    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     INSTALLATION OF IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING SYSTEMS: INCREASING SAFETY
         AND EFFICIENCY FOR TRAVELERS TO AND FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 17, 2006

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-123

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                     _____

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                 WASHINGTON: 2006
    26-330 PDF

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia        ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina       Columbia
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                    ------
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                       (Independent)
    ------ ------

                          David Marin, Staff Director
                          Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
                           Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
              Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on February 17, 2006................................     1
    Statement of:
        Null, Randy, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Operational
          Process and Technology, Transportation Security
          Administration; James E. Bennett, president and chief
          executive officer, Metropolitan Washington Airports
          Authority; and Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., executive
          director, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood
          Marshall Airport...........................................    10
            Bennett, James E.........................................    16
            Campbell, Timothy L......................................    23
            Null, Randy..............................................    10
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Bennett, James E., president and chief executive officer,
          Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, prepared
          statement of...............................................    19
        Campbell, Timothy L., A.A.E., executive director, Baltimore/
          Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport,
          prepared statement of......................................    26
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, prepared statement of...............    49
        Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Virginia, prepared statement of...................     3
        Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida, prepared statement of....................    46
        Null, Randy, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Operational
          Process and Technology, Transportation Security
          Administration:
            Strategic plan...........................................    35
            Prepared statement of....................................    12

     INSTALLATION OF IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING SYSTEMS: INCREASING SAFETY
         AND EFFICIENCY FOR TRAVELERS TO AND FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL

                                  ----------

                           FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006

                              House of Representatives,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                    Dulles Airport, VA.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., at
    the Conference Room in the Airport Conferencing Suites Lower
    Level Baggage Claim Area, Dulles Airport, Hon. Tom Davis
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Watson, and Norton.
        Also present: Representative James Moran of Virginia.
        Staff present: Jennifer Safavian, chief counsel for
    oversight and investigations; Brooke Bennett, counsel; Rob
    White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of
    communications; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D'Orsie,
    deputy clerk; Michael Galindo, research assistant; Michael May,
    legislative assistant; Bill Womack, legislative director; and
    Michael McCarthy and Kimberly Johnson Trinca, minority
    counsels.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Before we begin today I would ask
    unanimous consent to allow Mr. Moran to participate in today's
    hearing. Without objection, so ordered. Jim, welcome. We are
    glad to have you here, as always.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Nice to be with you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order. Good
    morning. Welcome to today's hearing on the in-line checked
    baggage screening systems.
        Immediately after the September 11th, attacks, Congress
    mandated explosives screening for all checked baggage by
    December 31, 2002. To meet this tight deadline the
    Transportation Security Administration deployed explosives
    detection systems and explosive trace detection machines in
    airport check-ins around the country.
        As we have just seen upstairs, the stand-alone EDS machines
    are large and create congestion in airport terminals. They
    require substantial human operation and can process at best 180
    bags per hour. The smaller EDT machines are even more labor
    intensive. It can process only 36 bags per hour. With the
    technology available today, that simply is not good enough. The
    flying public is growing inpatient.
        Right here at Dulles Airport, according to a July 2005,
    Washington Post article, one airline reported that their
    flights were being delayed as much as 45 minutes because of the
    limited number of baggage screening machines. Other airports
    report delays because they are required to share baggage
    screening equipment with eight other airlines, and that's
    equipment that can screen only 100 bags per hour.
        We look forward to hearing further about Dulles and Reagan
    airports from Mr. Bennett and how the Metropolitan Washington
    Airports Authority is addressing the concerns of its air
    carriers and passengers. But I'm sure that these delays are not
    unique to Dulles.
        One of the solutions to these delays is better leveraging
    of technology. We are now on to the next generation of
    screening machines and processes. Baggage screening is being
    integrated into baggage conveyer systems.
        In-line screening systems increase baggage screening from
    180 bags per hour to more than 450 bags per hour. And, reducing
    the current level of human interaction with the baggage saves
    TSA money in personnel costs and workers compensation.
        Baltimore/Washington International Airport now has a full
    in-line system which went online in 2005. BWI now has the
    capacity to screen up to 2,400 bags per hour and we look
    forward to hearing from Mr. Campbell about the increased
    efficiencies at BWI.
        We understand that moving baggage screening in-line is
    neither a small task nor a cheap one. We gave TSA authorization
    to help finance airports' installations of in-line systems.
    Under this letter of intent program TSA pays for 100 percent of
    acquisition and installation of screening machines and for 75
    percent of the airports' facilities modification costs.
        Studies by the Government Accountability Office and TSA
    demonstrate that even in the short term, installation of in-
    line screening systems capacity practically pays for itself.
    However, even though TSA's program has been in effect for only
    3 years, only 116 of the Nation's 451 airports have EDS
    machines and only 12 of these airports have fully in-line
    systems. The remainder are partially in-line or stand-alone.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to understand why TSA's
    funding of in-line systems has stalled and what steps TSA is
    taking toward putting more in-line systems in airports to
    improve airport safety and efficiency.
        Also, given the expense of installing in-line baggage
    systems, we want to understand how TSA is prioritizing which
    airports will receive Federal assistance and what funds are
    actually available.
        We look forward to hearing today from Dr. Randy Null, the
    Assistant Administrator for Operational Process and Technology
    at TSA regarding the status of TSA's letter of intent program
    and the creative financing solutions that they are pursuing. We
    also look forward to hearing about TSA's forthcoming EDS
    strategic plan, which prioritizes airports for in-line
    installations.
        Before we hear from our witnesses however, the committee
    would like to express our gratitude to Dulles Airport and MWAA
    for hosting today's hearing and for providing us this morning's
    tour of Dulles' baggage screening process areas.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Tom Davis. I would now recognize Ms. Norton for
    her opening statement.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I very
    much appreciate your calling this hearing. I was aware that
    Dulles did not have the integrated machines because this area
    is really in the primary jurisdiction of two of my other
    committees, Homeland Security and Transportation.
        I was not aware why and I'm still not sure I am. Clearly
    BWI benefited from having at least one of its facilities in the
    process of being built, which may have helped to jump start
    their receipt of integrated machines. But when you consider
    that these in-line systems quickly pay back the cost and
    drastically reduce the number of screeners that are necessary,
    I really don't understand why the cost effective integrated
    machines would not be moving forward.
        I must say, what I saw this morning could only be called
    primitive. We have moved backward with people down in the
    bowels of Dulles having to lift, after we have a beautifully
    automated way of getting the baggage through the traditional
    screening, then having to go through another screening out in
    the lobby, or down below.
        As I understand, I remember the controversy when Homeland
    Security Department was set up about non-unionization. But I
    learned today that in the summer it can be 100 degrees down
    there, only with fans, with no air conditioning, and people
    having to pick up bags, manually pick up bags.
        So what we have instead of an integrated system, which
    would do these things automatically, it is a system which costs
    more, more screeners, producing workman compensation expenses
    for the government, truly going backward after we thought we
    were making progress. I think by exposing this and learning
    more about it today in this hearing we will be prepared to go
    back to the relevant committee and perhaps get some progress.
        We would think that the place to begin would be in an
    airport like this, from which one of the September 11th planes
    started. Obviously risk analysis did not have to do with how
    these integrated machines were located and it is perfectly
    understandable that if you are building a facility you would
    want to start there because it is cheaper.
        What is not understandable is why you would not move
    quickly, why the Federal Government would not move quickly to
    install integrated machinery in other places given the speed
    with which they can recoup the investment and reduce labor
    costs. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Tom, for inviting me to
    participate in this hearing. More importantly, thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for addressing this issue. It clearly is a Federal
    issue.
        The Congress went ahead and mandated that every bag be
    checked. I am not sure we gave a whole lot of thought to how
    that was going to be done, nor how much it was going to cost.
    That is somebody else's problem.
        But you could rest assured that if it was not done, we
    would be the first ones criticizing it for not being done,
    particularly if something slipped through that turned out to be
    an explosive device or whatever.
        The airlines and the airports have had a terrible time the
    last 4 years. After September 11th it looked bleak. Of course
    with all the deregulation and all, a number of airlines have
    folded; they have gone bankrupt.
        But here at Dulles, Dulles International Airport, and at
    our Nation's National Airport, there has been a recovery, a
    very substantial recovery. We are now looking at 45 million
    passengers, almost 18 million at National Airport and about 27
    million, I understand, at Dulles. We thank the people running
    the airport and the airlines for getting our economy back on
    its feet.
        But our government is not keeping pace with this growth. In
    fact the reason we are having a hearing is that in some ways we
    may actually be impeding future growth by failing to employ the
    best and the most effective security measures. Despite
    technology that is proven not only to be much more cost
    effective and efficient, but actually improving airport safety
    and security, our government has not moved forward in a timely
    manner to deploy that technology.
        Baggage screening is proving to be a principal limiting
    factor impeding the safe, smooth and efficient operation of our
    Nation's busiest airports. Even when it appears that an airport
    is willing to help finance and install the new in-line baggage
    screening systems, the Transportation Security Administration
    and our Federal Government has been unable to respond.
        I know that the problems don't all exist with TSA by any
    means, though we have an antiquated system of accounting, for
    example, that crops up in any number of ways, and this is just
    one more downside of not modernizing our method of accounting,
    turning to accrual accounting, which every corporation does,
    but of course, we are back 100 years, doing it the way they did
    it 100 years ago.
        Those financing restrictions in fact have limited the
    availability of Federal funds. But I am confident that at the
    conclusion of this hearing we will have a clearer indication of
    what we can do to get these devices installed at our busiest
    and most constrained airports, certainly the airports that
    serve our Nation's Capital. The public deserves no less and I
    know, Mr. Chairman, you will not tolerate anything less than
    that given the fact that you are having this hearing and we
    have all the right people to talk to.
        Hopefully this will result in some real constructive
    efforts to not only help passenger safety, improve efficiency,
    but also in the long run we are going to save some money. Thank
    you very much.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran, thank you very much, too.
    The Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for
    the record. We are now going to recognize our very
    distinguished panel of witnesses.
        We have Dr. Randy Null, who is the Assistant Administrator
    for Operational Process and Technology, Transportation Security
    Administration. Dr. Null, thank you for being with us today.
        We have Mr. James E. Bennett, the president and chief
    executive officer of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
    Authority. Jim, thank you for being with us. And Mr. Timothy
    Campbell, the executive director of the Baltimore/Washington
    International Thurgood Marshall Airport. Thank you for coming
    down here from Baltimore.
        I just want to thank all of you for your commitment to the
    industry and to the passengers and their safety. It is our
    policy that we swear witnesses before you testify, so if you
    would just raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Dr. Null, we will
    start with you. Your entire statements are part of the record.
    Thank you for being with us.

