering SPP applications. Specifically, TSA:
``Shall approve an application submitted by an airport operator under
subsection (a) if the Under Secretary determines that the approval
would not compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-
efficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers or
property at the airport.
``Shall provide to the airport operator, not later than 60 days
following the date of the denial, a written report that sets forth the
findings that served as the basis for the denial; the results of any
cost or security analysis conducted in considering the application; and
recommendations on how the airport operator can address the reasons for
the denial.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ H.R. 658, FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, Section
830. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENING OPT-
OUT PROGRAM.
The Act also give airports a voice as to which qualified screening
company would best meet its screening needs and the Act gives the
administrator the discretion to waive the SPP requirement that a
screening company be ``owned and controlled by a citizen of the U.S.''
in the case of U.S. subsidiaries ``with a parent company that has
implemented a foreign ownership, control, or influence mitigation plan
that has been approved by the Defense Security Service of the
Department of Defense.''
The expected results of these changes to the SPP seem clear. More
applying airports will be accepted into the SPP in a timely fashion
with more qualified screening companies available to them. As described
below, it seems virtually impossible based on the past and current
performance of screening companies in the SPP that the administrator
will reasonably determine that using a private screening company will
``compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or
the effectiveness of the screening'' at an airport. We will soon find
out though as FAA bill also requires the TSA to reconsider those
applications that were pending before it limited the program and denied
five applications last January.
merits of the screening partnership program
The merits and effectiveness of the Screening Partnership Program
and a public-private partnership for airport screening can be viewed on
policy, operational, and other levels.
On a policy level, with private companies doing airport screening,
TSA is not both the regulator and operator. The reasons supporting
lessening TSA's direct role and conflicting mission in screening are
two-fold. First, the enormous task of managing the 50,000 or more TSA
employees involved in airport screening diverts and denigrates TSA's
ability to focus on critical transportation security-related functions
such as setting security standards, technology adoption, conducting
risk management analyses, performing oversight, enforcing standards and
regulations, analyzing intelligence, auditing screening operations, and
doing more to stop aviation-related terror before the terrorists get to
the airport. Second, as the entity both conducting the screening and
overseeing the screening, there are inherently greater risks of poor
screener performance going uncorrected or even worse being encouraged
or covered up by management.
Last year an investigation at Hawaii's Honolulu International
Airport uncovered a massive on-going security breech involving improper
(lack of) screening of checked bags for explosives. Forty-five TSA
workers at the airport were fired or suspended including screeners,
their supervisors, and the Federal Security Director. The TSA screeners
claimed they were forced to abandon required screening practices
because of TSA management pressure. Could TSA managers at an SPP
airport, operating at ``arm's length'', be able to pressure a private
screening company to abandon required screening practices putting the
company in clear default of its entire contract? Not likely. The
potential loss of a contract and hundreds of jobs is a strong incentive
for a company, and everyone in the company, to make sure that all
employees are compliant with the requirements of the contract. At the
Hawaii airport, the malfeasant Federal screeners, managers, and
security director were simply replaced by other Federal employees.
On an operational level, the reasons why using private screeners is
more effective and efficient are numerous and well-documented. While
private and Federal screeners are required to meet the same minimum
training/screening standards and are compensated comparably, there are
many advantages in using private screeners and private screening
companies. In providing many services, the private sector is much more
innovative, efficient, and effective than the Federal sector and
airport screening is no exception. The same can be said for the
managing of such services.
Private screening companies at SPP airports have come up with
numerous innovations, some which TSA adopted Nation-wide, and are doing
things to improve screener quality and performance (and airport
satisfaction) that TSA does not or cannot do. SPP companies came up
with better configurations for processing passengers through screening.
An SPP company came up with dual functioning screeners (certified for
both checkpoint and baggage screening), which facilitated flexibility
in scheduling. To address widespread baggage screener injuries and
related costs, an SPP company created a non-certified position assigned
only to lift bags for the certified baggage screeners (significantly
reducing screener injuries and workers compensation costs). At a
Federalized airport a new OPM job classification would first be
required. SPP companies employ full-time health and safety
professionals on-site to investigate and study injuries and devise ways
to mitigate them. SPP companies competitively bid for materials and
support services. Screeners that are better at image recognition are
paired with new screeners in a ``mentor'' arrangement. SPP companies do
their own covert testing of screeners in addition to TSA coverts tests
and provide remedial training on-site--something that TSA cannot
provide.
In terms of better hiring and retention of screeners, SPP companies
also do many things that TSA does not or cannot do. In hiring
screeners, SPP companies do their own local recruiting and screen
applicants before submitting them for the formal TSA screening process.
Even after a prospective screener passes the TSA screening process, he
or she can still go through a company interview with supervisors before
being hired. At airports using Federal screeners, screeners can show up
for work, sight-unseen, already hired. The additional screening that
SPP companies apply to the recruitment process results in more
successful new-hire completion rates and on-going on-the-job success.
At Federal airports, TSA headquarters sets compensation for screeners
and managers and screeners have no real financial incentives to perform
beyond the minimum requirements and barring the commission of a crime
or serious violation of standards, Federal screeners and managers--like
all Federal workers--have great job security.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Dennis Cauchon ``Some federal workers more likely to die than
lose jobs'' USA TODAY July 19, 2011. Recently, a TSA screener who was
caught on tape stealing $5,000 in cash from an air passenger's jacket
at a TSA screening checkpoint and was arrested for grand larceny was
``suspended pending investigation.'' At an SPP company, that screener
would be ``suspended pending termination'' and likely be fired much
sooner than at TSA. SPP companies, while in compliance with all DoL
standards, have considerably more capability to discipline
progressively and remove ineffective employees than TSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At SPP airports, the screening operation is a business, and better
performance is good for business both tangibly (award fees) and
intangibly (reputation and future business). SPP company site mangers
are very vested in hiring the right people, monitoring performance, and
striving for better-than-average performance. Bonuses are provided for
perfect attendance and robust attendance policies are maintained
(recognizing that just one late screener can prevent the ``critical
mass'' needed to open a check point). Does TSA even have an attendance
policy for its screeners? Private screeners can also be immediately
counseled and can be provided with remedial training if needed. A
culture of cohesion and teamwork within the workforce and peer
expectations are encouraged.
SPP companies also use a pre-hire physical testing protocol coupled
with other working initiatives that minimize on-the-job injuries, and
allow for faster return to work and lower workers compensation rates.
SPP companies will provide monetary and other incentives to retain
screeners. SPP companies fully realize that a stable workforce is more
efficient, effective, and motivated. The House T&I SPP Report
calculated that the turnover rate at the non-SPP LAX airport was 13.8%
compared to 8.7% at the SPP San Francisco (SFO) airport.\11\ Supporting
the notion that TSA is not as effective at managing/motivating/
retaining its screener workforce is the recent ranking of TSA at 232
(out of 240) as the ``Best Places to Work'' in the Federal
Government.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id at Appendix I.
\12\ http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/HS10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major advantage that SPP companies have over TSA is in scheduling
and managing its screener force. At Federally screened airports, the
number of full-time and part-time screeners (actually FTE's) is
dictated to TSA airport directors by TSA headquarters. At SPP airports,
the SPP company site manager can hire more screeners as needed in order
to meet the contract requirement for total screener hours. They can
more flexibly schedule screeners in ways to provide better service
without increasing costs. For instance, at most larger airports, the
terminals are open for 20 hours. Under TSA's staffing model, this would
require two full-time screeners at 8 hours per shift and one part-time
screener for 4 hours to staff the position, with all three screeners
receiving fixed benefits. On the other hand, at one SPP airport with
such terminal operating hours, the SPP company is able to schedule two
screeners at two 10-hour shifts reducing personnel and costs. TSA does
not utilize such an option.
