Michael Cutler: Don't privatize federal aviation screeners

Micahel Cutler asked me to post the following about today's hearing of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee on improving the management of federal aviation screening workforce:

"Earlier this week, in preparation for a hearing that was scheduled for today on the issue of the privatization of the screeners who are currently employed by TSA, I was contacted by the counsel for the Minority (Democratic Party) of the House Committee on Homeland Security to seek my position of the privatization of these screeners. The administration is apparently contemplating this possibility and the Democrats were seeking my insight and if appropriate, they wanted me to submit a letter for the Congressional Record on this issue to set forth my objections to this wrong-headed approach (in my opinion) that the administration wanted to take the issue of airline safety.

I refuse to take sides where partisan politics is concerned. I believe strongly that law enforcement and related areas of responsibility are best done by dedicated law enforcement officers. I am willing to consider any possible solution to better protect our nation regardless of which party proposes or opposes various strategies. I will simply always "call them as I see them" not to make friends or avoid the possibility of upsetting people with me, but to simply try my best to enhance our nation's security as we navigate the troubled waters we find ourselves in. This was my goal and the goal of my colleagues when I was a special agent and will remain my goal forever and always. My letter was submitted for the record at today's hearing, along with my bio, to establish my bona fides as an expert, as part of today's hearing."

Chairman Chris Cox
Committee on Homeland Security
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540

Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
Committee on Homeland Security
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540

Dear Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Thompson:

On Thursday, July 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity of the Committee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing entitled “Improving Management of the Aviation Screening Workforce.”

I would like to have my thoughts on this critical issue be considered by the members of the Subcommittee as they deliberate the issue of the privatization of the screeners. I spent some 30 years with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) before my departure from that agency in February 2002. For the sake of expedience, I am attaching a current copy of my bio to this document to provide some insight into my background to help establish my credentials as an expert on law enforcement issues. I respectfully request that this letter and my bio be submitted for the record.

Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001 many people in and out of government lived in a state of denial. They apparently found it preferable to believe that while terrorist attacks plagued many countries around the world, the risk that a devastating attack could happen within the borders of the United States was minimal. I say this because although a number of terrorist attacks had already been carried out within the borders of the United States, little was done of consequence to protect our nation from within its borders. This attitude was dangerous and in my opinion, left our nation vulnerable to the attacks of September 11, 2001 even though a number of deadly attacks had been carried out within our borders and other attacks against targets readily identifiable as being United States related targets were also launched with the result being the loss of human life and the great destruction of property. Additionally, other terrorist plots were averted through actions by law enforcement personnel.

On February 26, 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center complex resulted in the death of 6 innocent civilians, the injury of many employees and visitors at the World Trade Center and the damage to that complex that was estimated to be in the vicinity of one half billion dollars. A bomb was placed in a garage located beneath the World Trade Center. According to members of the investigative teams with whom I spoke during and after the ensuing investigation told me that they believed that had the truck containing the bomb been parked against a different wall in the parking complex, or had the truck contained more explosives, the World Trade Center Tower above the truck might well have toppled sideways. Should this have happened, many more lives would have arguably been lost than perished as a result of the attacks of 911 because evacuation would have been impossible in light of the speed with which the tower would have fallen. Additionally, the other buildings might have been struck by the falling tower that stood approximately one-quarter mile high. It was also possible that the falling tower might have ruptured the sea wall structure that kept the water from the Hudson River out of the foundation of what had been the World Trade Center, flooding lower Manhattan.

Certainly, the potential for extreme devastation both from a human perspective as well as from a financial perspective was incredibly high. Nevertheless, in the interest of commerce, our nation essentially conducted “business as usual” in the wake of this and subsequent attacks. As I said at the outset of this letter, we were conducting ourselves as a nation in a state of denial.

This manifested itself in a number of ways including the continuation of the Visa Waiver Program, the continuation of the Transit Without Visa Program, the failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the United States to better secure our nation’s borders or take other measures to secure critical infrastructures. Passengers boarding airliners were screened by civilians who were employed by the airlines that were at least as motivated by concerns about frightening off paying passengers as they were about security. Public relations was a consideration of these employees who knew that they were being paid by an industry that did not want to discourage passengers from boarding airliners.