     STATEMENTS OF RANDY NULL, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
      OPERATIONAL PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION; JAMES E. BENNETT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
       OFFICER, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY; AND
      TIMOTHY L. CAMPBELL, A.A.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE/
           WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL THURGOOD MARSHALL AIRPORT

                        STATEMENT OF RANDY NULL

        Dr. Null. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear
    before you today at Washington Dulles International Airport on
    behalf of the Transportation Security Administration to discuss
    our Electronic Baggage Screening Program.
        We believe this program is an important part of our efforts
    to create a comprehensive, multi-layered system of security
    throughout the aviation sector. We also appreciate the
    participation of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
    and the Maryland Aviation Administration this morning.
        Effective baggage screening depends upon the cooperation of
    our key stakeholders. We are thankful for the cooperation we
    have received from both organizations since screening began.
        As you know, TSA is responsible for not only conducting the
    screening of checked baggage carried onboard TSA-regulated
    commercial aviation flights, but also for the procurement,
    installation and maintenance of explosives detections equipment
    used to screen that checked baggage.
        As passenger levels grow and airports renovate and build
    new terminals, we must continue to evaluate equipment needs and
    placement to accommodate that increased traffic level. These
    types of activities must be factored into our application of
    risk-based analysis in making our investment decisions.
        In addition to the costs associated with the purchase and
    the life cycle maintenance of these technologies, installation
    costs are a significant component of the total cost of
    deployment. The cost of installing EDS and the ETD technologies
    consist of some or all of the following depending on the
    equipment and the specific location.
        First the site survey and design, site preparation and
    facility modification, warehousing and shipping, verification
    and validation testing, and operational and programmatic
    support.
        In 2003 and 2004, a significant Federal commitment of
    installation funding was pledged through the letters of intent
    [LOI], to reimburse airport operators for facility modification
    projects supporting the installation of in-line EDS equipment.
        TSA has issued eight letters of intent covering nine
    airports and TSA's commitment to these nine airports totals
    $957.1 million out of a total project cost of approximately
    $1.3 billion.
        In fiscal year 2006, we anticipate providing $240.4 million
    in LOI reimbursements at a 75 percent Federal share for the
    existing LOIs. These costs are solely for facility alteration
    and do not include the cost to procure and install EDS
    machines, which are fully funded by TSA.
        The equipment purchases associated with the LOI airports
    will continue in fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2006, TSA
    will continue to procure and install equipment at LOI and non-
    LOI airports, including Dulles, in accordance with the 2006
    expenditure plan. This continuing effort is required to
    maintain sufficient screening capacity as passenger traffic
    increases and operational circumstances at airports change.
        Looking to the future, we have recently completed a
    strategic plan for the Electronic Baggage Screening Program
    that prioritizes future equipment deployments and we will begin
    using that plan to make investment decisions in fiscal year
    2007.
        The plan was developed using a top-down data driven
    planning model to perform a systematic, comprehensive
    assessment of a variety of screening solutions for airports and
    identify the optimal solution by balancing security and
    economic factors. These results feed into a model that
    prioritizes projects and identifies the optimal schedule for
    deploying equipment to airports given operational requirements,
    funding, equipment availability and other key assumptions.
        These continuing system deployment efforts are required to
    maintain sufficient screening capacity as passenger traffic
    increases over the next 10 years as projected by the Department
    of Transportation.
        Given the variety of local factors and conditions that will
    affect funding and design decisions, the final determination of
    the optimal screening solution for an airport requires a
    partnership between TSA, the airport operator, and the key
    airline tenants at that airport.
        TSA will work closely with airport operators and other key
    stakeholders to integrate the planning being conducted by many
    airport operators with the initial plans development as part of
    TSA's strategic plan. This will ensure that airport designs--
    design systems that will adequately address screening
    requirements and ensure that the best overall implementation
    strategy will be executed.
        The final component of the Electronic Baggage Screening
    Program's strategic plan will be completed in 2006, with the
    release of a cost-share study required by the Intelligence
    Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This study--
    through this study, TSA is working with aviation industry
    stakeholders to develop a cost-sharing formula and innovative
    financing solutions for the Electronic Baggage Screening
    Program.
        We anticipate that the initial results of this cost study
    will be available later this year. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to respond to
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Null follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Dr. Null. Mr.
    Bennett.

