Inflated Bureaucracy Not the Answer for Airport Security

Congressman Bob Barr, October 29, 2001

In the weeks since a vicious and determined terrorist network attacked our nation, the American people and their representatives in government have been engaged in an ongoing debate over how future attacks could be prevented. This is not a debate easily identifiable by political rhetoric or affiliation; but rather, one that goes to the heart of each citizen’s view of the role and function of government.

The House is now being asked to consider, through passage of legislation by the Senate, the complete federalization of all airport security; a proposal that, at first blush, many might favor; but, on closer scrutiny its benefits are not nearly so clear. Obviously, there were serious lapses that allowed terrorists to bypass existing security procedures and hijack four commercial aircraft on September 11th. Certainly, the reasons for such lapses must be identified and steps taken to ensure these weaknesses do not recur. It would be a very serious mistake, though, to believe future attacks could be averted simply by giving 28,000 airport security personnel civil servant status and awarding Washington bureaucrats even more power.

For one thing, a fundamental reason behind these deadly attacks, and a failure in policy exploited by the terrorist network is the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- the federal government -- is already charged with developing and implementing broad security regulations that must be met by the airlines. Yet, in practice, for years, airport security has been governed by vague, rarely-enforced federal policies that purposefully break up accountability between the federal government, airlines, and airports.

Washington has been in charge of ensuring our airports were secure, but Washington has been asleep at the wheel. Before rushing ahead and giving even more power to a failed, fragmented system, perhaps we should take a closer look at enforcing existing powers, and at a system that has proven successful in other nations.

Passenger airports in the United States and in other countries vary tremendously in both size and scope; and this fact directly impacts needed security procedures and personnel. Recognizing this, a number of European nations and Israel, set tight government standards in areas such as personnel background checks, but allow each airport to determine and maintain responsibility for its own security needs. Each airport is held responsible by the government for its individual security and if its system is penetrated, by a regular, unannounced security check, it faces serious monetary fines and the possibility of a complete shutdown. This system, as witnessed by the lack of hijackings in countries such as Israel, has proven extremely successful. It is especially enlightening when compared to the FAA’s history of token fines and rare security checks, that have become the status quo in the United States.

More immediately, however, we must also seek to ensure those manning airport security checkpoints are both trustworthy and knowledgeable. We do not need to put these people on the federal payroll to accomplish this. I found it ironic to see the Senate pass a sweeping airport security federalization bill that radically expands the scope and function of the federal government; yet, this was the same Senate that refused to even consider legislation I introduced, and the House passed three years ago, making it easier to ensure full background checks for all private security personnel.

All Americans should be disturbed, but not surprised, by a recent Washington Times report which found background checks could not be conducted on the vast majority of security personnel at Dulles Airport, outside Washington D.C., because more than 80 percent were not American citizens. Common sense dictates that, at the very least, every person in a position of ensuring airport security should have been subject to a complete and current background check!

The federal government does have an important role in the security of our nation’s airports, but it is in ensuring those on the front-line are doing their jobs through proper regulation and enforcement; a commitment clearly lacking in recent years. Simply giving airport security personnel civil servant status may provide some with needed political cover, and may give many a “sense” of security; but it will do little, if anything, to truly ensure the safety and security of America’s airports. This will come only when government is more concerned with consistent and comprehensive enforcement measures rather than looking for the easiest way out.

More TruthNews