Mr. President, today the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will begin receiving applications from U.S. airports that wish to participate in the Screener Partnership Program. This program will allow airports to hire security screeners employed by private-sector companies to provide baggage and passenger security screening at their facilities for the first time since September 11, 2001.
In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, security screening at U.S. airports was federalized because commercial airplanes were turned into guided missiles. Those attacks demonstrated that the then current airport security system was not working. Less than two weeks later, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that screeners were deficient at detecting threatening objects and were not given sufficient training by employers and access controls to secure areas in airports were weak.
The congressional conferees of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) also concluded that "a fundamental change (is required) in the way (the U.S.) approaches the task of ensuring the safety and security of the civil air transportation system."
It is the responsibility of the Administration and the Congress to ensure that aviation security does not fall back to the pre-9/11 status quo. Congress understood the need to evaluate how well a federalized workforce would compare to a privately employed workforce prior to allowing privatization which is why the ATSA included a three-year screener pilot program involving five U.S. airports.
Despite this pilot program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) testified at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on April 22, 2004, that there was not sufficient basis to determine conclusively whether the pilot airport screeners performed at a level equal to or greater than that of the federal screeners. GAO, also testifying at the hearing, said, "Little performance data is currently available to compare the performance of private screeners and federal screeners in detecting threat objects." Before the nation's airports return to commercially hired and trained screening workforces, we must make sure there has truly been adequate analysis of the performance of private airport screeners prior to allowing privatization.
In a November 16, 2004, press release announcing the commencement of its Screener Partnership Program, TSA stated, "An evaluation earlier this year concluded there was little difference in the performance or cost of the private and federal screening forces."
Mr. President, TSA is relying on a study that both the DHS IG and GAO found to be inconclusive. Given the high stakes involved in airport security, I am concerned that the decision to begin this program is being made without sufficient data.
In addition, I have concerns about TSA's ability to award and administer contracts with private screening companies based on a September 2004 DHS IG report that found TSA mismanaged a contract with Boeing to install Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and overpaid Boeing by approximately $49 million. According to the IG report, contractor performance was not evaluated for each year of the contract until approximately a full calendar year later. Most troubling is that TSA rejected some of the IG's key criticisms, which makes me question the manner in which it will manage future contracts. Moreover, I believe we must also consider whether contractual mismanagement could lead to lapses in security. Are the right standards and policies in place to ensure that private screeners will provide the same security as federalized screeners, and is TSA equipped to enforce them?
As the Ranking Member of the Financial Management Subcommittee and the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I have long worked on the challenges of federal acquisitions. I want to make sure that DHS, which is a composite of 22 legacy agencies, has the people and tools needed to solicit and manage the Screener Partnership Program. Just this week I contacted Secretary Ridge to express my concern about the $49 million overrun of the Boeing EDS installation contract. That wasted money could have gone a long way towards helping Honolulu International Airport in my home state of Hawaii install in-line EDS machines.
My interest is to improve the management of contracts and the collection of timely and accurate information and to stop erroneous and improper payments to contractors. For that reason I was pleased to work with my good friend, Senator Fitzgerald, in passing legislation to bring the Department of Homeland Security under the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO). The Department runs the risk of becoming a morass of hidden contract costs and poorly managed programs without a strong CFO to ensure accountability and transparency.
I would, however, like to commend TSA for honoring a commitment made by Admiral Stone at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee that federal screeners at airports which chose to use a private workforce give TSA screeners the right of first refusal for jobs. It is important that the substantial investment made by the federal government in the hiring, the training, and the deployment of federal screeners not go to waste.
I plan to monitor very carefully how this plan develops, both in terms of the level of security provided to the traveling public and the level of transparency and accountability of the contracts.
