Homeland Security

Statement of

David Z. Plavin,

President,

Airports Council International-North America

on Behalf of

Airports Council International-North America

and

American Association of Airport Executives

Before the

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives

September 25, 2001

 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Lipinski and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on aviation security and the future of the aviation industry.  I am testifying today on behalf of Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE).  ACI-NA represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada.  AAAE represents the men and women who manage the primary, commercial service, reliever and general aviation airports.  I appreciate this opportunity to discuss ways that we can work together to improve aviation security. 

           

I know I speak on behalf of all ACI-NA and AAAE and members throughout the United States and Canada when I say our thoughts and prayers go out to those who suffered as result of the terrorist attacks that occurred last week.  The fact that terrorists hijacked four commercial airlines to carry out their attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is particularly troubling to our members because they consider passenger safety and security to be their most important responsibilities.

 

Our hearts also go out to our friends and colleagues who work for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where I served as the Director of Aviation from 1989

1995.  The Port Authority, of course, operates John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia, Newark International and Teterboro airports.  Until last week the Port Authority's aviation department was located on the 65th floor of One World Trade Center -- the first tower struck by American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles. 

 

From reports that we have received, it appears that most of those who served in the aviation department were able to escape the north tower before it collapsed.  Unfortunately, approximately seventy of their colleagues from the Port Authority are still missing.  Many of those are law enforcement officers from the Port Authority who were trying to help people evacuate the World Trade Center.  We will never forget that they and so many police officers, firefighters, and office workers bravely risked their lives in an effort to save others. 

 

After the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) promptly closed our nation's commercial airspace system and issued two emergency amendments that included several security initiatives.  I think the Administration, Secretary Mineta, and Administrator Garvey deserve a great deal of credit for their quick response during this national crisis.  I also applaud the leadership and staffs of the nation's airports that have been working with Department of Transportation (DOT) and FAA officials at an extraordinary pace to heighten security and safely resume air travel.

 

As you have been asked to do so many times before, members of the Aviation Subcommittee and others in Congress will need to play a key role in developing solutions to the security shortfalls that we experienced last week.  This Committee has a long track record on improving aviation security, and all of you should be commended for your leadership on this issue.  I am also pleased that members of this Committee and others in Congress are continuing to propose constructive ways to improve aviation security in the aftermath of last weeks terrorist attacks.  I look forward to working with you to explore those and other opportunities to enhance airport and airline security.

 

In the past several days, DOT, FAA, airlines and airports have taken numerous steps to improve aviation security.  I would like to take a moment to review some of new security initiatives that have been implemented and describe the economic implications that these actions and the terrorist attacks are having on the aviation industry.  Then, I would like to discuss some additional actions that I think Congress and the Administration should take or explore to enhance aviation security and restore confidence in our aviation system.

 

As all you know, airports and airlines were required to implement new security measures before being allowed to resume their operations.  Airlines, for instance, were required to discontinue curbside check-in and to allow only ticketed passengers past screeners.  In consultation with the FAA, airports immediately deployed more law enforcement officials and K-9 units, increased security inspections throughout their facilities, strengthened access control measures, and removed all vehicles parked near their terminal buildings. 

 

The recent terrorist attacks are taking their financial toll on airlines and airports.  Since the terrorist attacks occurred, the numbers of passengers using commercial airlines have declined precipitously and airports have instituted costly security measures, such as increases in visible law enforcement personnel.  With a dramatic drop in passengers, the airlines have indicated that they are losing up to $300 million per day and have been forced to layoff more than 85,000 employees.  As a result of the impact that this is having on our national economy, Congress is moving swiftly to stabilize the airline industry.  ACI-NA and AAAE support the financial assistance package being assembled for the nation's airlines.  But we think Congress and the Administration should be prepared to provide much needed financial assistance to airports whose operations are endangered as a result of the terrorist attacks as well - from the nation's busiest airports all the way to general aviation facilities, airports have been severely impacted.

 

Because airlines, airport operators, and indeed all the people who use and do business at airports each rely financially on revenues generated from passenger traffic, fewer passengers means significantly reduced revenues for us all.  Even more so than airlines, airports have high fixed costs and have little financial leeway to absorb the great increases in operating costs required since the terrorist attacks.  Airport revenues generated from airline landing fees and rents, automobile parking, rental car and terminal rental space, and rents from concessionaires have all declined precipitously.  For instance, the Los Angeles International Airport has been losing $1.8 million per day.  The Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, an example from a smaller airport, is losing more than $12,000 a day.  Absent federal support, the only alternative for Eastern Iowa, Los Angeles, or any other airport to generate additional airport revenue would be to increase dramatically the fees airports assess on airlines to land.  Obviously, this would be counter-productive given the financial situation and congressional efforts to address it.