For most airports, the No. 1 concern is wait time and SPP companies
are much attuned to this concern. SPP companies use sophisticated
airline industry-based scheduling tools, which efficiently schedule and
manage staffing in real-time. They make the screening schedules and can
make pinpoint adjustments using optimization software and airline data.
They have decision support systems that allow managers to be proactive.
Scheduling is also tied in directly with payroll, HR, and training
systems, which ensure full visibility of manpower resources. For TSA,
effective and efficient scheduling is a problem due to centralization
of the scheduling system and institutional inflexibility. Airports are
told when to open lanes and checkpoints with little local TSA (or
airport) input. As evidence of the scheduling problems at TSA, in 2008
the DHS Inspector General found that TSA is ``overly reliant on the
(National mobile) deployment force to fill chronic staffing shortages
at specific airports in lieu of more cost-effective strategies and
solutions to handle screening demands.''\13\ In the House T&I SPP
Report, it was estimated that SPP screeners (based on a comparison
between two similarly-sized airports) are 65 percent more efficient
than their TSA Federal counterparts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DHS OIG Report ``The TSA National Deployment Force'' April
2008. OIG-08-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While private screeners and private screening companies are more
efficient, there is also a strong case to be made that they are more
effective. While not much data is publicly made available, from what is
available, screener performance is better at SPP airports than non-SPP
airports. In 2007, USA Today uncovered covert TSA tests results that
showed significantly higher screener detection capabilities at an SPP
airport (SFO) than at a comparably-sized non-SPP airport (LAX).
According to the test results, investigators successfully smuggled 75
percent of fake bombs through checkpoints at Los Angeles International
Airport . . . and 20 percent at San Francisco International
Airport.''\14\ As reported by the GAO in a 2009 report, in December of
2007, Catapult Consultants issued a report to TSA (which was never
publically released) that found private screeners performed at a level
that was ``equal to or greater'' than that of the average Federal
screeners. TSA was also advised to ``explore the use of the SPP model
as a tool to improve performance at low-performing fully Federal
airports.''\15\ In addition, in SPP contracts, TSA measures a company's
performance against the average performance of airports in the same
category through a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP). In order
for a company to get an award fee they must score higher than the
Federal average. In other words, SPP companies simply cannot meet the
goal, they must exceed the performance metric in order to earn their
award fee. SPP companies consistently earn award fees meaning they are
consistently exceeding the average performance of similar non-SPP
airports. This accords with the ATSA requirement that in order for an
SPP company to maintain its contracts/certification it must be equal to
or better in performance than similar Federal airports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Thomas Frank, ``Most Fake Bombs Missed by Screeners'', USA
Today, Oct. 22, 2007.
\15\ Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: TSA's
Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening (Jan. 9,
2009) (GAO-09-27R).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private screening companies are also cost-efficient. A commonly-
cited, yet thoroughly debunked, alleged disadvantage of the SPP is that
it costs more to use screening companies at Federal airports than it
does Federal screeners. The source of this allegation is a 2007
internal TSA estimate that SPP airports would cost about 17 percent
more to operate than airports using Federal screeners. A GAO review of
that estimate found its methodology to be severely flawed and TSA
agreed to redo the estimate using better data and methods. In January
2011, TSA released a revised estimate that SPP airports would cost 3
percent more to operate SPP airports.\16\ Even then, the renewed
estimate only partially addressed four of seven ``cost analysis
limitations'' that the GAO had identified.\17\ In addition, adjustments
TSA made to calculate workers compensation, liability insurance,
retirement cost, and revenue generated from corporate income taxes were
only ``generally accepted'' by GAO and never substantiated. Data on the
costs of deploying TSA National Deployment Force was also lacking from
the estimate. In fact, TSA has no idea of the exact costs of screener
operations at Federally-screened airports while SPP companies know
their costs to the penny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ To no surprise, even after TSA revised its estimate to 3% the
AFGE continued to use the discredited 17% figure. See AFGE press
release ``AFGE's Efforts Put SPP on Ice TSA Ends Expansion of Airport
Privatization Program'' January 19, 2011.
\17\ GAO Letter to Congress ``Aviation Security: TSA's Revised Cost
Comparison Provides a More Reasonable Basis for Comparing the Costs of
Private Sector and TSA Screeners'' March 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA also has refused to address the wasteful issue of duplicative
staff at SPP airports. In 2007, an independent evaluator hired by TSA
recommended that TSA ``(e)xplore reducing the redundant general and
administrative and overhead costs at SPP airports.'' However, a 2009
GAO study found that TSA has ``not consider[ed] the impact of
overlapping administrative personnel on the costs of SPP
airports.''\18\ And while TSA has told Congress more recently that it
has addressed the issue of duplicative staffing, Congressional
investigators continue to find multiple instances of TSA employees
holding similar or identical positions to those held by the private
screening company at the airport.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See footnote 9, GAO-09-27R).
\19\ T&I SPP Report, page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very likely that under a detailed analysis, TSA would find
the cost of operating an SPP airport to be less expensive than an non-
SPP airport, and in fact House T&I SPP Report found that taxpayers
would save $1 billion over 5 years if the Nation's top 35 airports
operated as efficiently as the San Francisco International airport
under the SPP program.
Greater effectiveness and efficiency are not the only advantages in
using private screeners, another demonstrable advantage--one that TSA
does consider a performance metric--is customer service and
accountability. At SPP airports, while TSA is the client, the airport
is the customer as are the passengers. Better customer service also has
a security benefit. Avoiding incidents and maintaining a calmer
passenger base makes it easier for screeners and behavior detection
officers to spot aberrant behavior. SPP companies realize the value of
customer service and they teach and reinforce customer service
constantly. Even with the difficult protocols, SPP screeners are taught
to implement them with customer service empathy. It is no surprise that
Kansas City International Airport, an SPP location has earned the J.D.
Power and Associates award for highest customer satisfaction of all
medium-sized North American airports twice in the last 4 years.
Security checks provided by the SPP contractor were cited as a critical
factor in making both awards. That airport's screening services as well
as other SPP companies have garnered much praise from their airport
directors for customer service and other innovations that have improved
screening operations.\20\ For those airports wanting to join the SPP,
greater customer service and greater accountability are major reasons.
Said one airport official whose airport had applied to the SPP, ``As we
have documented, TSA employees frequently have no concern for customer
service. We feel that participating in the SPP will increase screening
efficiency and flexibility and improve the customer service
experience.''\21\ Critics of the SPP also try to fall back on the
dubious claim that airport screening is an inherently Governmental
function ``so intimately related to the public interest'' that Federal
personnel must provide it.\22\ Putting aside that allowing airports to
use non-Federal screeners is required under the ATSA, and putting aside
the evidence that private screeners are more effective than Federal
screeners, there is virtually no legal, policy, or practical support
for the argument that passenger and baggage screening is inherently
Governmental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See T&I SPP Report. Appendix 12 SPP Testimonials.
\21\ May 20, 2011 Letter to House T&I Committee from Springfield-
Branson National Airport.
