Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Lawmakers Now Considering Federalizing All Airport Screeners

Aired October 30, 2001 - 11:23   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The terrorist attacks back on September 11th uncovered critical lapses in airport security and screening. And as a result, lawmakers now considering federalizing all airport screeners. The idea, though, is not without controversy.

Joining us to talk about the pros and the cons of putting these workers on the federal payroll, in New York City sky marshal program developer Martin Pollner is here this morning.

Martin, good morning to you.

MARTIN POLLNER, SKY MARSHAL PROGRAM DEVELOPER: Good morning.

HEMMER: Also Kenneth Quinn, chief counsel of the Aviation Security Association.

Kenneth is live there in Washington.

Kenneth, good morning to you as well. Gentlemen, let's have at it here.

Mark, if the goal is to make the skies safer, why would federal workers do a better job?

POLLNER: Why would federal workers do a -- this is a law enforcement process, and for that, we need serious people who are federal agents. You certainly have the most secure issue in the country, in terms of what our airlines are going to will be doing and how safe that will be.

In all due respect to what we have now, the sort of people who are minimum wage people, without training, without experience, and even if they were trained, are not as qualified as federal agents would be. When we set up the sky marshal program, which I helped do in 1970s, these were federal agents, trained by the federal government, supervised by the federal government, and we had no incident. Other countries use federal agents, and I see no reason why we shouldn't.

HEMMER: Martin, I thought the rub was not about paying federal workers minimum wage, but to increase their background, and experience and make them more qualified.

POLLNER: That's true. That's what they are talking about now, to try and make them more qualified. But in order to do that, I see no reason why they should not be federal agents. And these agents can be used in all kinds of diverse experiences within the airport.

HEMMER: Got it. Want to talk about the issue overseas in a minute.

First, Kenneth, what's the web on your side? Why no to federal workers?

KENNETH QUINN, AVIATION SECURITY ASSOCIATION: Well, we ought to have a federalized system, where you take the airlines out of equation of security. Security is not their bag. They are very cost- sensitive. It's a highly competitive industry. But we ought not to nationalize the workforce. Europe tried that approach back in the '60, '70s and early '80s, grenades were going off in airports, almost a hijacking every single month. What they realized is it not an inherently law enforcement function. You have 690 million people traveling through our system every day, or every year, 99.9 percent of whom not terrorist are not would-be terrorist. Cops want to be chasing robbers, and I think the gentleman who was associated with the sky marshal program raises good point.

He starting the sky marshal program. Well, look what the federal government did with the sky marshal program. They didn't fund it, they didn't deploy it, and so today, it was only a handful. That's example of all the federal government can't stay on the watch.

HEMMER: True or not...

QUINN: Having the federal government doesn't guarantee safety or security.

POLLNER: No, of course not. But I think it's sort of a silly argument in all due respect, that only 1 percent of people are terrorists. The Secret Service, who protects the president, thank God we had no assassination attempt for many, many years. There it is a deterrent force that is being used to deter potential terrorist.

I had experience with this in many, many different directions, and the point is that you have federal agents that are guarding our airports, federal agents that are looking at our baggage. The flying passenger feels much safer. You don't need independent contractors. You don't need private security people. Those are sort, in all due respect, amateur hour, compared to federally trained force.

HEMMER: What about the point Kenneth brings up about overseas? It's been tried in Europe. He says it does not work. What evidence do you have it is working?

QUINN: Thirty-one of 33 airports over there have a public/private sector approach. When you have law enforcement people trying to do the job, they want to be going after known criminals. That didn't want to be doing X-rays and hand wands.

POLLNER: Well, they will, and I can guarantee you success. QUINN: The problem we have is wages and turnover. In Europe, you attach the wage problem with 60 percent higher pay. The federal government can contract that. In Europe, turnover is 10-15 percent. Here, it's above 100 percent. The difference is that in Europe, they report to the federal government. Here, they report to the airlines.

POLLNER: What's the issue then? The issue is Israel had a federal force doing this. They never had a hijacking in all the years of their existence. The United States...

QUINN: That's absolutely not true.

POLLNER: The United States.

QUINN: They had over five hijackings. Even in Israel, they turned to the private sector.

POLLNER: They did not have five hijackings. Please correct your statement to listening public. They have never had a hijacking.

Just one second. Number two, is fact that to deny federal agents the access of guarding our airports is denying the flying public a right of safety and of security. And to argue to the contrary gets us nowhere of having private guards doing this kind of work.

HEMMER: Gentlemen, allow me to make this argument, though. If we are going to talk about federal screeners here, federal employees, don't we then have to go through entire guts of the airport and federalize everyone, whether you're serving food or being in a maintenance crew or working behind the scene? What do you do there?

(CROSSTALK)

QUINN: Security workforces around this country are -- they are doing security for the Department of Defense, for the Department of Commerce, our nuclear facilities, and Energy, NATO, embassies. If you want to disparage the security workforce, which by the way, did not breakdown on September 11th, as opposed to many federal agencies that weren't doing the job of law enforcement, intelligence, immigration, visas, and the FAA standard itself. That's a particular ironic thing about all of this.

HEMMER: We're Just about out of time.

I will give you the final point, Martin. Go ahead.

POLLNER: That these people have access to the planes should not be federal workers, but they should be screened federal agents, and they should -- security should be set up by the federal government. There's no better system in the world as when the United States government sets up security.

HEMMER: I would like to see a poll. I think a lot of people make sure the skies are safe. I don't know if they really care who is watching things anywhere, whether it's federal workers or it's private employees. I think they just want to know skies are safe. But we shall see.

Martin Pollner, Kenneth Quinn, thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com