 

Airports and the FAA also rely heavily on revenue generated from the ticket tax to support key capital investments.  With a decline in airport revenues, generally, it is critical that the revenue generated from airline ticket tax continue to be deposited into the aviation trust fund.  In addition, it is important that airlines, assisted with the financial aid package, continue to pay their bills to airports that fund the supporting infrastructure allowing passengers to fly safely.

 

While passengers and revenue for airports are declining, airports are spending more to increase airport security and deploy more law enforcement personnel at their facilities.  Increased law enforcement alone is costing the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, in an additional $1 million per month.  For the Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, more law enforcement officials are costing the airport $2 million more per month.  Again, these figures do not reflect the cost of other security initiatives that the two airports have implemented in recent days.  

 

Because the terrorists used 757s and 767s loaded with fuel to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, airplanes became weapons of mass destruction targeted at civilians.  Accordingly, we strongly believe that airport security should now be viewed as a national security issue.  Federal law and regulations limit Airport Improvement Program funds and Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to capital investments.  Because there is no available revenue stream identified with security operations, the costs for the new security technologies, personnel, and facilities are beyond the financial capabilities of airports.  As Congress debates legislation to stabilize the airline industry and subsequent bills to help others financially affected by the recent terrorist attacks, there are several financial options that we think Congress should consider to help airports pay for increased security measures and offset the reduction in passengers and revenue. 

 

Provide Airports With the Funds They Need to Pay for Increased Security Measures: To pay for present and future security mandates, it is critical that Congress quickly provide airports with the funds they need.  Whether through the recently passed emergency supplemental appropriations bill or some other vehicle, airports believe the costs incurred because of the terrorists attacks should come from general revenue funds in the Treasury.  If general funds are not provided, we will have no choice but to raise the fees we charge to airport customers - especially to the airlines - to cover the present and future costs.

 

Institute a New Ticket Security Fee: One alternative, utilized in many other nations, would be to assess passengers a fee for each flight.  Currently, fees are assessed for U.S. Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Agriculture inspections.  Seen in this light, a security fee on each ticket may not appear unreasonable.

 

Provide Temporary Flexibility for the use of PFCs and AIP: Another alternative is to provide airports with more flexibility on the use of PFC and AIP funds for security operations.  As you know, airports are currently prohibited from using PFCs and AIP funds for any operational expenses, including the hiring of law enforcement officials.  For a limited period of time, PFC eligibility for operational expenses should be considered.  Airports that currently have a $3.00 PFC should be allowed, expeditiously, to raise it to $4.50 to pay for the additional demands of this challenging fiscal environment.

 

Ensure that Airlines Continue Paying Landing Fees and Airport Rents: Because airports are building new runways, airports gates, terminal space, parking garages, other projects that require large amounts of capital, there is more than $70 billion of cumulative outstanding debt that needs to be serviced.  If airlines were to stop making scheduled payments of landing fees and airports rents, this would immediately jeopardize the ability of airports to operate and to fund projects through debt service.

 

Reinforce Confidence in Airport Bonds:  Last week, Standard & Poor's placed all of its North American airports on its CreditWatch.  According to Standard & Poor's, "Many airport ratings will be clearly more susceptible to the likely revenue and cost effects associated with large declines in passenger levels, significant restructuring in a weakening airline industry that may be particularly important to airports with high concentration in one airline, and increased security and capital requirements overall."

 

To help airports meet their obligations to service debt, there are a number of options that Congress could consider to protect their stability, including: 1) provide a federal guarantee to support airport bonds (with specific language stating that a guarantee will not affect their tax-exempt status); 2) provide standby lines of credit; and 3) provide three to six months of debt service to compensate for the halt and consequent declines in traffic.

 

Airports are very concerned that liability underwriters have elected to cancel war, hi-jacking, and other perils risk liability (including terrorism) policies.  We ask Congress to work with the airport community to provide airports with the same protection that airlines are seeking

 

There should be no question that the recent terrorist attacks and new security requirements are taking their toll on airlines and airports.  Airports are likely to incur even greater security costs, as Congress and the Administration explore other options to enhance security at our nation's airports.  Given that many of the other businesses located at, and dependent on the airport have been damaged by these recent events, the airports encourage Congress to take a broad view toward assisting the airport community.  As you work toward that goal, I would like to take a moment to outline some additional security proposals.