                     STATEMENT OF JAMES E. BENNETT

        Mr. Bennett. Chairman Davis, Mr. Moran, Ms. Norton, on
    behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, I
    want to welcome you to Washington Dulles International Airport
    and thank you for holding this hearing today.
        The issue of more effectively and efficiently screening
    passengers and their baggage through installation of in-line
    baggage screening systems has been a major industry concern
    since the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security
    Act in November 2001.
        Rarely has there been an issue in the history of the
    commercial aviation industry which would have such a positive
    impact on all of the partners which make it up, the Federal
    Government, airports, airlines, and our collective customers,
    than the concept of installing in-line baggage screening
    systems at our Nation's major commercial airports, starting
    right here at both Washington Dulles International and Ronald
    Reagan Washington National airports.
        To make it clear, the current system of screening checked
    baggage at our two airports is not capable of meeting the
    current demand, is operationally inefficient, consumes an
    inordinate amount of Transportation Security Administration
    resources and is incapable of meeting the projected future
    demands.
        Long before the mandated December 31, 2002, Department of
    Homeland Security and TSA requirement that all checked baggage
    be screened by explosive detection systems, airport operators
    across the country, including the Authority, began to wrestle
    with the logistics, engineering, customer service impacts and
    aesthetics of finding the space for the soon-to-be delivered
    machines.
        From the very first minute of our deliberations, we
    concluded that the only logical position and the most effective
    location for these machines were to make them an integral part
    of our existing baggage handling systems.
        The Authority and our industry made these concerns known
    long before the arrival of these machines. For the record, we
    have 19 EDS machines and 31 ETD machines at National and 33 EDS
    machines and 102 ETD machines here at Dulles.
        With the hope that we could avoid the possibility that our
    ticket counters and concourse areas would become the permanent
    location of these 185 machines, we immediately commenced design
    of in-line baggage screening systems in partnership with TSA
    and at a significant cost to the Authority for both airports.
        Concurrently we also began a dialog with the TSA to obtain
    Federal funding for them. The Authority originally applied for
    a letter of intent from the TSA on February 4, 2004, to find an
    in-line solution for checked baggage screening at Dulles and
    Reagan National.
        Later in the year, in June, I wrote to then Admiral David
    Stone, the former head of TSA, calling once again for his
    immediate attention to both of our LOI requests and outlining
    the tremendous growth and demand underway at Dulles. Admiral
    Stone replied, noting that TSA believes that installation of
    EDS systems at both National and Dulles is an important project
    that will enhance security in the Washington metropolitan area.
        The following month we submitted revised TSA applications
    for Federal funding due to the design requirements required to
    meet TSA's security protocols. In the meantime our airports
    have continued to grow. In 2005, all time records for
    passengers were set at both Dulles and Reagan National
    airports. At Dulles, 27 million passengers used the airport and
    17.8 flew in and out of National.
        As a result of this growth, we began to see the inevitable
    effects of a very limited baggage screening system on busy and
    growing airports, particularly at Dulles.
        You may recall last summer the Washington Post, in a
    lengthy article dated July 4, 2005, noted that several aircraft
    were being routinely delayed by up to 1 hour at Dulles due to
    the inability to screen baggage in a timely manner.
        Airlines planning to introduce the new large A-3 Aircraft
    at Dulles have expressed their deep concerns over the capacity
    constraints imposed by baggage screening. Also of great
    importance to us is the current state of our terminal buildings
    at both airports.
        With EDS machines placed throughout the ticketing and
    baggage basements, a quick tour, as you saw today, demonstrates
    why the Authority and our airline partners are having an
    increasingly difficult time properly managing our passenger
    lines and their baggage.
        I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Authority has not been
    sitting idly by waiting for TSA to act. We've invested nearly
    $8 million at Authority expense designing in-line systems that
    both meet the demands of Dulles and Reagan National for checked
    baggage screening while improving security of the aviation
    system.
        The estimated cost of constructing in-line baggage
    screening systems at both Dulles and Reagan National is $316
    million. Not only will such systems enhance the security of the
    aviation system, but they will also provide tremendous cost
    savings to the TSA in the form of reduced labor costs. Our
    initial estimates for Dulles, based on currently approved TSA
    security protocols, predict a labor savings of nearly 30
    employees per hour during the peak screening operations.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that the TSA is not satisfied with the
    current system of screening checked baggage at our Nation's
    airports. However, TSA is somewhat encumbered by Federal
    budgetary restrictions that limit its ability to work with the
    aviation system on improving the situation.
        I urge Congress to work with TSA on appropriate legislative
    reforms necessary to ensure the rapid deployment of checked
    baggage screening systems. For example, in 2003, we worked with
    the Federal Aviation Administration on financing a new air
    traffic control tower here at Dulles which expedited the
    project and saved the government money. We expect them to take
    possession of this new $50 million tower under the terms of a
    20-year lease-back this week.
        In conclusion I simply cannot state it clearly enough, an
    in-line baggage screening system for our two airports is
    necessary, affordable and cost-effective. The Authority is
    standing ready to work with the Department of Homeland Security
    and TSA to identify appropriate funding and reimbursement
    mechanisms which will allow us to install this most critical
    piece of aviation security infrastructure. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. Mr.
    Campbell, thanks for coming down from Baltimore to be with us
    today.