\22\ As defined in Section 5 of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act ``inherently Governmental function'' means a function that
is so intimately related to the public interest as to require
performance by Federal Government (Pub. L. 105-270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, assertions that a private screening company's desire to
make a profit and reduce costs means its screeners will not perform as
well as ``non-profit'' Federal screeners are not only outright false,
but a specious accusation. While seeking to reduce costs and eliminate
waste in operations is one way for a contractor to increase profits,
what also increases a contractor's profits is better performance.
Better performance translates into award fees and more contracts. Also,
in the private sector, constant competition from other contractors
creates an incentive to perform well, employ best practices, reduce
waste, and seek to constantly improve. These performance and cost-
containment drivers (especially in the area of reducing overtime costs)
are not present in the Federal sector and the Federal workplace is
beset with its own host of employee performance and motivation issues.
Second, in the area of security services, OMB has specifically
defined as ``inherently Governmental'' security operations in certain
situations connected with combat or potential combat.\23\ Accordingly,
below this very high threshold, many types of security and screening
services can and are being performed by contractors on behalf of the
U.S. Government. Federal agencies have consistently and successfully
utilized private security and screening services at Government
facilities (including Level 4 and 5 secured facilities) and to protect
Federally-regulated critical infrastructure sites. From DoD locations
requiring Top Secret and above clearances to the Department of Homeland
Security Headquarters, NASA launch sites, nuclear facilities, Federal
Courts, military installations, and FBI offices around the country, the
U.S. Government has relied upon contractors to provide security and
screening across the spectrum of sites. Everyday, contracted officers
protect, screen, and provide access control at sensitive sites to
millions of visitors, U.S. Government employees and invited guests each
day.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy Publication of the
Office of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letter
11-01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions.
\24\ The United States has multiple sites around the country that
are American Heritage sites and potential targets for terrorists
interested in ``making a statement.'' One such site is the Statue of
Liberty. This site is controlled by the U.S. Park Police in concert
with a contract security firm who provides unarmed screeners to
efficiently process up to 15,000 visitors per day. This requirement has
multiple lanes of visitors flowing through magnetometers, hand wands,
and X-ray machines, very similar to those processes used by TSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, as documented in the House T&I SPP Report, in other countries
where the danger of aviation terrorism is equally of great National
concern ``Federal oversight of qualified private contract screeners has
shown to be effective all over the world (and) almost all Western
countries operate civil aviation security through the use of Federal
oversight of private contract screeners. Other than Romania, Poland,
and Bulgaria, the United States has the only government in the Western
world that functions as the airport security operator, administrator,
regulator, and auditor.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ House T&I SPP Report, page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if the TSA and critics of the SPP do not feel that private
companies are as effective as Federal screeners to prevent a terrorist
act on an airplane, then why are they not similarly concerned about
cargo screening? Currently, all cargo screening is conducted by private
screeners in compliance with TSA procedures, processes, certifications,
and standards--the same model of TSA oversight for passenger screening
under the SPP. It would seem hypocritical for TSA to treat passenger
and baggage screening as ``inherently governmental'' when the all of
the cargo placed on commercial airlines is screened by private
companies.
Finally, TSA can and does provide effective oversight of private
screening services. Among the tools that TSA uses to track screener
performance are daily TSA manager reports, monthly Performance
Management Reviews calculated against challenging metrics, and twice-
yearly award fee reviews also calculated against challenging
performance metrics. TSA can be assured, and indeed constantly assures
itself, that SPP companies perform at a very high level.
tsa concerns with the spp
In the House T&I SPP Report, the operational justifications that
Administrator Pistole and TSA used to limit the scope of the SPP
program to the current airports are reviewed. They included:
Administrative burden--disproportionate amount of resources are spent
on SPP airports; Intelligence--TSA can tailor and provide direct
information to Federal employees; Direct control--another layer is
involved when FSDs order direction action; Flexibility and use of
resources--TSA can use its own resources for emergency events, but
cannot utilize SPP; and Impact on workforce--TSOs at potential SPP
airports face uncertainty about their job status, benefits, leave, and
salary.
While the T&I Committee staff notes that SPP Program Office
officials have informed them that TSA was amending SPP contracts to
eliminate any existing challenges related to the operational concerns,
some of these concerns are not even substantiated by the facts. For
example, the ``intelligence concern'' is negated by the fact that the
managers employed by the SPP companies undergo the same SECRET
clearance process as TSA employees and are capable of receiving the
same intelligence as their Federal counterparts. The question of the
flexibility of resources for emergency events is negated by the fact
that the SPP contracts currently include programs such as the TSA VIPR
program that allows SPP contractors to provide additional security
outside of the airports where they work and that TSA's SPP contracts
already include a ``surge clause'' that allows the TSA to direct SPP
contractors to immediately support emergency situations.
As to the concern that allowing more SPP airports will hinder the
``agility'' of TSA, SPP companies vigorously disagree with this notion.
While perhaps their screeners cannot, ``on paper'' be currently
deployed directly by TSA, in many past instances SPP companies have
demonstrated their agility and responsiveness to address staffing
emergencies and a change in procedures due to a heightened security
risk. In fact, neither the TSA nor SPP critics can point to a single
actual situation where a SPP contractor has been less agile than the
TSA. And although anyone can come up with fanciful ``what-if''
scenarios, there is absolutely no tangible evidence in the almost 10-
year history of the SPP where an SPP contractor has not served the
needs of the TSA and the flying public completely and absolutely.
Finally, as with other Federal security service contracts, additional
deployment of staff to meet emergency requirements can be built into
those contracts to facilitate additional agility in meeting unforeseen
needs.
conclusion
Many airports are satisfied with their Federal screening force and
the ATSA language establishing the SPP in no way pushes or even
encourages airports to use private screening companies. However, it is
clear that Congress wanted airports to at least have the opportunity to
utilize private screening which by law has to be equal to or greater in
the level of security provided. From the experiences and lessons
learned in the SPP, it is clear that the use of private screening
companies has proven to be a viable and effective option for airports,
and private screening can be effectively overseen by TSA. It is
therefore unfortunate and indeed ironic that at a time with
unprecedented interest and emphasis on Government efficiency and
sustained and meaningful job growth, the TSA continues its attempts to
limit and marginalize a successful public-private partnership program
that is exceedingly efficient, effective, and customer-focused. Far
from ignoring the SPP, in its mission to provide the best possible
aviation security, the TSA should be embracing it.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Gage is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Gage. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, committee Members.
Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. Also, Chairman
Rogers, thank you, you have my thanks and Everett Kelley's
thanks for your questions yesterday at the Armed Services
Committee on behalf of Federal civilian workforce at Anniston
Army Depot. Sir, the vital mission of air travel security is an
inherently Governmental function. It is an important piece of
an integrated National security system. It is no different than
local, State law enforcement, the Federal Government's mission
in securing our borders and ports of entry with Border Patrol
agents and CBP officers, or even the mission of the U.S.
Capitol Police to provide security for the U.S. Congress. It is
disturbing that the Congress is moving to give the mission of
providing air travel security to private corporations. The
mission of corporations is to make profits for their
shareholders. That is in direct conflict with the single-
focused mission of air travel security for Americans.
Corporations belong in the private sector, where the focus on
profits is appropriate. The real need to make profits
inevitably leads to cutting corners on security. TSA will be
significantly hampered by the fact that it would lose its
fundamental security integration as one unit. Conceivably,
privatization could mean hundreds of corporations at the
airports, creating a nightmare for security coordination when
speed and quick information sharing through the system is
necessary. A hodgepodge of corporate entities will prevent TSA
from acting quickly when it needs to do so.
