Troops Leave US Airports, Fears Linger

The last National Guard soldiers are pulling out of US airports this week – marking the end of the armed military presence at security checkpoints in place since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The 10,000 troops were there to provide a show of force – a psychological deterrent as much as a physical one. They will be replaced temporarily by local law enforcement officers and ultimately by a new federal police force, but airport security remains an issue eight months after the attacks.

Security breaches continue. This month terminals were evacuated at Cleveland Hopkins airport after a bag set off an alarm on an explosives detector that was not noticed by the screener until well after the passenger could have boarded a flight.

That was a false alarm, but the fears remain real. Primary responsibility lies with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency set up last November.

It is charged with the monumental task of hiring 30,000 passenger screeners by November 19 – federalising the previously private workforce – as well as 37,000 baggage screeners and federal law enforcement officials. It must also ensure check-in baggage at all 429 US airports is scanned for explosives by the end of the year.

The TSA began in February by taking over passenger screening contracts between airlines and private security companies. That spelt trouble for the screening companies, under fire for paying low wages to substandard employees against a background of fierce competition for contracts.

Argenbright Security, owned by the UK-based Securicor, was convicted last year of hiring screeners with criminal records at a Philadelphia airport. The com pany, which once handled 40 per cent of the US market, seemed to inspire particular odium. "I don't care how you do it – get them the hell out of those airports," one angry congressman told the TSA recently.

However, Argenbright's departure notwithstanding, the much-criticised private screeners continue to man airport security checkpoints, and time is pressing. Transportation secretary Norman Mineta, who oversees the TSA, admitted this month that the "vast majority" of screeners are still employed by the private companies.

So far, only Baltimore-Washington International Airport has taken on federal passenger screeners.

A flurry of activity is expected over the summer, but to date the TSA has hired only about 600 of the tens of thousands of passenger screeners it needs.

Much of that shortfall will be made up by screeners from companies such as Argenbright, who can re-apply for federal jobs if they meet improved security and education requirements.

But this huge rise in the number of government employees – the total is projected at about 70,000 – has not been welcomed by everyone.

Questions have been raised in Congress, not just by those who balk at increasing the number of state employees on principle, but also by those concerned about cost.

The new screeners will earn between $23,000 and $35,000 a year, which is a significant rise on the minimum-wage salaries many previously earned.

President George W. Bush has requested some $4.4bn in supplemental funds for the TSA, bringing its 2002 budget to $6.8bn. Among the start-up expenses are the new explosives detection machines being brought in to meet the requirement for getting all checked-in baggage scanned.

The machines are bulky and expensive; they cost about $750,000 each, and up to 1,100 are needed. That is half the number the TSA originally said had to be in place to screen all baggage. It plans to make up the difference with cheaper and smaller devices that can detect residual traces of explosives.

Some critics felt this was an attempt by the TSA to cut costs, and corners, with safety, although the agency maintains that this is not the case.

Airports themselves are incurring significant costs to improve security. Some worry about who will reimburse them for improvements in perimeter security and paying for local law enforcement officials to replace the national guard. Mr Mineta said airports would be eligible for reimbursement under the federal airport improvement programme, although those funds are normally set aside for runway building and other capital projects.

So will the government prove itself to be up to its task? Some are unsure. Clifford Winston, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says that before September 11 there were no real charges that the private sector had not provided adequate security given the level of perceived risk. "We got the level of security we wanted. We didn't really want a fancy system and to be delayed."

Now the government is in the picture, he says, cost and efficiency are issues. "My reaction was, turn it over to the people who run private security at Las Vegas casinos and Disneyland."