                    STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. CAMPBELL

        Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the committee. It's my pleasure to be here this morning. On
    behalf of the State of Maryland and BWI Thurgood Marshall
    Airport, thank you for this opportunity to share our experience
    in designing, financing and installing an integrated in-line
    system at least in one of our terminals at BWI Airport.
        In May 2005, BWI opened its new terminal addition,
    Concourses A/B, which accommodates Southwest Airlines, which is
    our largest airline partner. They have approximately 50 percent
    of our passenger activity at the airport and constitute
    approximately 10 million passengers annually.
        Concourse A/B, as has been indicated, is equipped with a
    state-of-the-art fully integrated in-line baggage handling
    system that has a capacity of approximately 2,400 bags per
    hour. That system went into operation in June 2005.
        We were fortunate at BWI because the planning for the
    terminal complex was underway at the time of September 11th,
    and the subsequent Federal regulations that governed the
    installation of integrated baggage systems and the requirement
    to screen all checked bags. It worked out for us to be able to
    go in and update the design to accommodate the in-line bag
    system as directed by TSA at that time.
        Although there were costs involved in terms of redesigning
    the facilities, we were able to accomplish that before we
    actually began construction. We've estimated that the
    additional cost was approximately $20 million over and above
    what the terminal complex would have cost anyway.
        At the time we moved forward with the project we did not
    have any commitments from TSA or the Federal Government to fund
    any or all of that project, but working in concert with
    Southwest Airlines, our airline partner, and the local TSA
    staff, as well as the Washington staff, we determined that it
    was clearly the best way to move forward.
        As indicated earlier, the in-line integrated systems
    clearly offer many advantages. I should note that TSA was
    instrumental in ensuring that all the necessary EDS equipment
    was onsite and in accordance with our construction schedule,
    and our local and national TSA contacts were very supportive of
    our efforts and arranged for technical support for the EDS
    machines at critical points throughout the project.
        In addition, TSA senior leadership, including TSA Director
    Kip Hawley, former TSA administrator, David Stone, former
    deputy, Tom Blank, Dr. Randy Null and Chuck Burke were always
    accessible to us, continue to be accessible to us, and are
    responsive to our concerns and request for assistance.
        Mindful of our cooperative approach and strained fiscal
    situation, TSA greatly assisted the project by executing a $10
    million Other Transaction Agreement [OTA]--it's basically a
    grant--to partially reimburse the airport for some of the TSA-
    related project costs. Again it's approximately half of the $20
    million that the system costs to install.
        We're still finalizing the installation and TSA and our
    Southwest Airlines partners continue to work closely with us as
    we near completion of the installation. Prior to opening the
    Concourse A/B, the screening operation of BWI was similar to
    what you saw today and you see at many airports. We have either
    systems in the lobby or down in the bag room, but we're not
    fully integrated in in-line systems.
        In fact the other half of the airport, the other half of
    the passengers continue to use those, what we call a quasi-in-
    line. Sometimes they're integrated into the baggage system
    itself, but they're not fully integrated as the Concourse A/B
    system is.
        We have about half of our system fully integrated and half
    that is not. It's my understanding, based on TSA reports, that
    there are numerous benefits which have already been enumerated
    for the in-line system, including cost savings, which have
    already been identified, but also as Congresswoman Norton has
    indicated, there are great benefits to the employees that have
    to work in those environments, handle the baggage, and as you
    saw today, some of those were pretty large bags that those
    individuals have to manhandle down in those systems.
        We've experienced at BWI since the system has been
    integrated a reduction in serious industry--injuries and
    worker's comp claims for TSA employees. It's also obviously
    allowed the TSA to process bags quicker and much more
    efficiently and the--it's considerably increased the efficiency
    of the Southwest operation at our airport.
        For these and other reasons there is strong justification
    for Congress and the administration to increase funding and/or
    pursue innovative financing mechanism for the installation of
    in-line bag screening improvements at airports throughout the
    Nation, including the three main airports that serve the D.C.
    metropolitan area.
        Just a couple of comments on some of those alternatives. We
    would like to recognize the efforts that TSA has expended to
    date for its ongoing efforts to examine various creative
    financing alternatives. Dr. Null mentioned some of those in his
    testimony.
        One such approach would allow TSA to enter into the shared
    savings agreements with airports. We've had conversations with
    them about those alternatives and we've also been proactive in
    analyzing the cost benefits of retrofitting the remaining
    portions of our system and we've provided that information to
    TSA to help support our case for moving forward with an in-line
    system in the remaining portions of our facilities.
        There's no question in our mind that there are savings to
    be realized as indicated earlier, both in staffing levels,
    personnel savings. That also allows TSA to reallocate those
    personnel to other screening activities.
        One other concept which I would like to mention at this
    time is the possible use of a passenger facility charge, a
    surcharge for security purposes. I think this might offer an
    alternative for some airports, if not all airports, a way to
    finance the installation of some of these systems without
    requiring the general fund to be involved or perhaps dealing
    with some of the more creative financing mechanisms.
        I think a surcharge of $1 or $2 on the PFC of a limited
    duration, specified only for security-related projects, I think
    will be another alternative that the committee and the Congress
    may want to consider. The advantage of PFCs is it allows the
    airport basically to control the project. We know how to do
    these capital projects. We do them all the time, every year,
    and you saw demonstrated here at Dulles some of the large
    projects that they have underway. That's what we do and we
    think we could do it very well working with TSA and our airline
    partner.
        I offer that up as another alternative for your
    consideration. Thank you very much for this opportunity to
    participate and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Campbell, there is already what, a
    $4.50 cap on passenger facility charge; is that right?
        Mr. Campbell. That's correct.
        Chairman Tom Davis. You say another $1 or $2 could make a
    huge difference?
        Mr. Campbell. I think it would. It wouldn't satisfy all the
    demand from these facilities, but I think it would go a long
    way. In our case it would come close if it were over a 5-year
    period of covering maybe 50 to 60, 70 percent of the additional
    costs that we're going to----
        Chairman Tom Davis. Basically additional tax per flight?
        Mr. Campbell. Per passenger.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Per passenger, $1 to $2.
        Mr. Campbell. That's correct.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Bennett, that would give what,
    roughly $50 million a year if you did $2, or $25 million a year
    if you do $1 per passenger?
        Mr. Bennett. The way the passenger facility charge is
    currently structured, it's on the passengers boarding the
    aircrafts, so you have to take your total passengers and cut
    them in half, so it would probably generate for 1 year $20 or
    $30 million additional a year.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I see what you are saying; you only get
    them going one way?
        Mr. Bennett. Yes. The problem that potentially presents is
    that many airports, such as the Authority, Dulles and National,
    already have those PFCs committed well into the future to
    expend them on very large capital and capacity-enhancing
    projects such as we have underway here in Washington, building
    additional runways and other airport infrastructure to support
    the future demand of the system. Not all airports would be able
    to avail themselves of taking those already committed resources
    and using them to fund----
        Chairman Tom Davis. But if you had another dollar, you
    could add a dollar, you could put it somewhere else?
        Mr. Bennett. Indeed and probably toward those capacity and
    safety projects, because the $4.50 PFC that was approved many
    years ago in real dollars is today only worth about $2.70. It
    is of diminishing value since it is not indexed to inflation.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask, according to a July 2005,
    Post article, airlines at Dulles were experiencing delays of up
    to 45 minutes because TSA could not screen baggage quickly
    enough. Has that situation improved or worsened since that
    article was written?
        Mr. Bennett. The situation will, I predict, present itself
    again at Dulles this summer when we enter into the peak travel
    season. It's just a volume issue where the baggage delivery
    systems can deliver bags at a rate that the TSA, with their
    technology, probably can't----
        Chairman Tom Davis. You did apply, as you noted, to TSA for
    a letter of intent on February 4, 2004, and you followed up in
    June. TSA acknowledged and agreed with your letter. One month
    later you submitted a revised letter of intent request and that
    was the last you heard from TSA?
        Mr. Bennett. We've had conversations with Administrator
    Hawley on this back in the summer and they admitted that they
