The United States Should Improve Airport Perimeter Security

THE UNITED STATES SHOULD IMPROVE AIRPORT PERIMETER SECURITY-HON. GREGORY W. MEEKS (Extensions of Remarks - October 11, 2004)

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, anxieties about airport security have increased. Most visible improvements and modifications-such as passenger screening-have already been done. Less visible improvements, particularly in terms of protecting airport perimeters against unauthorized entry, are lagging.

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that airport perimeter security has not appreciably improved in the past three years, despite persistent expressions of concern by Congress. The funds provided for these purposes have not been delivered to airports where they are needed.

This report's title tells the whole story: "Aviation Security: Further Steps Needed to Strengthen the Security of Commercial Airport Perimeters and Access Controls." In it, the GAO notes that "through funding of a limited number security enhancements, TSA [the Transportation Security Agency] has helped to improve perimeter and access control security at some airports. However, at the time of our review, TSA had not yet developed a plan to prioritize expenditures to ensure that funds provided have the greatest impact in improving the security of the commercial airport system."

The safety and security of our airports and air passengers are contingent on the priorities established by the TSA and other government agencies.

Congress recognizes this, and in response to the terrorist attacks on our country, it established the Federal Airport Security Capital Fund to finance improvements at U.S. airports. This fund provides $250,000,000 a year to be parcelled out according to a legally-mandated formula by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Borders and Transportation at the Department of Homeland Security. Despite this fund's existence, much remains to be done.

In a "report card" published by the Airline Pilots Association, airport perimeter security in the United States was given an overall grade of "D." Based on the judgment of those who have reason to know the situation best, a grade like this is shameful and unacceptable.

Several key airports have been identified as having particular needs for expeditious improvements. These include the four airports administered by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Islip, JFK, LaGuardia, Newark); Chicago O'Hare; BWI; the airports in Allentown, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Birmingham International Airport in Alabama.

In recent months, it has been my privilege to consult with several private-sector experts on airport perimeter security. Dr. Walter Estulin, Philip Allen, and David Brownstein of the New York-based high-technology company, L-3 Communications, have taken time to explain to me how off-the-shelf technology can be used to protect our airports from intruders and infiltrators who can undermine the integrity of our air transportation system. Scientists and engineers from L-3 Communications have examined the problems faced by airports (and, by extension, seaports and inland harbors) and have developed technology that can go a long way toward meeting the security needs of transportation infrastructure. One issue of particular concern is the proliferation of MANPADS--"Man-Portable Air Defense Systems"-or, in a nutshell, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. In a GAO report published in May 2004, we learn that "MANPADS pose a threat to commercial aircraft for several reasons. First, MANPADS are widely available....... The U.S. government estimates that a few thousand MANPADS are outside government controls....... Second, the characteristics of MANPADS-their lethality, portability, ease of use and concealment, and relatively low cost (from less than $1,000 to $100,000 each)--make them attractive to terrorists for acquisition and use against commercial aircraft. Third, MANPADS have been successfully used to attack and bring down aircraft." So far, luckily, none of these weapons have been used successfully within the United States. Still, in the "report card" from the Airline Pilots Association, defense against anti-aircraft missiles was given a grade of "F." This is certainly a cause for concern.

There are two actions we can take to address these matters. First, Congress should direct the Secretary of Transportation to better prioritize grants made under his authority under the Federal Airport Security Capital Fund.

Second, we should pass legislation now under consideration, introduced by Senators JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-West Virginia), JOHN MCCAIN (R-Arizona), and ERNEST HOLLINGS (D-South Carolina), called the "Aviation Security Advancement Act" (S. 2393). If passed, this bill would authorize $100,000,000 for the Department of Homeland Security "for airport perimeter security technology, fencing, security contracts, vehicle tagging, and other perimeter security related operations, facilities, and equipment." This sum should be doubled. Surely $200,000,000 is a small price to pay to assure the safety and security of the millions of Americans who travel by air each year.