TSA will lose flexibility. For instance, TSOs will no
longer be able to be deployed from one airport to another as
they can do now. We are also concerned that the FAA legislation
sponsored by Congressman Mica will allow corporations to be
owned by foreigners or perhaps foreign governments. Outsourcing
to foreign entities will undermine our security even further.
Americans were outraged by the Dubai ports scandal, and they
will be outraged when they learn of this giveaway.
As Congresswoman Jackson Lee indicated, further
privatization makes assuring internal security more complex and
more costly. In addition to vetting of front-line officers, you
have got to vet the company, vet the executives of the
companies, vet the ownership, vet the financial structure of
this, vetting their banks, if necessary. This becomes an
intelligence and coordination nightmare, and would actually
increase TSA's management cost. Then there is the cost of
creating RFPs, reviewing contract proposals, and post-award
litigation.
As more airports become open to privatization, TSA will
have to spend more resources on the initial bid and review
process. Indeed, TSA will need hundreds of contracting
officers, attorneys, and auditors. Conceivably every contract
could be litigated into the courts, costing tens of thousands
to defend each decision. Since the Congress has moved to
privatize TSA, the corporations also should not be shielded
from liability. I feel it is wrong to extend resources to cover
claims. In summary, privatization will be more costly, will
undermine air traffic safety and security. Corporations do not
bring any added value. Their mission of profit is in direct
conflict with the mission of protecting the flying public, and
Americans will be at risk to a much greater degree. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of John Gage follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Gage
February 7, 2012
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Committee members:
On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
(AFGE), thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
Screening Partnership Program (SPP) of the Transportation Security
Administration.
After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, America learned that the
system of private screening companies and the private screeners in
place on that fateful day were incompetent to perform the task of
keeping terrorists off our passenger aircraft. As a result, Congress
Federalized airport screening in recognition that the job of screening
airline passengers and maintaining the security of the commercial
aviation system was fundamental to our security as a Nation. Since
then, our skies have been kept safe, despite constant threats.
There isn't much that scares me. But the thought of returning to
the days prior to 9/11, and to the expanded use of private contractors
who are forced to cut corners to increase profits . . . that scares me.
Aviation security is too important to be left to the private
sector. I know the free-market advocates will recoil when I say that,
but as we have seen over and over since 9/11, the terrorists will never
quit trying to attack us. Private contractors must by their very nature
keep their eyes on the bottom line. That consideration cannot help but
bleed over into decisions on staffing, training, recruitment,
retention, and operations. As a frequent flyer myself--and I know the
Members of this committee are as well--it seems beyond question to me
that we should want the Federal Government to continue to provide the
focus, the consistency, and the stability that this mission requires.
If we learned nothing else from 9/11, I would hope we learned that.
SPP is not new, and the problems with SPP are not new. Airports
have had the ability to ``opt out'' of the Federal screener system
since TSA was created, but in those 10 years only a handful of 450 have
chosen to do so. Opting out means opting in to the lowest bidder, which
is not how homeland security should operate. It is too important to be
left to companies that would not be accountable to the American people.
There is no contracting out of the Secret Service, FBI, Border Patrol,
Customs and Border Protection Officers, or the Capitol Police who
protect Members of Congress and their staffs. Those agencies are all
part of an integrated network designed to keep Americans safe. TSA
should be no different. I think most Members of Congress would be
reluctant to have the Capitol Police splintered into five or six
private security companies, with each operating a different section of
the Capitol complex.
SPP is not about creating jobs as the topic of this hearing
implies. TSA has created almost 50,000 jobs. These are good jobs,
although the pay is still too low and working conditions need to
improve. Moving these jobs to the private sector is, at best, a zero
sum game after the private contractors take their profit off the top.
The drumbeat to privatize security screening operations runs
contrary to laws enacted by Congress in recent years requiring
Government agencies to in-source functions that are inherently
Governmental. Recent efforts to reform procurement practices at
Government agencies and reduce their over-reliance on private
contracting also argue against privatizing TSA's screening work.
The Federal Government is obligated to the American taxpayers to
perform its functions efficiently and spend taxpayer money wisely.
Generally, before privatizing Federal employee work, agencies are
required to demonstrate that a contractor is more efficient. Under
TSA's Screening Partnership Program, the agency keeps the
transportation screening managers but hires a contractor to create an
additional layer of management, and converts the front-line homeland
security Federal employees to contract workers.
There is no doubt that TSA and its Federal screening workforce have
protected our Nation from a repeat of the horror of 9/11. Rather than
calling for the dismantling of an agency that is living up to its
mission, despite constant challenges, proponents of private screeners
should instead work to empower Federal screeners to do their jobs
better. Only a well-trained, well-paid, fully empowered professional
public workforce can provide the protection the American people need.
TSOs receive constant and on-going training, including changing
protocols or using new technology at a moment's notice to address new
terrorist threats. These protocols can change from day-to-day or even
shift-to-shift. The training TSOs receive is conducted by Government
employees and based on threat detection and risk assessment from the
Federal Government's National security, homeland security, and
intelligence agencies. TSA may be required to renegotiate contracts
when deploying new technology, resulting in delays, increased costs,
and holes in the aviation security net. It is not credible that
screeners working for private contractors have the same capability to
adjust procedures to address emergent threats as TSOs working for
Administrator Pistole.
In conclusion, every single day America's patriotic TSOs are more
than diligent at their duties because the last thing they want is for a
terrorist to slip through on their watch. This is the same goal as TSA
management. A TSO workforce with workplace rights and protections--
including the ability to have AFGE speak on their behalf--is empowered
to report problems with procedures or gaps in security. The goal of
keeping air travel safe for the flying public is mutual between TSA and
its employees.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the
issues surrounding SPP. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you or the Members of the committee may have.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. You all did a great job. I recognize
myself for the first questions. Mr. Amitay, Mr. Gage just made
some pretty good observations that I would love to hear your
thoughts on. For example, how do you make a profit when you
have got to pay the exact same thing or more for your employees
in an SPP program as the Government employees? Just address his
comments. I am interested in your thoughts.
Mr. Amitay. Chair, I think the primary cost saver for
private companies doing screening as opposed to TSA is the
ability of private companies to utilize cost accounting and
management tools that either the Federal Government does not
possess or does not even know how to utilize. It is in the
oversight of its workforce and having to account to the last
penny where private companies are much, much more efficient
than TSA. For instance, take with the hiring and training
process, the private companies are doing it more effectively so
that, (A), it will be less expensive even though they are
providing the same training if not more, and then (B), in their
vetting process, they are selecting screeners who are more
likely to stay, and therefore they are saving money on
attrition costs.
Then finally, another major area is overtime and workers
compensation costs. These are costs that for the Federal
Government are virtually unaccountable for, and are claimed at
a much, much higher rate than with private companies.
Mr. Rogers. What about Mr. Gage's assertion that this is an
inherently Governmental function?
Mr. Amitay. I completely disagree with that.
Mr. Rogers. Why?
Mr. Amitay. Because private security officers are, as I
mentioned in my oral and written testimony, they are stationed
and doing screening at DHS and TSA headquarters. They are doing
screening of visitors and employees at cleared facilities, at
top secret facilities. They have top secret clearances. They
are doing screening at military installations. That is not an
inherently Governmental function. Also, the recent OMB guidance
on what is considered inherently Governmental did not mention
at all these types of security services.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Mr. Gage, why is he wrong?