    are lacking in resources to provide us with a letter of intent
    for our systems.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Null, I guess that gets you to the
    meat of the matter. You did do letters of intent to eight
    airports; is that correct?
        Dr. Null. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Instead of opting for Dulles, which you
    had applied, they went with Seattle, Phoenix, Vegas, Boston,
    Dallas/Fort Worth. What was the criteria that in the Nation's
    Capital, where at least one of the flights on September 11th
    flew out of here, where there is more likely a terrorist
    threat, I think, if you take a look at threat analysis, than
    some of the others, rapidly increasing passenger rates,
    diplomats, heads of state come in here, why did Dulles not get
    the grant and they opted for eight other airports?
        Dr. Null. Sir, first of all, there are eight LOIs. They do
    cover nine airports because of the LAX/Ontario one. The
    situation we were in is we had a number of the airports where
    we were very much struggling with just achieving 100 percent
    baggage screening coverage because of the challenges of the
    lobbies or the baggage areas that we had available to us and
    that we were going to have to put in some solutions that were
    not workable for very long.
        We had a situation where we had large volume airports. We
    were not sure how we were going to be able to preserve
    compliance on that screening and that was the governing factor,
    where we made those initial investments.
        Chairman Tom Davis. The more efficient an airport is they
    have to get punished?
        Dr. Null. It was more an issue of what space was available
    to us because as you have indicated, the EDS machines are very
    large machines. In many cases we just absolutely didn't have
    the space to put them. It became a question of where did we go,
    how were we going to get out of the situation that we were in,
    and that was a big part of it.
        Chairman Tom Davis. You have space at Dulles though?
        Dr. Null. We have space in Dulles. We recognize the
    challenges of keeping up with the growth.
        Chairman Tom Davis. What about the 45-minute delays here?
    We've got diplomats, heads of states, key government officials
    flying in here.
        Dr. Null. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Every terrorist watch list. You even go
    to movies; Dulles is a focus on these issues. What are the
    chances of now do I want to revisit why you picked Seattle/
    Tacoma over this? Where do we stand at this point?
        Dr. Null. We submitted the strategic plan to Congress
    earlier this month. I can tell you that Dulles is very high on
    that list for the next level of grants for the next program in
    terms of how we get an EDS done.
        The challenge that we face, has been discussed previously,
    is what are the funding mechanisms to actually accomplish that?
    That's why as a part of this study, which placed Dulles very
    high on that list, is the study for looking for alternative
    funding approaches and different vehicles, for which we
    appreciate Mr. Bennett's participation on our steering
    committee.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Has MWAA offered you any innovative
    financing?
        Dr. Null. We certainly have had a number of discussions.
    Mr. Bennett is a part of that steering committee, so we've had
    a number of discussions about potential lease-back options or
    different approaches to potential fees.
        We're really trying to take a don't leave anything off of
    the table approach and put everything up, look to see what
    those look like either through leveraging the capital, leasing
    industry itself, or looking at operational lease-backs, as the
    FAA has done with the tower, all the way to looking at a fee-
    for-service type lease-back option as well. Many of those
    certainly have some issues with the current accounting systems.
        Chairman Tom Davis. My experience of this has been more
    anecdotal, but I think I've flown into almost all of these
    airports that did receive grants. We do have the Post report of
    45-minute delays and I think Mr. Bennett said this could be a
    long summer again.
        The in-line would take a couple of years to get up. This is
    a growing airport. This is not one that is just stable. We see
    more and more flights coming in and out of here. You have seen
    fit so far, given the opportunity to do eight or nine airports,
    that this didn't meet the criteria. But anecdotally, I can just
    say that the waits here have been as long as any airport.
        LAX is pretty tough. I am not going to fight on that. But
    some of these others I have been in and out, maybe it is timing
    when you are there or not there. But I will tell you, coming
    out here on a Friday night in the summertime, it is a long,
    long wait.
        Dr. Null. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Tom Davis. This is not just passengers. This is
    the workings of our government, international commerce and
    everything else, and I would say that any way we can try to get
    these in-line procedures established here as quickly as
    possible will go a long way toward safety of the air traveler,
    as well as efficiency in just carrying out the Nation's
    business. How high on the list are we?
        Dr. Null. I don't remember the exact position. You're in
    the top 10 and I don't remember exactly where.
        Chairman Tom Davis. We made the top 10 of the old list and
    you would have made the cut?
        Dr. Null. I understand sir. No, we were----
        Chairman Tom Davis. About five?
        Dr. Null. Right in there, yes sir.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Could you get that information to us?
        Dr. Null. Yes sir, we will do that.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Since I am sure that is public. Ms.
    Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Null, is there any money in the President's
    budget that would allow some of these integrated machines to
    begin to continue to flow this year?
        Dr. Null. We certainly do have existing LOI airports where
    many of those are in construction and will be----
        Ms. Norton. I'm talking about new ones.
        Dr. Null. In terms of new ones, there are some that are
    lower level funding requirements that we can manage through
    OTAs that don't require the large LOI type commitments, so
    there--in many cases it's not a full in-line system; they are
    partial in-line systems.
        We can achieve the same kinds of efficiencies and
    effectiveness, but they tend to be not the big, large
    integrated systems but smaller in-line capability.
        Ms. Norton. I ask about this because, Administrator Null,
    there is seldom where the government can make a case that by
    putting out money it will recoup its investment quickly so that
    when agencies have to go to the government, they don't usually
    have to offer what TSA has to offer, apparently in some
    instances, and maybe these are the larger ones that look like
    they are further down the line.
        According to the GAO these in-line systems would result in
    personnel savings of as much as 78 percent, for example,
    screeners. It is hard to understand why if on the one hand by
    making an initial investment you can save the government money,
    that the TSA would not be pressing the administration,
    informing them. They need to know this, that this is one of
    those bright spots in the Federal budget that could have
    multiple effects, including these cost saving effects.
        I do not understand the strategic plan, given what GAO
    tells us about recouping investment. Does the strategic plan
    include the number of airports that TSA thinks, for example, on
    an annual basis or whatever basis, could in fact get these
    machines, particularly given these cost savings? Remember,
    these TSA employees are 100 percent Federal employees. Does the
    strategic plan get to that level of detail?
        Dr. Null. Yes ma'am, the strategic plan covers the top 250
    airports, which captures----
        Ms. Norton. Including the number of airports per year, for
    example, that if funding were to occur, could be funded?
        Dr. Null. What it does is prioritize where we would go
    after--which in-line systems or which other optimal systems we
    would be looking for and it projects the costs associated with
    what it would require to do those systems.
        Ms. Norton. Has TSA ever commissioned a cost-effectiveness
    study? With the GAO telling us about these extraordinary
    personnel savings, have you done your own study to find what
    the savings to the Federal Government would be by putting these
    machines online?
        Dr. Null. Yes ma'am, we have done that for several years
    now and some of that is how we have prioritized a lot of our
    OTA money in particular.
        Ms. Norton. The message is not getting through if in fact
    you are not able to tell me that there are X amount of dollars
    for these machines this year in X number of airports, including
    this airport.
        Mr. Campbell, here we have right in our own region an
    airport that saw it was building on its own in this troubled
    industry, took the initiative without any promise of funding
    from TSA. Mr. Campbell, you say you have gotten about half of
    that funding back through applying. How were you able to do
    that? Was it your initiative being rewarded?
        Mr. Campbell. You have to ask TSA about that. We did work
    closely with our TSA partners and we did ask for the money. We
    let them know all the way along what we thought the costs were
    going to be and we were able to work with them in securing that
    $10 million.
        Ms. Norton. But we know that you may be in an unusual
    position with Southwest as your hub airline. This morning we
    are told that Northwest Airlines, which is in bankruptcy, is
    also facing the possibility of a strike and no industry is more
    on its knees, or shall I say, its back, than the airline
    industry.
        Where did the suggestion come from? Did Southwest say, let
    us do this? Did you go to Southwest and initiate this? Do you
    know of any other airport in the country which is partnered
    with its airline to jumpstart this process?
        Mr. Campbell. I think there are a number of airports that
