[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 130 (Monday, October 11, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE UNITED STATES SHOULD IMPROVE AIRPORT PERIMETER SECURITY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GREGORY W. MEEKS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 7, 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.




                          ____________________