Mr. Gage. Well, first of all, I think the profit motive
there, I didn't hear Mr. Amitay really say anything
specifically on how the private sector makes money off these
service contracts. But if----
Mr. Rogers. No, he did. He went through a litany of things.
I am interested in why this is inherently Governmental, though.
Mr. Gage. Well, it is, because it is part of an integrated
National security--and it is not just the screening and the
baggage checks, the BDOs, for instance, the people who walk
the--I mean, there is a lot more being done there that you just
can't--how do you coordinate that in 400 airports, 450 airports
if you have all these private companies? You can't do screening
operations in one airport different than in another.
Mr. Rogers. But my understanding, and I may be in error, my
understanding is all these SPP participants are under the
supervision of TSA.
Mr. Gage. That is true. But when there is 16, that is one
thing. When there is hundreds, I think that is why Pistole is
saying can't do it.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Mr. VanLoh, one of the things that Mr.
Pistole pushed back on me, because as you know, I am a
proponent of more of this privatization, one of the things he
pushed back with me was to say, listen, there is not that much
of a demand. We only had three airports ask, and we gave one of
them the green light.
So what do you say to that? Why are more airports not
requesting to move in that direction?
Mr. VanLoh. More airports are, I get that every week from
fellow airport directors all around the country. There are
about 400 of us in the United States that run airports of any
size. Early on in the program, there was word out that if you
privatized your screening and something happened, and somebody
maybe got a weapon through and an aircraft went down, your
airport would be sued out of existence. That scared a lot of
cities away from this program. Well, that was false. That is
not the case. Lately, a lot of airports were concerned about
TSA's oversight going forward if they wanted to elect out. So
there are, in fact, many airports that want to do this today.
Mr. Rogers. You mentioned in your opening statement the
cumbersomeness of the oversight that exists. One of the things
that you would like to see is some relief on that front. I have
heard criticisms that at these airports where we have these SPP
programs, there are too many TSA folks overseeing. What has
been your experience? What is the ratio of TSA personnel to
your private personnel per airport?
Mr. VanLoh. Mr. Chairman, that is information that I am not
privy to, but I can guess that we have approximately 500
screeners in Kansas City, and we have 50 TSA employees.
Mr. Rogers. For what?
Mr. VanLoh. I am not sure, I am not told.
Mr. Rogers. My time has expired, but I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Cravaack. Mr. Richmond has joined us, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Richmond. I will start with Mr. Amitay. This is not
directly an SPP, but I think it is analogous, and I would like
to hear your thoughts on it. Last year, well, in 2010, GAO
released a report pointing to significant challenges across DHS
contracting practices with FPS contract guardsmen such as the
lack of training and decentralized operations. In one case in
Detroit, a private security guard brought in a backpack with an
explosive in it and left in it in storage for 2 weeks. Will we
face the same challenges with SPP as we do with FPS?
Mr. Amitay. That was an individual incident. I would just
comment that also last year, 45 TSA employees at Honolulu
airport were either fired or suspended because of a massive
security breach that went from the screener level all the way
up to the airport's Federal security director level. They are
all implicated, fired, or suspended. So pointing to examples of
individual instances where a security breach happened, I don't
think that is inherently Governmental or inherently private.
Mr. Richmond. I think you bring up a good point that all of
them were fired. Do you know the company that the employees
worked for in Detroit, that company is still on the job because
it is hard for us to terminate a company once they are working
with us, no matter what we find?
Mr. Amitay. Sure. As the GAO testified last year, FPS, I
think they took action against six or seven employees of the
company involved, they were fired, and FPS and GAO both thought
that that was sufficient punishment.
Mr. Richmond. But we can't have zero tolerance with the
company. See, part of what I am asking is, it is easy to
dismiss and get rid of the employee, but if we find that it is
a company that just lacks our confidence and through examples,
we don't have much we can do about it.
Let me ask you another question because I hear it thrown
out all the time that private-sector employees are much more
customer-friendly. Who does that survey and who--how do we come
up with that? Because I will tell you, as someone who flies
through airports and travels through the Capitol and a bunch of
other places, I don't necessarily find that to be the case. So
I am just wondering what authority determined that?
Mr. Amitay. As Mr. VanLoh mentioned, J.D. Powers, they do
an annual survey of performance at airports, including customer
satisfaction and the private screening company at the Kansas
City Airport won the J.D. Powers' award, I think last 3 out of
4 years for medium-sized airports. I think also in the 2007
study commissioned by TSA with Catapult Consultants, they also
determined that customer service was higher at SPP airports
than at non-SPP airports.
Mr. Richmond. Well, I would just tell you as a person who
frequents Federal buildings that have private security and
airports that are TSA, being a young African-American male, I
see no difference in either. You have your good actors and your
bad actors, and I would hate for us to lump anybody in. I think
it goes against the morale.
Mr. Gage, I will ask you a question about that. When we
talk about our Federal employees and my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, some on my side of aisle, were pushing for
consistent pay freezes for Federal employees, and at the same
time, we consistently look to privatize and get rid of as many
Federal workers as we can. How does that affect the morale in
TSA?
Mr. Gage. It is not good. I am really surprised that the
morale in TSA is as high as it is. People like the job, they
really have a dedication, and I think that comes from being a
public employee. I think TSA really does a nice job of getting
some allegiance of the employees of sticking together and
realize the importance of their job. So this idea that it that
the private sector always does it better, I don't think so.
There are many functions in Government, Social Security, for
instance, or the VA where I think the Government employees
simply, we do it better. I think TSA is an example.
Again, I want to emphasize, running a system that big, 450
airports is tough enough with a single--with TSA as an agency,
to have hundreds of contractors out there. Mr. Pistole, I
think, says it consistently every time, that is a management
nightmare and it will lead to more and more risk in our flying
security.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired,
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. The Chairman recognizes
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
Mr. Amitay, Mr. Gates brings up a point that I hadn't really
considered before regarding outsourcing of companies that may
have foreign entities that own them, background checks
regarding that information that may increase the costs
associated with a private entity versus a public entity. How
would you respond to that?
Mr. Amitay. Well, first of all, FOCI companies, foreign-
owned controlled and influenced, are already doing a lot of
work for the Federal Government. Their U.S. subsidiaries are
doing a lot of work. What the waiver says is that for any
company that is a United States subsidiary with a parent
company that is implemented a foreign ownership control or
influence mitigation plan that has been proved by the defense
security service of the Department of Defense prior to
submission of the application. So in other words, DSS is
already vetting the U.S. subs of these foreign countries, and
in fact, these U.S. subs of these foreign countries are already
doing a lot of classified and very important stuff for the U.S.
Government and the Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security and elsewhere.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Mr.
Gage, along with--Administrator Pistole brought up another
point that I wanted to verify with you, in saying that it is
extremely important for the TSA to maintain, it is important to
maintain flexibility, and that TSA must be able to respond and
adopt to modify procedures quickly, as well as be able to
augment staff in certain circumstances, natural disasters,
certain of capabilities. Mr. Gage also brought up not able to
transfer accordingly, could you comment on that as well?
Mr. Amitay. In terms of the ability to surge and the
ability to provide extra screeners, first of all, TSA already
has a National deployment force of screeners that can be
transferred to any location. Second of all, as Mr. Pistole
mentioned last week, surge clauses and transfer clauses, these
are all things that can be incorporated into contracts with
private companies. Third, right now the private companies, they
have never not responded to any TSA need. So again, engaging in
these hypothetical situations, I think: (A), they are covered
by the National deployment force, the ability to modify the
contracts, and the fact that the screening companies are
partners with TSA and they will get the job done.