    work closely with their airlines in terms of moving the process
    forward. It's really a three-party arrangement between the BWI
    Airport, Southwest Airlines and the TSA.
        We knew that there were mandates out there to screen all
    checked bags. We knew that we were in construction and
    development of a new terminal project. It just worked out
    timing wise we were able to integrate the new requirements into
    the design of the facility. From a timing point of view it was
    ideal.
        Ms. Norton. Dr. Null, are there any airports being
    constructed now? If airports are in the position that BWI was
    in, is TSA prepared, seeing the cost savings that were
    possible, to move forward, to take a priority look at the kind
    of savings that might be involved there, in your strategic
    plan?
        Dr. Null. Certainly we work with all of the airports in
    trying to project what new capacity may be coming online or
    what new terminals. Certainly if there's an opportunity to put
    in-line systems in we support that and work with them on their
    design.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent
    from you to have the strategic plan he is talking about
    submitted to this committee?
        Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection. There is no problem
    placing that. That will be put in the record. It is a public
    plan, right?
        Dr. Null. Yes.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection it will be placed in
    the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Ms. Norton. Perhaps some of these questions are answered
    that way. I would like to know from Dr. Null, because there is
    in Mr. Bennett's testimony a quotation from Admiral Stone, the
    former administrator. TSA believes that the installation of the
    in-line EDS system at both DCA and IAD is an important project
    that will enhance security in the Washington metropolitan
    areas.
        Could I ask you whether or not the benefits, clearly for
    convenience, clearly cost savings, of whether there are
    security or risk saving benefits to installing the integrated
    systems?
        Dr. Null. Within the two airports here in the Nation's
    Capital, absolutely. We understand----
        Ms. Norton. What would those be, please?
        Dr. Null. I haven't got the exact numbers, but I would
    estimate that we would probably see a 30 percent, 25 to 30
    percent staff reduction associated with the baggage screening
    piece of it.
        Ms. Norton. The machines that are in place throughout the
    country now, here and throughout the country, were those the
    machines that were already in place at September 11th?
        Dr. Null. No, ma'am. At September 11th, I think we had
    approximately 100 to 110 machines that had been deployed in the
    previous several years. Since September 11th, we have deployed
    approximately another 1,500 machines on top of that, as far as
    EDS.
        Ms. Norton. I have a question regarding those machines and
    this new round of machines, but I will go for a second round.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Null. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the strategic plan,
    we have submitted to the committee, it is SSI, so we need to
    understand what can or cannot be put in the record as a result
    of that.
        Chairman Tom Davis. We will work with you on that.
        Dr. Null. OK, thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Thanks, Tom. I am curious, Dr. Null, has there
    ever been the detection of an explosive device with all the
    screening, the billions of dollars we have spent to screen the
    bags, have they ever found a device that would have blown up an
    airline?
        Dr. Null. We have found things, sir.
        Mr. Moran. I know you found things. You found things----
        Dr. Null. I'm not prepared to go into the details, but yes
    we have found explosives.
        Chairman Tom Davis. How much? How many?
        Mr. Moran. Very often? I mean, Tom has asked how many?
        Dr. Null. Very, very seldom, sir.
        Mr. Moran. Very seldom. You could say that you have
    thwarted a disaster as a result of this screening; is that fair
    to say, at least once, other than the deterrent effect one can
    assume?
        Dr. Null. Certainly the deterrence has a big effect. This
    is a difficult question to answer in this forum, but I would
    say that we have thwarted things going on the airport--or
    airplane that should not have gone on the airplane.
        Mr. Moran. Yes, but I trust you are not talking about nail
    clippers and things like that?
        Dr. Null. No, sir.
        Mr. Moran. I am saying explosive devices because there
    would not be any reason to carry an explosive device. If you
    have something in your luggage--and we are really talking about
    luggage now--that is in the cargo hold, you are not going to be
    able to get at it.
        Things like knives and so on, one would assume that is not
    a threat. It would have to be an explosive device planted with
    some timing device on it. I am just curious as to whether that
    has actually happened over the last 4 years?
        Dr. Null. Again, without going into specifics, I can say
    that we have found materials that were potentially dangerous. I
    really would prefer not to talk about timing devices or
    anything like that in this forum. If you would like to have
    follow-on discussions we certainly could do that.
        Mr. Moran. I ask the same kind of question with regard to
    torture, whether we had ever obtained information that actually
    resulted in saving lives or that was used in a materially
    beneficial way. I got the same answer. Then when I look
    further, there really wasn't any.
        It seems to me a fundamental question if you are looking at
    cost benefit, but I grant you, there is a deterrent effect
    doing this. But if we are going to do it, we ought to do it in
    the most efficient manner with the least inconvenience and the
    least cost.
        I think Congress does have some responsibility for that. As
    I said in my opening statement, we mandate it, so we ought to
    not just leave it at that and then leave it to others to figure
    out how to do it.
        You are confident that if these in-line systems were
    implemented that it would be more full proof, there would be
    higher level security. You testified there would be less
    personnel costs, as much as 30 percent, so that is a
    significant savings. Mr. Davis and Ms. Norton referred to that.
        How do the passengers benefit? There is a reduction in the
    time that they would be waiting in line generally; is that a
    fair statement, or should I ask Mr. Bennett or Mr. Campbell
    that?
        Dr. Null. I think it depends on the particular situation
    where how the operations actually work in a given airport. In
    some cases the passenger is required to drop off their bag at
    the screening center.
        In some cases it's handled behind the counter. If it's
    behind the counter then there's really no delta that the
    passenger would see. If they no longer have to drop their bag
    off then certainly it's more efficient and more effective for
    them.
        Mr. Moran. Just so the audience understands, because there
    is an airline with the same name, you are saying there would be
    no change?
        Dr. Null. No change, yes sir.
        Mr. Moran. It is a good word to use, except that it could
    be misinterpreted. There will be no change in any airline,
    Delta or any others, if you are doing it behind the counter.
        Let me ask Mr. Bennett just for the purposes of our own
    constituents; do you think they would see a reduction in the
    amount of time they have to wait in line if we have this in-
    line system?
        Mr. Bennett. Mr. Moran, I'm not sure that there would be a
    significant reduction in the length of time that the passenger
    waits in line. What would offer the benefit is the circumstance
    that we had this summer, which potentially will happen again as
    the airport continues to grow, and that is flights being
    delayed where the passengers are sitting on the airplane, it's
    ready to go, but the baggage has not been processed and loaded
    on the aircraft yet because of the delay in screening.
        Mr. Moran. For example, we heard that a water filter had
    been identified which was deceptive. When you looked at the
    radiation, it looked as though that could be an explosive
    device.
        The problem is that you have to now contact the bomb squad
    in Arlington County, I understand, and if it is a half hour a
    way--actually, if it is at rush hour, it could be more than
    half an hour away--everything comes to a stop, a halt, until
    you can get the bomb squad and deal with it.
        You are saying the relay is that you would not have
    situations like that occur as frequently? In almost every case
    you would be able to determine what the article was more
    quickly and more definitively; is that fair to say?
        Mr. Bennett. Not necessarily in the case that you cite
    would that be the circumstance. Where the benefit comes in is
    the through-put rate of the screening process. It goes up
    considerably where the baggage handling systems deliver bags to
    the TSA at a rate that is much higher than their ability to
    screen them.
        As a result, it's a backlog. It becomes a congestion in the
    system and it just takes time to screen all of those bags by
    the TSA personnel. The in-line solution matches the baggage
    conveyer systems, are matched with the through-put rates of the
    screening equipment so that you don't have that delay.
        Mr. Moran. Sure, but I also thought there was an additional
    safety element, that it is more mechanized and so the detection
    capability is more----
        Mr. Bennett. There are different protocols. There are
    different protocols involved that in certain cases can resolve
    those issues without having to take them to that next level
    that you were describing earlier.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. We are going to do just one more round
    of questions, if that is all right. We had a number of good
    questions by my colleagues that beg more questions.
        Dr. Null, let me just ask you, what cost savings and
    operational efficiencies has TSA realized at the 12 airports
    with fully in-line systems?