 

Use Well-Trained Security Professionals to Screen Passengers and Baggage:  As all of you know, airlines are responsible for screening passengers and their carry-on baggage for weapons and explosives.  Carriers usually contract security companies to hire and train screeners.  The numerous shortcomings of the current system have been well documented. Many have cited the lack of professionalization and the consequent rapid turnover of screener personnel and low wages as causes of poor performance. 

 

We must take steps to improve the way we screen passengers and their carry-on baggage.  The key issue, in our view, is to improve the hiring, training, testing, and thereby the proficiency of those individuals, conducting the screening of passengers and baggage.  I know many in Congress and the aviation industry have called for federalizing screeners and potentially other employees in other aspects of aviation security functions.  But ultimately the more immediate need is to professionalize the workers in aviation security.

 

As federalization is considered, it is important to consider its implementation. Federalization does not necessarily mean hiring federal law enforcement officers.  At most federal installations today, contract employees operate checkpoints for the government.  If the screening operation were federalized, would it mean that federal workers would staff all of the positions?  If not, there would not be a significant difference between a screener contracted by the Federal Government and a screener working for a security company contracted by the airlines. 

 

Deploy Explosive Detection Systems at More Airports: We also need to provide screeners with better equipment.  There are a number of innovative technologies that have made detection of explosives and other deadly or dangerous weapons easier to identify.  While these systems are commonly viewed as only as effective as the trained personnel who operate them, they are an increasingly essential facet of the aviation security equation.  The integration of a new generation of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), as called for by the 1996 Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, has been an important addition to our efforts to improve our aviation system's security.  These and other new technologies must be produced, deployed, and integrated into the nation's airports at a much quicker pace and in more airports than the 46 today.  We hope Congress and the Administration will provide the resources, training and infrastructure requirements necessary for their effective use.

 

The FAA, through its Security Equipment Integrated Product Team, has been responsible for the purchase and deployment of these systems throughout major airports around the country.  They are commonly used for baggage screening of the traveling public, but a higher priority needs to be placed on better coordination with industry on where they are deployed both throughout the system and within individual airports.

 

EDS baggage screening machines and other resource intensive security technologies come with significant infrastructure, maintenance and training requirements.  Terminal and baggage handling areas must be redesigned to accommodate these systems.  In many instances, structural and electrical capabilities may need to be upgraded to accommodate them.  All of these elements must be provided for in advance of their deployment, which has unfortunately not always been the case.  If it is agreed that the best technologies must be deployed to combat terrorist threats, then it must be done with proper planning, coordination and resources.

           

Use New Technology to Tighten Access to Secure Areas in and around Airport Terminals: In addition to improving the screening process for passengers and baggage, we need to do a better job of controlling access to secure areas in and around airport terminals.  The shortcomings in access control technology and procedures at various locations airports around the country are well documented.  This is an issue that airport operators take seriously, and we will continue to call for improved procedures and the deployment of new technologies to tighten the secure areas' perimeter. 

 

Conduct Background Checks on Those Who Have Access to Secure Areas: Better technology is only part of the equation.  Just as we need to have better trained screeners, we must also focus on eliminating undesirable behavior that can nullify even the best technology used to control secure areas.  Toward that goal, it is essential that we concentrate our efforts on ensuring that only those persons who have undergone thorough background checks are granted access to secure areas. 

 

Last year, the Congress passed the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000. Like many on this committee, we strongly supported that legislation because it called on the FAA to work with air carriers and airport operators to strengthen procedures to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas and commercial aircraft.  The bill, which was enacted into law on November 22, 2000, requires criminal background checks for security screeners and others who have access to secure areas in the top twenty most at risk airports.  The legislation requires background checks for those at other airports to be phased-in over three years.  It also requires the FAA to expand and accelerate the Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Pilot program.  

 

In light of recent events, there should be an accelerated phase-in period for criminal history record checks and the authority to allow all airports to utilize the electronic fingerprint assessment technology immediately. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) must give these background checks priority consideration and the agency should be given the necessary resources to process them in a timely manner. 