Mr. Cravaack. I don't mean to be, like, picking on you I am
trying to clarify and get more information from you. Opponents
of the SPP contend that training of contractors at TSOs is less
than received of Federal screeners. Can you comment on that or
how do you respond to that?
Mr. Amitay. I would think it is the opposite. Right now,
the training of contract screeners is at a minimum, the same as
the Federal screeners. In fact, the contract companies, maybe
not in the initial training, but once they are on the job, they
have programs, training programs, remedial training programs
that they utilize that the Federal screeners are not part of.
For instance, at some of the private screening companies
they will match their top performers with some of their lower
performers, and they will provide the remedial training and
mentoring services.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. Mr. Gage, you testified the SPP program
will cost the Government 3 to 9 percent more than the Federal
workers. What are you basing this--how do you base these
numbers on?
Mr. Gage. Profits.
Mr. Cravaack. Profits?
Mr. Gage. Yep. I think, too, it will require a lot more
oversight from TSA management. In other words, the overhead of
TSA--if all the screeners are private, to make sure there is
consistency across the airports, and when you say there is 50
TSA folks at the airport with 600 private screeners, I think
that would be about right. I think you--it is not that you
give, TSA gives an airports a minimum qualification standard
for security and let them do whatever they want from that, that
is not the way National security ought to go. This is not a
minimum type of operation, it is constantly to get better and
better, and to be able to keep a consistent--you can't have a
good airport security and another airport that does bad
security, they have to be consistent.
I think TSA really has made the mark on making our airport
screeners and security very consistent from airport to airport.
Mr. Cravaack. Can you respond to that, Mr. Amitay?
Mr. Amitay. I agree there needs to be consistency and, in
fact, the way the SPP is set up, is that the private screening
company can only be used at an airport if its performance will
equal or exceed that of the average for the category class of
airport. It has been proven through independent evaluations,
covert testing, and then the awarding of contract performance
bonuses based on performance metrics that the private screening
companies are exceeding beyond the TSA standards. You are
right, there are good airports and there are bad airports, but
for the SPP airports, they are at the middle or above.
Mr. Cravaack. My time has expired. I ask unanimous consent
to materials I brought in for the Chairman of the
Transportation Committee be submitted for the record.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman now recognizes my friend and colleague from
New York and somebody who knows something about running big
organizations, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still stuck on
this 3 to 9 percent more efficient for the TSA. Who did this
study and how is it done?
Mr. Gage. It was TSA who did the study, sir.
Mr. Turner. Oh.
Mr. Amitay. I might just add that the 9 percent is not a
valid figure. The GAO, in a letter to Congress in March 2011,
they said that after TSA had taken in three out of seven GAO's
recommendations, TSA produced a cost comparison in 2007, that
said that the SPP airports are 17 percent more costly to
operate. GAO severely criticized that. They asked TSA to relook
at it and to consider, I think, 10 different factors.
In 2009 then, TSA came back having only then addressed,
they said they only addressed three out of the seven
recommendations. They said that TSA estimated that SPP airports
would cost 3 percent more to operate in 2011 than airports
using Federal screeners. However, GAO noted that TSA needs to
take additional action or provide additional documentation to
address the remaining four limitations related to cost, and the
three limitations related to performance. In addition, that
didn't even take into the issue that was raised by GAO of TSA
addressing the additional costs of overlapping administrative
personnel at SPP airports.
Mr. Turner. Perhaps Mr. VanLoh can help us here. Kansas
City, there is an Orlin number, the TSA sends you a check for
security, is that fair?
Mr. VanLoh. I never see any of the deals to companies.
Mr. Turner. It is somewhere, I am sure. What airport is
comparable in size to Kansas City?
Mr. VanLoh. We are the--I believe, we are the 32nd-largest
airport in the country so perhaps Cleveland, Ohio is similar.
We are a little bigger now than Cincinnati; Nashville is a
little smaller than us, so we are medium-size airport in the
United States.
Mr. Turner. Any of those configured pretty much the same
way?
Mr. VanLoh. No one in the world is configured like Kansas
City. As a matter of fact, Chairman Mica came to Kansas City a
few years ago because he couldn't believe how the airport was
set up, and after he left, he became a believer on how we
operate with the private screening companies.
Mr. Turner. All right. So a apples-to-apples comparison
would be pretty difficult?
Mr. VanLoh. It is.
Mr. Turner. Wildly difficult?
Mr. VanLoh. I would say so, I believe with our current
configuration, we have more screeners than most major airports
do.
Mr. Turner. The other privatized airports, perhaps a little
too small.
Mr. VanLoh. San Francisco is one of them, and is many times
larger than we are.
Mr. Turner. Oh, San Francisco.
Mr. VanLoh. They were one of the original five, yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. Perhaps San Francisco and Boston or
Philadelphia, comparisons could be made?
Mr. Amitay. The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee did a cost comparison with LAX which is a similar-
sized airport, and they found that it was 35 percent less
expensive at SFO.
Mr. Turner. That is about the number I would expect private
to public. But thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlemen. I want to go back to the
line of questioning I was pursuing a while ago, Mr. VanLoh.
That is, the frequency, or the number of airports applying, am
I interpreting your answer correctly in that you think more now
are going to apply, that some of the concerns that they had
initially they discovered were unfounded?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is true.
Mr. Rogers. So give me an idea in the next year, do you
think we will have five airports make application or 50?
Mr. VanLoh. I think those are both extremes. I would
estimate you could have 20 airports that would be immediately
come--to the process.
Mr. Rogers. That is interesting. That does--Mr. Pistole has
been making a good point that there is no big clamor to come.
One question I had a few minutes ago, in talking about the
minimum standards that you have to meet as far as pay and
training, does TSA at an SPP airport, does TSA tell you the
minimum number of personnel you must have as well? That is for
either one of you two gentleman.
Mr. Amitay. No, TSA does not do that that with the SPP
reports. Essentially, there is, for lack of better terminology,
an overall hour security requirement, and then the SPP company
then staffs it sufficiently, being able to use part-time, full-
time, whereas the TSA model is a specific amount of FTEs and
part-time employees that are assigned to each airport under a
screening allocation model.
Mr. Rogers. I had asked Mr. VanLoh earlier about the number
of personnel that are overseeing the SPP airports. Have you
observed the same ratio that he has talked about, because I
heard it from other people too that there are large numbers of
TSA personnel overseeing these contractors. Have you seen that
ratio as well that he described?
Mr. Amitay. Well, that is something--I talked with some of
the SPP companies, and they have raised that, they think it is
an issue at the airport, but more importantly, the GAO has
raised that as an issue.
Mr. Rogers. What does the GAO say they are doing?
Mr. Amitay. Well, the GAO says that TSA needs to include
the impact of potential overlapping of administrative staff on
the costs of SPP airports. So they identified this issue of
overlapping staff, so did the TSA contractor who did a
comparison. But as of yet, TSA really has not really
addressed--and we are talking administrative staff, we are not
talking security staff. We are talking administrative staff
that is overlapping.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gage, earlier you made the comment that you
thought that 50 overseeing 600 was a sound number. Tell me why
you think--is there a methodology to that?
Mr. Gage. No, no, I think that it is very important that
there be strong oversight over the contractors, and 50 in an
airport of 600, or 600 screeners, doesn't, to me, sound
outrageous, but I think the key thing here is not cost, it is
consistency, and it is security, and that there has to be very
strong oversight by TSA to make sure that procedures are
followed, that the SOPs are rigorously enforced and that is
just the nature of the business.