        Dr. Null. Most of the ones where I think we will see the
    largest amount are still in construction and we haven't
    finalized those. Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta are two that we
    think will see significant improvements. Those are--Atlanta is
    not up yet. Dallas has still got one more module, but we're
    seeing significant improvements there.
        Some of the other ones, Boston, for instance, and Orange
    County, who is another one who went on their own, it was more
    of an avoidance and the fact that they came up online before we
    actually fully staffed, so we avoided having to add as many
    TSOs as we would have had to had they not gone online.
        Chairman Tom Davis. But there are significant savings?
        Dr. Null. There are significant savings.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Huge upfront costs?
        Dr. Null. There are huge upfront costs, but there are
    definitely the savings that pay it back. It's variable
    depending on the complexity of the airport and the complexity
    of the infrastructure that has to be built.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Bennett, what is the cost of not
    doing this to Dulles? If we do not get an in-line system here,
    what are we going to see?
        Mr. Bennett. Mr. Chairman, you will continue to see delays
    and you will see over time TSA trying to find a place to put
    more and more of these machines in the lobby as the airport
    continues to grow. As we indicated----
        Chairman Tom Davis. At 5 on a Friday evening there is no
    place to put them?
        Mr. Bennett. Correct. As we indicated, last year we had 27
    million passengers processed through Dulles. Within the next 10
    years that number could be closer to 40 million. Our fear is
    that the ability to screen baggage could become a capacity
    restriction on our ability to meet aviation demand in the
    region. That's one of the----
        Chairman Tom Davis. Is there any other airport slated to
    grow as quickly as Dulles, like from 27 to 40 million, that is
    in the queue right now to get in-line; do you know, Dr. Null?
        Dr. Null. I'd have to look. There are approximately 45
    airports who have requested LOIs for building in-line systems.
    I don't have that on my fingertip right now.
        Chairman Tom Davis. But you have to admit that Dulles is
    one of the faster growing of those airports?
        Dr. Null. Dulles certainly is one of the faster airports.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Obviously the earlier we make these
    investments the better. Let me just ask this. I don't know how
    many dollars you are going to have to work with this year, but
    I know Mr. Bennett has talked about maybe some innovating
    financing.
        Is there anything we can do from that area to help? Mr.
    Campbell, if you know, you or at least get one of your partners
    to finance some of the money, which was important.
        How do we get this thing up as quickly as we can? I think
    there is an agreement that we need to do this, from everybody.
    Dr. Null, you are saying, well, we do not know how much money
    we will have or where they are on the priority list, and I
    understand that.
        Mr. Bennett has come back with some innovative financing
    ways. But every day that is delayed creates greater
    inefficiencies in this airport and frankly puts more pressure
    on the people looking at the bags. Although there are not a lot
    of incidents that occur on a daily basis, the likelihood of
    making a mistake when you are backed up and under pressure and
    everything else increases as well, in this, one of the most
    vulnerable airports in the country.
        Let us agree we want to get this done as quickly as
    possible. What can we do from an innovative way with Congress
    in there, to try to make this work?
        Dr. Null. I think we need to work as quickly and as
    effectively as we can to finalize the study that Mr. Bennett is
    participating on. Let's get those recommendations on the table
    and try to get action as fast as possible so we can figure out
    how to go forward.
        Chairman Tom Davis. How reliable are these in-line systems
    once they are created? Mr. Campbell you have any experience
    with that? Do they break down very often for maintenance and
    repair?
        Mr. Campbell. They do break. It's a piece of equipment. We
    have had pretty good experience. TSA might be in a better
    position to answer since they are responsible for maintaining
    the machines themselves. But you have all the conveyers that
    are also part of this system that we are responsible for. It is
    a new system and it's functioning pretty well right at the
    moment.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Who makes them?
        Dr. Null. There are two companies who are the primary
    suppliers of in-line systems. We have three certified vendors
    right now, Reveal being the low speed small footprint machine.
    The two main in-line systems are L-3, which is at BWI, which is
    what is at Boston Logan. Then General Electric, who bought
    InVision, who has the CTX machines. Those are typically the
    9,000's where you will find in Atlanta and Dallas.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recognize
    that much of the fault here lies right here with the Congress
    of the United States. Indeed I'm on the Aviation Subcommittee
    that said, quick, get some machines and here is your date and
    we do not want you to be a minute late on explosive equipment,
    so I understand that.
        That is, by the way Dr. Null, why I believe in the
    administrative process where the experts are supposed to be. I
    must ask you, in light of these sequential mandates, the
    capital equipment, first you are mandating equipment to do the
    screening and then by the way, now we are mandating a whole new
    set of equipment. Do you think that this new equipment will in
    fact screen all we need to screen?
        Dr. Null. I think we've made a lot of progress. I joined
    TSA in January 2002, and we started looking at this whole big
    program and the challenge of the mandate that we had to meet at
    the end of 2002. We looked at the performance of this
    equipment. We've invested a fair amount of R&D dollars to
    enhance the speed and the false alarm rates that we were
    seeing.
        Ms. Norton. I don't want to hear now we need some
    biochemical, new machines 2 years from now and then our
    subcommittee was OK, get it done and get it done by a date.
    That is why I am asking, frankly.
        Dr. Null. We are starting to work with Science and
    Technology Directorate as well as DNDO and looking for
    developing technology that has multi-threat detection
    capability so that we don't keep just adding more boxes and
    more things every time we see a new threat.
        Ms. Norton. This is really primitive. I understand it is a
    developing science, but it is very unsatisfactory and Congress
    gets afraid every time they hear of a new kind of threat.
        Let me ask you to get some sense of how this works. I was
    asking as my time ran out before about the machines that were
    in place before September 11th. Those machines have to be
    upgraded, or did new, better machines have to be put in as a
    result of September 11th, either because of congressional
    mandate or because you deemed it necessary after September
    11th?
        Dr. Null. All of the machines that went in following
    September 11th were pre-existing technology or equipment. They
    all met a certification standard that is still the standard
    that has to be met today. What we've done has greatly enhanced
    the speed of those. We worked with the companies to be able to
    do field upgrades of that.
        Ms. Norton. What will happen to those machines; we will
    just put this new technology into those machines?
        Dr. Null. In some cases we will be able to upgrade the
    machines that are already in place so we won't move them
    anywhere; we'll just improve their speed or their performance.
    In some cases we will waterfall that equipment to the next
    lower level airports in terms of where we have high density of
    ETD, high labor count. We'll be able to deploy those EDS
    machines to those airports, which will be stand-alone, but it
    will still have big benefits from a staff standpoint.
        Ms. Norton. We are not discarding machines?
        Dr. Null. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. We simply use hand-me-down machines?
        Dr. Null. We're refurbishing and reusing those machines,
    yes.
        Ms. Norton. What about National, Mr. Bennett? We have
    talked about Dulles, of course, here a lot. The elephant in the
    room is National. Of course, if we want to talk crowding, if
    you want to talk not another slot, if you want to talk what
    putting that kind of machinery would do, you could look at
    National, although I am going to say the renovated National is
    perhaps as able to hold this primitive equipment as Dulles is.
    But what about National?
        Mr. Bennett. National--Reagan National currently has all of
    its machines for screening the baggage located on the ticketing
    level of the terminal building.
        It was a very unfortunate situation. As you know, Ms.
    Norton, we had just opened a brand new state-of-the-art
    terminal building at National in July 1997, and quite a bit of
    attention was paid to the intimate details of processing
    passengers and 4 years later we found ourselves encumbering
    that design by placing these machines in the lobbies of the
    ticketing level of the terminal building.
        We recently in--in fact as we speak, we're in the process
    of trying to go through a selection of a design firm to work
    with the Authority and then we will partner with our friends at
    TSA on trying to come up with an economical and efficient in-
    line solution for checked baggage screening at National with
    the ultimate goal of hopefully being able to get some type of
    Federal funding commitment and be able to remove those machines
    from the lobbies and place them in-line so that the baggage is
    efficiently and effectively screened.
        Ms. Norton. Dulles has applied. Have you applied for
    National as well?
        Mr. Bennett. We made a preliminary application for National
    also. Our applications were for both airports. Dulles is by far
    a more pressing issue than National.
