To view this site you need Adobe Flash Player and your browser must allow javaScripts. Go here to get the latest Flash Player. TESTING TIME FOR TSA That is not exactly music to the ears of Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). A long-time critic of what he calls failed and fumbling TSA security measures,he doesn’t think what’s “on the menu” will ever address the real problem,which he says exists in leadership and in the workforce. “Poor personnel performance, period,” he told me. “We have acquired some really sophisticated technology, and I was shocked, even when they tested the performance of those screeners with the new technology,that they weren’t performing well.” Mica said he had recent briefings with the DHS Office of Inspector General (IG) on the results of the IG’s covert screener audits (the results of which are classified and could not be independently confirmed). “The performance levels have fallen off the charts,” Mica claimed. “I’m so concerned that twice so far I’ve asked [Napolitano] to receive the briefings herself … I see a very serious situation right now, and somebody needs to get a hold of it.” Mica sent two letters to Napolitano to this effect, but as of March, hadn’t received a response. Officials said Napolitano’s office would respond directly to Mica’s letters and would not comment on the classified reports. “It is important to recognize that the TSA workforce is a highly vetted cadre of well-trained, professional transportation security officers,” TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches allowed in an e-mail response to my questions. In November 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the findings of a covert investigation into checkpoint screening vulnerabilities, Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities Exposed through Covert Testing of TSA’s Passenger Screening Process (http://www. gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf). In that report, GAO investigators said they were successful in passing through TSA security screening checkpoints undetected with components for several improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and an improvised incendiary devise (IID) concealed in carry-on luggage and on their persons. “By using concealment methods for the components, two GAO investigators demonstrated that it is possible to bring the components for several IEDs and one IID through TSA checkpoints and onto airline flights without being challenged by transportation security officers,” said the report. Sural said such investigations were always taken very seriously when he was at TSA and were seen as learning and training tools, though sometimes the fairness of methodologies were questioned. “I know this has been a concern of [Mica’s] for many years, and I do think he has legitimate concerns. I also think there has been a lot of improvement, and we know that because there is constant testing going on … there are plenty of examples [of success] that never see the light of day.” Mica said private screeners would be more cost effective, as well as more accountable and, therefore, better at their jobs. He complained that TSA cannot “hire and fire” unionized federal workers, resulting in lagging performance, year after year. There are now eleven airports across the country that have opted to participate in TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows airports to utilize screeners hired through a TSA-sanctioned contractor. It isn’t clear yet whether SPP saves the government money or is more effective overall. In a Nov. 12, 2008, analysis titled Aviation Security: TSA’s Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening (www.gao.gov/new.items/d0927r.pdf), GAO analysts criticized a TSA study of the public-versus-private approach for what they said was an incomplete side-by-side comparison. In the 2008 study, TSA found that the private screeners would actually cost the government some 17 percent more than the federal workforce,but on average performed the same or better than their federal counterparts. However, GAO analysts argued that TSA’s study failed to account for certain costs associated with the federal workforce, such as worker’s compensation, and questioned aspects of the methodology used. “TSA should not use the study as sole support for major policy decisions regarding the SPP ,” stated the GAO review. But the debate has taken a different direction under a Democratic administration,whose key supporters include the country’s top labor unions. The talk has not been over whether all TSOs should be privatized but,instead,whether they should be given collective bargaining rights—something they did not get when TSA was created in 2003. Now Napolitano wants to review bargaining rights with DHS lawyers. “It’s the biggest x-factor for TSA right now,” said Sural. “Unions say it will provide stability to the workforce and improve morale—management says it will tie the hands of management and restrict them.” To be sure, improving the morale of the TSOs is a big issue. Last June,DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner said chronic personnel problems in the department could ultimately hurt national security. “Given their frustration, employees may be distracted and less focused on their security and screening responsibilities.” His report was dismissed by Administrator Hawley as “biased,” suggesting the five airports in the study did not reflect the average workplace environment of the nation’s airports. For her part, Deputy Administrator Rossides said morale, overall, was “very good.” Advanced screening of the future Though controversy over human resources remains, there’s not much debate over the advancing technology in the screening itself. The boost in security funding in the stimulus package will allow TSA to bring up to a thousand new detection machines into its fleet, according to officials, eventually replacing old systems with more advanced applications that can be modified according to emerging threats. Currently, only 45 percent of passenger carry-on items are screened by these advanced models. Officials say the new checkpoint machines, now provided by Rapiscan Systems (Rapiscan 620DV) and Smiths Detection (Smiths Detection HI-SCAN 6040aTIX), provide high-definition X-ray views of carry-on luggage and may soon eliminate the need for travelers to remove laptops and liquid items for separate inspection. “AT [Advanced Technology] X-ray systems are built to be upgradeable and programmable. As threats emerge and AT’s capabilities improve, enhancements to the equipment at airports will generally require only a software upgrade,” according to TSA. As of March, however, Sammon said there were no plans to lift the ban on liquids and gels carried through checkpoints in more than three-ounce quantities, as Hawley suggested to reporters on his way out in January. Officials say the new machines will cost upwards of $150,000 each. Stimulus money will also help upgrade the EDS machines that scan 100 percent of all checked baggage at the airports. Last year, TSA began deploying full body scanners that bounce high frequency “millimeter waves” off the subject as he or she stands in a 9-foot glass enclosed booth. The waves make clothing translucent, giving the screener—who is viewing from a remote room — a 24 May 2009 | Homeland Security Today Magazine This month’s issue is now available online at…