Skip banner Home   Sources   How Do I?   Site Map   What's New   Help  
Search Terms: "screening deadline"
  FOCUS™    
Edit Search
Document ListExpanded ListKWICFULL format currently displayed   Previous Document Document 24 of 81. Next Document

Copyright 2002 P.G. Publishing Co.  
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

September 11, 2002 Wednesday SOONER EDITION

SECTION: NATIONAL, Pg.A-8

LENGTH: 575 words

HEADLINE: DOZENS OF AIRPORTS TO MISS SCREENING DEADLINE;
SENATOR SAYS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE RAIL, PORT PROTECTION HAVE FAILED

BYLINE: BEN FINLEY, KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
As the government put the nation on a higher alert for possible terrorist attacks, the head of the Transportation Security Administration told a Senate panel yesterday that dozens of U.S. airports will miss the Dec. 31 deadline for screening passengers' checked baggage for explosives.

In addition, federal transportation security authorities have "flunked" in their efforts to improve terrorism protection for U.S. ports and railways, said Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Among airports expected to miss the deadline are Kansas City International, Dallas-Fort Worth International and McCarran International in Las Vegas. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said airports she'd visited in Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco also would need more time. A fourth, Los Angeles International, will make it, Boxer reported.

Retired Coast Guard Adm. John Loy, acting head of the Transportation Security Agency, said more than 90 percent of U.S. airports would have inspection gear and counterterrorism procedures in place by the congressionally imposed deadline. He said legitimate engineering and financial challenges were slowing the remainder, roughly 35 other airports.

Congress cut the TSA's appropriation from $4.4 billion to $3.85 billion. In addition, many airport managers have said their facilities lack the room for large inspection machines, or, as in McCarran's case, must install new generators to power the devices.

Loy assured lawmakers that the TSA, which he took over seven weeks ago, will meet a November deadline for hiring some 33,000 airport baggage screeners. The new federal work force takes over from a private contractor system that had proved ineffective.

Recent tests by CBS News and the New York Daily News of the enhanced -- and more expensive -- new federal screening system showed that its operators, like their predecessors, often missed weapons smuggled in carry-on baggage. Loy said he was "very concerned" about those failures. He told lawmakers that one TSA supervisor, who had hand-searched a carry-on bag but failed to find a pistol hidden in it, had been fired.

Lawmakers also voiced concern about unchecked cargo in smaller planes. According to Loy, the TSA does not always screen freight for explosives when it's going on a plane smaller than a Boeing 727.

"If we spend billions of dollars and we inconvenience passengers, which they have been very patient about being, the idea that we wouldn't have some increase in cargo security in the belly of that airplane is outrageous," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Loy said his agency was weighing the use of bomb-sniffing dogs and special profiling for smaller planes. Inspecting their freight cargo is not required under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed last November.

Hollings, citing the delivery by sea of explosives used in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, expressed concern that terrorists could penetrate U.S. ports and plant bombs on liquid natural-gas tankers or in tank fields. Only 2 percent of the 14 million cargo containers that enter U.S. ports each year are inspected.

"We haven't done anything," said Hollings, the sponsor of rail and port security measures currently hung up in a House-Senate conference. "We flunked the course on port security. We flunked the course on rail security."

LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2002




Previous Document Document 24 of 81. Next Document
Terms & Conditions   Privacy   Copyright © 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.