Mr. Rogers. Is it your opinion, based on any objective
evidence, that any of the SPP airports have provided a lower
quality of screening?
Mr. Gage. No.
Mr. Rogers. Going back to this issue about the number of
employees, what I--I hear a lot from folks that know that I am
on this committee, whenever we are talking about over at TSA,
they start complaining about the number of TSA agents standing
around when they go through screenings. It just drives them
nuts, that they are standing in line and they see all these
people standing around apparently doing nothing.
I know some of those are BDOs, and they are actually paying
attention to some things, but there are folks who stand around.
That has been one of my concerns is we aren't doing more to
make at least the appearance of efficiencies. Is it your
experience that is one way you can make these ventures
profitable is to right-size the staffing as opposed to having a
bloated staffing. I ask Mr. Amitay.
Mr. Amitay. Yeah, that is exactly right. One advantage of
the private sector is that with their scheduling tools, they
are able to anticipate when there will be high demand and when
there will be low demand. They are able then to adeptly match
the screening workforce needed to the needs of the airport at
the time. That is why there are shorter wait lines at SPP
airports, and there is greater customer satisfaction, but the
flexibility that the private companies have in terms of
scheduling, it is a huge cost-saver, yet the security is not
diminished at all because, as you mentioned, you don't get
these occasions where there might be a dozen screeners standing
around when obviously the requirements at that time do not
require a dozen screeners.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. VanLoh, in your testimony, you stated TSA
never asked Kansas City for its input on the contractor's prior
performance during contract award decision-making process. If
Kansas City had been given the opportunity to provide its input
to TSA, what would it have been?
Mr. VanLoh. I would have explained much that I have
explained to the committee today. We are winning passenger
service awards, very few complaints, very low turnover. I think
it is 2 percent, is our turnover rate right now. It is not
broken, and let's keep going, it is working well.
Mr. Rogers. Last, Mr. Gage, I wanted to raise an issue, you
made the point that while TSA's morale has been questioned,
that you are surprised it is as good as it is. Mr. Pistole had
written to this committee saying data from employee surveys has
repeatedly shown TSA ranking poorly in terms of employee morale
and engagement. Employee engagement and security are
interrelated and therefore, directly affect our capacity to
carry out our mission. We must ensure TSOs are motivated and
engaged as is their judgement, and discretionary efforts are
critical to achieving a superior security. We must continue to
do better, and by our employees, ensure we continue to
accomplish this mission.
What would you recommend that we do to deal with this TSA
morale problem?
Mr. Gage. A lot of the morale problem is pay, they are
under a pay system that nobody understands, nobody likes, they
are not under the GS system which is fair and people do
understand it. I think the pay issue, Congressman, is really a
very large one with our members.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. But I would make the point, private
screeners are paid the same thing as these folks and we don't
have the same morale problems. I want to recognize my friend
and colleague from Texas, the Ranking Member who has joined us.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
the witnesses for their patience. I was called to duty in my
other committee, which I was introducing amendments and so I
was delayed in coming here. This is an important hearing, and I
truly wanted to have the opportunity to pose a number of
questions. Let me quickly go to Mr. VanLoh. What size in the
schedule of airports where they have top 10, what number are
you in the Nation?
Mr. VanLoh. I believe we are thirty-third in the Nation,
ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Have you been privatized since 9/11?
Mr. VanLoh. That is correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you privatized before 9/11?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, all our airports were.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So there has not been any great altering
of your structure. So you have employees that have been there
for 10 years?
Mr. VanLoh. We could have a few that are close to 10-year
employees, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Anybody longer that that?
Mr. VanLoh. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you given oversight by the
Transportation Security Administration?
Mr. VanLoh. I personally, my organization, the City of
Kansas City has no oversight whatsoever.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you in compliance with the
Transportation Security Administration requirements?
Mr. VanLoh. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are doing pat-downs and private
screening?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you handle individuals who are in a
wheelchair or who may have an artificial limb in any way
differently from the way the TSO officers do?
Mr. VanLoh. No.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So at the time when it was required to pat
down children, you were patting down children?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, they were.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As we look forward to some overview and
rearrangement of some of these issues, you will then follow the
TSO, TSA mandate?
Mr. VanLoh. Immediately, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So the question of whether or not you have
happier passengers, it may be that you live in a happy
community, it may be that the sun shines on the day they come
in, it may be a lot of variables; is that correct?
Mr. VanLoh. I am not the census taker, but it could be very
well, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me congratulate you for it. The fact
you have it, I am glad that you do have it. I believe that
those, even though I question the change in language that says
you shall, I have no quarrel with the existing airport private
screener structure. I have a quarrel with whether or not we
privatize the entire Nation.
Let me go to Mr. Gage, and say to you, Mr. Gage, what can
we do--have you had an opportunity, or do you have some of your
leadership, have had the opportunity, you fly, of course, to
view some of other front-line agents, TSO officers on the front
lines? What is your general perception?
Mr. Gage. I am very impressed with them. Many of them have
law enforcement backgrounds, military backgrounds, they are
career law enforcement people. I think they are paid less than
the rest of the Federal Government, border patrol agents, for
instance, ICE agents, other Federal law enforcement. I think
that is a big problem. I have gotten to know a lot, hundreds
and hundreds of them. We have almost 14,000 members, and they
are extremely dedicated people, and the turnover--as the
turnover rate slowed, and you have more and more experience,
they are really top-notch employees who know their job and can
react to virtually anything.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me emphasize what you just said. In my
visiting airports, as the Chairwoman and now Ranking Member for
a number of years on this committee, I have seen an enormous
amount of professionalism, but you are absolutely right, they
are former police or law enforcement individuals, they are
certainly former military with a great sense of pride and they
are just Americans who desire to work hard. I want to join my
Chairman and say that we should always be looking to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of those Federal employees
paid by Federal dollars that serve the American public, but Mr.
Gage, and then I will ask Mr. Amitay, would you want to have
the TSO officers give out lollipops and paint a smile on their
face, or would you rather ensure that we have the kind of
security professional treating everybody with dignity that is
necessary?
Mr. Gage, do you think that the work that we do, and I say
``we'' in dealing with Homeland Security sometimes is not a
friendly word. Let me say personally, I have experienced
sometimes the strictness of the security check, but is it not,
from your perspective, extremely important to have that kind of
oversight as we utilize the Nation's transportation system?
Mr. Gage. It is serious business, it has to be done
professionally, it can't be sloppy, the people have to pay
attention every minute in their jobs. I think that we have come
a long way in airport security since the days before 9/11.
Really, when I look at this workforce, I am proud of it. I
think the Nation should be proud of it and if it is not broke,
don't fix it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What I would say in being honest in my
assessment in saying that I want to work with the Chairman,
would you welcome increased professional training, increased or
a review of the pay scale, and what I have been advocating for
is professional development where the TSO officers would have
the opportunity for promotion, promotion throughout the system.
Would you welcome that?
Mr. Gage. They really have to have the promotional
potential into other Federal agencies too, even within the
Department of Homeland Security. That is important when you are
any worker that you are looking to better yourself and to do a
good job so that you could be picked up as an ICE agent or
another law enforcement officer somewhere else in the Federal
Government. Right now those connections don't exist, and I am
very concerned about it and we are working with Homeland
Security to provide more promotional opportunity for TSOs.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me pointedly ask you, the TSO officers
could stand the enhanced professional development in training.