After the attacks of September 11 it was impossible to conduct “business as usual.” The government apparently understood that the public would feel most comfortable about boarding an airliner if the screeners whose job was to prevent hijackers from gaining access to airplanes and to prevent potential weapons from being brought on board airplanes were federal employees who were dedicated to the critical mission of airlines safety. It was this apparent motivation that caused the United States government to take over the business of screening passengers and ensuring not only the safety of the flying public but the non-flying public who were concerned that airplanes could be utilized as weapons as we saw on 9/11. This strategy makes sense not only for the superficial reason of reassuring our citizens and tourists that federal employees operating in a quasi law enforcement manner would help to ensure the safety of air travel, but because in my opinion, these employees were better motivated to carry out their critical duties. Employees of a private company who are hired by either an airline company or an airport do not generally see themselves as working towards a career but rather see themselves as simply earning a paycheck to pay their bills. Certainly most employees in most industries ultimately go to work to earn a paycheck, however, for those federal employees who work as screeners, many may well harbor aspirations of moving on to other jobs within the law enforcement profession and are very much aware that the time they spend with the TSA would be credited towards any federal job they may ultimately take with the federal government. Each day on the job therefore potentially puts them further along the path towards a rewarding career with any of a number of federal law enforcement agencies that may require law enforcement background or at least would look more favorably upon an applicant who had spent time working for the TSA.

The job of a screener can be monotonous and mind-numbing, searching bag after bag and person after person, hoping to find the proverbial “needle in the haystack” either a passenger who should be barred from gaining access to an airplane because he or she is on the so-called “no fly list” or because the passenger in question has attempted to surreptitiously bring a weapon on board. In such a difficult job motivation is critical. It is my understanding that attrition rates for privately hired screeners prior to 9/11 was a multiple of what it is for TSA employees. This should not surprise anyone. The TSA employees, as I pointed out previously, may be hoping to use the job with the TSA as a springboard for employment by any of a number of federal law enforcement agencies while the privately hired screener is simply seeking a paycheck.

In my career as a special agent of the INS I worked closely with law enforcement representatives from a number of other countries in working on investigations of mutual interest. Among these people with whom I worked were members of the Israeli National Police (INP). As you may know, Israel has an enviable record of preventing aircraft hijacking notwithstanding the fact that they are often targeted by terrorist organization bent on the destruction of that country in that volatile part of the world. I have had some interesting conversations with a number of high-ranking officials of the INP. They explained to me that they have been successful for a number of reasons. They pay their screeners the highest salary they can possibly pay them to help keep their morale up. They also give them constant training and they do not allow them to serve as screeners for more than a few years and then move them on to other careers within the government. This further helps to motivate them and keeps them from “burning out.”

Now it appears that we have come full circle. Our government is now considering the privatizing the critical missions of screening baggage and passengers. This would, in my opinion, put us back to where we were prior to 9/11. Employees would be hired to help prevent the hijacking of airliners and the potential for devastation that such a crime could cause, yet these employees, like those hired prior to 9/11 would be simply seeking a paycheck and not be motivated as are those who are employed by the federal government.

The “All Clear” has not sounded. Within the last couple of weeks we have witnessed two terrorist attacks in England and one in Egypt. The war on terror continues yet it would appear that proponents for privatizing the screeners are trying to return to the pre- 911 attitudes. Interestingly, the President and Vice President of the United States are not protected by private security guards who have taken a leave of absence from a department store. They are protected by sworn, dedicated, highly trained and highly motivated members of the United States Secret Service. Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State is similarly protected by special agents of the DSS. I could go on listing the various federal agents who protect the heads of various federal agencies. While the agencies are all different, none of these high-ranking officials are protected by private security guards, they are all protected by sworn, federal agents who are highly motivated and highly trained. The traveling public and the citizens of our nation deserve no less protection.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael W. Cutler,
Former Senior Special Agent,
Immigration and Naturalization Service