 

Since the aviation system has been targeted as means of carrying out terrorist activity, we believe that the current criteria applied in assessing who is allowed access to secure areas are inadequate.  Airport operators are currently restricted by law to assessing records of convictions for very specific crimes, and we think that the range of activities subject to that assessment should be broadened.  We are also aware that various federal agencies keep records of persons with the propensity to commit acts of violence and or terrorism. Airports should be able to submit queries to a single federal entity to have applicants for positions permitting unescorted access vetted against such lists. We believe that this federal entity should take the lead to query all other federal agencies with an interest in terrorist issues to ensure that personnel to whom we grant unescorted access are not suspected of or directly involved in terrorist activity.

 

Provide Funds for More Law Enforcement Officials and K-9 Units at Airports: As I mentioned earlier in my statement, the new security measures that the FAA issued last week required airports to increase the number of uniformed security patrols or law enforcement officials at their facilities.  Visible security patrols and uniformed law enforcement officials have proven to be an extremely effective deterrent to acts of violence in airports.  The mere presence of uniformed officers at and around screening checkpoints has reduced the number of passengers attempting to circumvent the checkpoint.  

 

Due in part to the fact that these programs have been so successful, many have argued for an increase in the number of trained law enforcement officers present in the public and the secure area of airports.  Currently the number of officers is small, and our forces are stretched thin across the airport system.  It is imperative that Congress and the Administration provide airports with the funds they need to ensure that law enforcement officials are a permanent addition to airport security.

 

FAA certified K-9 teams are an important component of an airport's ability to screen passengers and their baggage.  The FAA is recognized as having a premier K-9 program.  The problem is that there are simply not enough FAA certified K-9 units to go around.  It is our understanding that K-9 teams from other federal agencies are trained to different requirements than are the FAA teams and are therefore not authorized for use to comply with FAA security directives.  We strongly believe that the FAA should expand its K-9 program to improve security at more airports.  In the meantime, we hope the FAA will consider allowing airports to use K-9 teams trained by other agencies. 

                       

Disseminate Intelligence to a Designated Airport Security Coordinator:  The FBI, Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies each play their own part in monitoring, identifying and assessing threats to national security.  Some of the information processed by this intelligence community identifies potential threats to the safety of civil aviation, and some of this information is shared with offices in the DOT and FAA.  However, very little of this critical data is shared with the front-line airport, local law enforcement, and airline personnel responsible for implementing security procedures.

 

This unfortunate episode has made clear that the intelligence agencies must place a much higher priority on collecting aviation security information. Coordination of intelligence dissemination with the Secretary's Office of Intelligence and Security, appropriate FAA staff, airport security coordinators and local law enforcement officials will increase the likelihood that real threats to the system are met with real local response and preparedness. 

 

As a direct result of the recommendations from the 1996 Presidential Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, aviation security consortia were formed and vested with the authority to work cooperatively with federal regulators to meet the goals of increased aviation security.  This type of cooperation is particularly important in light of the events that occurred last week.  Airport security professionals play a key role in developing, implementing and maintaining effective security measures, and their input should be sought as we develop new ways to increase aviation security.

 

Deploy Federal Security Managers at More Airports: The FAA is responsible for providing threat information to airports and establishing aviation security policies and regulations.  The agency's Civil Aviation Security Operations Office has deployed Federal Security Managers (FSM) to the nation's highest risk airports to assist in coordinating security efforts.  The purpose of this program is to give FSM-staffed airports direct access to the Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security in times of heightened concern.  But the scope must be expanded to provide similar coordinated efforts at more airports. 

 

Again, these are just some of the options that we think Congress and the Administration should explore in an effort to enhance security at our nation's airports.  Many of the proposals, such as providing a better screening process, would increase security at airports and on commercial airlines.  I know many in Congress have proposed expanding the FAA's Federal Air Marshal program as a way to deter to air piracy.  While airports don't play a role in the Air Marshal program, this week's announcement by the Attorney General regarding the expansion of the program is an extremely positive and important step.  

 

I would also like to take a moment to discuss Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.  Given the airport's proximity to the White House, the Capitol and other federal buildings and monuments in the Washington metropolitan area, there are understandable security concerns.  These concerns are the same ones we have for the public entire as we move forward to improve aviation security. The airport and the airlines that utilize it should take any additional necessary measures its special location warrants.  I do hope, however, that the debate will be about the conditions under which we reopen National Airport.  We should reopen it soon.  As US Airways Chairman Stephen M. Wolf recently said, "[c]losing Reagan National Airport is an unacceptable visible win for terrorism."

 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Lipinski, and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thank you again for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on aviation security.  All of us at ACI-NA and AAAE look forward to working with you and others in the aviation industry during the days and weeks ahead on ways to enhance airport and airline security.