Do you see that as an opportunity?
Mr. Gage. I do. It is a constant training situation, as
techniques evolve, almost sometimes weekly, where it seems to
be getting better and better, smoother and smoother, and more
and more professional.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As well, you would argue, I don't want to
say that you would argue--but that we should look seriously at
the pay structure?
Mr. Gage. No question, they lag way behind in pay. Someone
dreamed up the pay structure they are in. It hasn't worked, it
doesn't work. They need a consistent pay scale such as the
general schedule.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I could conclude, Mr. Chairman, with
Mr. Amitay. Are you suggesting, Mr. Amitay, and I have no
quarrel with small contractors and business empowerment, and
small businesses, and large businesses, but are you suggesting
that something as important and serious as the massive securing
of our airports should go back to 9/11, which is when the
airports, through the airlines, were, in essence, secured by
private companies, which, if not contributed to, were there on
the day that those individuals traveled on 9/11? Is that what
you are here to encourage us to do?
Mr. Amitay. I think to make any comparisons of the current
level of screening and security at airports now, using private
screeners, to compare that to pre-9/11 when private screening
essentially was regulated by the FAA, who then delegated the
airlines to take care of it. To say that that is the same, that
that system then, which was only one part of the reason for 9/
11, box cutters were allowed onto planes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are correct that it was one part, you
are correct. Go ahead.
Mr. Amitay. So that part now has been radically changed and
radically improved. To say that the private sector does not
have the ability to provide enhanced screening under TSA,
strict TSA standards and requirements. In fact, the level--in
order for a private company even to be able to provide
screening at an airport, the level of screening services and
protection provided by the private screening company must be
equal to or greater than the level that would be provided at
the airports by Federal screeners. That is the law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You didn't answer my question. The
question is are you calling for the complete privatization of
all airports in the country?
Mr. Amitay. What recently--right now, airports have the
option, if they so desire, to opt out of using Federal
screeners.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you calling for the privatization of
all airports, yes or no?
Mr. Amitay. Am I personally calling for it? No.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is your organization calling for it?
Mr. Amitay. No, we are calling for the law to be abided by.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. I agree with you,
we should not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VanLoh, it has
been noted that a former Federal security director of Kansas
City was involved in a proposal team for one of the contract
contenders; is that correct?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes.
Mr. Cravaack. Further, the committee has learned that he
may have contacted city officials as much as 4 months in
advance regarding an award, would that be correct?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, it is.
Mr. Cravaack. Now, Administrator Pistole in the last
hearing said that he was apparently unaware of this FSD's
actions, others in the TSA, however, did know about the
employment of one of the contract contenders and his efforts to
contact city officials. In your opinion, would such actions
raise concern as a director of an airport or any other airport?
Mr. VanLoh. Well, they certainly did at the time, when he
contacted my Mayor Pro Tem of Kansas City and told him his
company was going to be taking over screening at Kansas City
International 6 months before the award was made, I was very
concerned.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. That raises an eyebrow or two, doesn't
it?
Mr. VanLoh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. With regard to a selection process of an SPP
provider for Kansas City, were you or any other Kansas City
officials ever contacted for your opinions solicited prior to
the----
Mr. VanLoh. Never.
Mr. Cravaack. That is another eyebrow. How would you view
the selection of the security provider for Kansas City who had
no prior SPP or airport screening experience? How would you
view that selection?
Mr. VanLoh. I was very concerned.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay, that is something else I think we
should investigate. If you don't mind, I just have a couple
more. Opponents of SPP contend that the performance by
contractors is, at best, the same as Federal screeners. How do
you respond, Mr. Amitay?
Mr. Amitay. As I have stated before, I would say in order
for private screeners to be used, the level of screening
services protection must be equal to or greater, in covert
testing, independent evaluations, and the awarding of contract
performance bonuses based on performance metrics have shown
that it actually is equal to or greater.
Mr. Cravaack. Mr. Gage, do you believe that the private
contractors are less qualified and less trained?
Mr. Gage. I think they probably are, but I think that is
really not the issue. It is hard to look at one airport and say
private or public in that airport. The big argument and the
logic for public is the whole-country system, that you have to
be running this together in an integrated way and with private
contractors, perhaps hundreds of them. That is impossible. I
think Pistole and TSA have consistently said that.
Mr. Cravaack. Isn't it true the SPC TSOs must implement the
protocols and meet the same stringent requirements for all TSA?
Mr. Gage. I would hope so, yes. But----
Mr. Cravaack. All right. I thank you. In going back pre-,
post-9/11, I was a pilot that flew pre- and post-9/11. There is
a dramatic difference between the type of security because it
did go out to the lowest bidder back then. Now it does not go
out to the lowest bidder, but it goes out to--what is the word
I am looking for, best value. So there is a huge difference
between a lot of times you go through the security, and the
person couldn't even speak English in a lot of cases.
So there is a huge difference, and who is in charge, being
the TSA has made a huge, huge difference in regards to that. So
opponents of Mr. Amitay and opponents of the SPP include some
Members of the committee that have asserted that expansion of
this program is unnecessary risk and tantamount to returning to
9/11. I just want to make sure that it is clear there is a huge
difference because of who is in charge now in overseeing TSA
agents. Mr. Gage, TSA agents, like in Minneapolis, I have got
to give a shout out for those guys. They are great, they truly
are, they a fantastic group, extremely professional. They try
to get you through the line as quickly as possible.
So there is a fine balance that can be reached here and I
hope we all can reach that balance and have the most efficient,
effective, and most secure system in the world. With that, I
yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank the gentleman, thank our witnesses.
Again, appreciate you being here. This has been a very
interesting hearing for me. For a couple of main reasons. One
is the information by Mr. VanLoh that more people will be
making applications, I will be watching for that. But the other
thing is this staffing level issue, that has been very
interesting to me to hear about these numbers of people who are
assigned by TSA to oversee the private contractors, and then
the bloated numbers that are being used in the airports the TSA
screens with as opposed to private.
So I am going to pursue a hearing or maybe two to maybe
look at that. Now that we have got a model of some airports
that have used private contractors to compare these staffing
levels to see what is the right size, and also to try to figure
out what in the world people are doing that are overseeing the
contracts because I have yet to have anybody tell me what they
are doing. It is my hope that maybe if we can right-size some
of the staffing levels in the TSA airports, maybe we can pay a
little better with the money we can save. But with this country
in the financial straits it is in, it is pretty hard to see
waste and not do something about it. You all have been very
helpful.
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I inquire of the Chair? Mr. Chairman,
I would like for us to work together on it. Obviously I have a
very strong position about privatization, but there is a
provision in place that allows it. I raise the point and would
like to join you on is the professional development, the
question of structuring TSA for its most enhanced performance,
and to also recognize that when you do privatize, the airports
pay nothing, we take taxpayer dollars to pay private security
companies. That, in and of itself, may be an expense and become
an expense when you expand the privatization.
So I think we can find some common ground on how we
professionalize, train, look at the pay scale of the TSO
officers and get them the way my good friend, Mr. Cravaack, has
indicated in the airport Minnesota, I believe, that he
commented. I will say that in the many airports that I
traveled, Houston, Texas, many in Alabama, Boston, New York and
other places have found, if not a group, individually competent
persons that are serving our country.
So I would like to work with you on that and maybe we will
find common ground. I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank the gentlelady. Thank the witnesses and
this hearing is finally adjourned, 2 weeks later.
[Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