        Ms. Norton. Let me ask this final question. Pursuant to our
    tour downstairs I learned that the people down there earn
    $30,000 a year. Those are Federal employees, Dr. Null. We saw
    conditions that I guess cannot be helped, but my goodness, it
    sounds like a throw back.
        We do not have any way to lift even heavy luggage, so
    people have to lift the heavy luggage onto your machines to
    screen for explosives. As I indicated before pursuant to a
    number of questions I asked about the fans, I learned that
    these people earn $30,000 a year, that it could get easily to
    be 100 degrees, that there is huge backup of suitcases and
    other luggage because they're only human and there is no
    mechanical way to deal with taking it off of the sorters and
    putting it into these machines.
        I must say, I think it is close to inhuman to have
    everybody up here in air conditioning and to have people in a
    dungeon downstairs earn $30,000 a year in 100-degree heat. Then
    I ask, is it not possible to air condition a facility in the
    basement the way we do throughout the United States?
        I would like to ask who is responsible for that and what
    can be done to alleviate inhuman conditions. If all you have
    are those fans, you are circulating 100-degree heat. I consider
    it a terrible, terrible thing. The contrast between up here and
    down there, seems to me, is unsustainable and should not be the
    case.
        Mr. Bennett. Ms. Norton, that's an issue that is of great
    concern, not only to TSA but also to the Airports Authority.
    The Airports Authority is exploring the options of trying to
    reduce the temperature in that facility during the summer
    months.
        It's very important to note, and that's one of the
    exacerbating issues here, is that the facility where you saw
    those employees working and that machinery located, was never
    designed or contemplated to be in existence down there. That
    was really a place for baggage to come down for someone to
    drive a cart in, pick it up, throw it on the cart and leave the
    basement. It wasn't set up to have large numbers of people with
    machines.
        Ms. Norton. I understand that. But now that you are putting
    people in there doing work that none of us would want to do
    even in air conditioning, I have to ask you, are there any
    plans to air condition that in the summer?
        Mr. Bennett. There are no plans to air condition the entire
    basement during the summer; it's just not feasible to do.
        Ms. Norton. What is feasible to do in 100-degree heat?
        Chairman Tom Davis. You have big fans up there, don't you?
        Mr. Bennett. We have fans and then we are exploring
    bringing----
        Ms. Norton. The fans and 100 degrees circulate 100-degree
    heat.
        Mr. Bennett. We're bringing--exploring the opportunities to
    bring in portable--I think you've probably seen them at some of
    these sporting events--portable cooling units that you can
    place in proximity to those screening locations to try to
    bring----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Bennett, thank you for that answer and can
    I ask you to try to expedite that for the summer?
        Mr. Bennett. We will certainly explore that, Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you. You know what, you know you will get
    a phone call from me this summer to see if that has happened.
        Mr. Bennett. I'm sure we will.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Davis. It is nice to have
    Ms. Watson join us as well. I have a couple of questions that I
    wanted to pose.
        If we were to put some language into a bill that enabled an
    airport like Dulles and/or National to be able to construct,
    purchase these machines, install them and pay for it in the
    same way that you paid for the tower, where you constructed and
    you leased it back so that you pay for it on an annual basis,
    would that facilitate the availability of these machines if we
    put some language in enabling that kind of accounting mechanism
    to apply to these machines for this Airport Authority?
        Mr. Bennett. I think that's likely to be one of the
    recommendations that comes out of the study. We've indicated to
    TSA that if they are willing to sign such an agreement that the
    Airports Authority is willing to access the top of the markets
    to provide for the construction and the installation of these
    systems. But we need some reimbursement mechanism, be it a
    lease or some other mechanism, to help us pay for them.
        Mr. Moran. The financing hurdle, we can overcome that with
    language, because I would assume that the personnel savings are
    going to be equal to or greater than the annual lease-back
    cost; is that true? What is the comparability there; do you
    know?
        Dr. Null. It's sort of an airport by airport basis in terms
    of how long the payback would be for that----
        Mr. Moran. Let us talk about this airport at Dulles. Do we
    know whether the savings would be----
        Dr. Null. I'm not sure what their savings would be with the
    installation of the system. We know that our estimate on the
    capital cost is somewhere in the vicinity of $250 million here
    at Dulles.
        Mr. Moran. You would amortize it normally over what, a 10,
    15-year----
        Dr. Null. Normally we would amortize that over about a 20-
    year period.
        Mr. Moran. Twenty years. Just doing the math quickly, I
    think your personnel savings on an annual basis are greater
    than the lease costs; I think they are. That would make a lot
    of economic sense if we could put the language in that would
    enable you to do that, obviously, yes.
        Mr. Bennett. We would welcome the opportunity to execute
    such an agreement with the TSA.
        Mr. Moran. Good. You can propose language that would enable
    us to do that, whether or not we could pass it or not, but if
    you could give us the kind of language that would be needed?
        Dr. Null. A part of the study is--there is one team who
    will be developing potential recommendations for legislation.
        Mr. Moran. The study is due?
        Dr. Null. Right now we're probably in the May/June
    timeframe.
        Mr. Moran. Of this year?
        Dr. Null. Yes.
        Mr. Moran. It is eminent. Just thinking that it would be
    nice if we could slip into an appropriations bill in a timely
    manner this year. I would hate to just miss it because we were
    waiting for the report to come out. Even though we know what
    the report is going to recommend, maybe we could get an
    advanced copy so we could act in a timely manner.
        The other thing that came to mind, and it came to mind in
    the context of Ms. Norton's questioning, was there a
    requirement for those personnel to wear any kind of safety vest
    or whatever in case there was an explosive device in the
    baggage; has that ever been required?
        Dr. Null. No, sir. Certainly the EOD people wear
    protective----
        Mr. Moran. Yes. I do not want to impose that kind of a
    requirement. It just seems as though in their handling they
    might be exposed to something, because they really have the
    first view of what is in that luggage. Tom, I am all set. I
    know we want Ms. Watson to----
        Chairman Tom Davis. We are very happy to have the
    distinguished lady from Los Angeles here. Ms. Watson, thank you
    for being here.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. LAX has been handled very well by TSA,
    but we are happy to have you here.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you. I appreciate you gentleman coming
    and putting yourselves on the hot seat. About maybe almost 4
    years ago on the Fourth of July at LAX we had a shooting. Some
    of you might remember it. It was the El Al.
        The problem was the gentleman stood in a long line and when
    he got near he just started blasting away, killed two people,
    and it occurred to me that our problem was not once he took out
    the boarding pass, but how do we detect weapons such as he used
    before they get to the counter?
        He came in with an intent. When they finally killed him and
    they got out to his house, on his door it said, Allah was
    great. This was the plan, I understand, from the FBI and the
    CIA, that it was a trial run.
        My concern addresses, how do you detect weapons on the
    grounds of the airport, and No. 2, the other end of this line
    I'm getting ready to catch in a few minutes is LAX. We heard
    last week that LAX was an intended target in 2001.
        I am very concerned about, do you have the equipment
    needed, how is that progressing at LAX, the end of the flight
    I'm getting ready to take in a few minutes, and what are we
    doing, how are we moving along with the equipment necessary?
    Dr. Null, can you comment, please?
        Dr. Null. Yes, ma'am. Standoff detection is clearly
    something that we're very interested in. We're working with
    Science and Technology Directorate within the department,
    especially for explosives detection in standoff manner, and
    some of the newer technologies offer some hope that we will be
    able to do that at some point in time.
        It's very difficult at this day and time to be able to do
    any distance. We can do closer proximity clearly, but by then,
    as you indicate, we have a situation we need to deal with
    immediately. I think that we will get there, but I think we're
    still a little ways away.
        Ms. Watson. Can you evaluate how things are going at LAX?
        Dr. Null. I think LAX is going quite well right now. We are
    having discussions with them with regard to their new in-line
    system. I know we have some issues with regard to the cost of
    that system that we're trying to work through.
        But I in fact was in LAX a few weeks ago meeting with the
    Airport Authority and I think we're progressing well. A lot of
    it just comes down to the funding issue.
        Ms. Watson. If we could have this kind of hearing, Mr.
    Chairman, on the other end it would be, I think, very effective
    in pinpointing--we still have the long lines of congestion and
    I am concerned about that.
        But a young man called me on the Fourth of July, a young
    developer, scientist and son; he said I got the solution. He
    said you could have a very sensitive strip down over the
    entrance to the airports that will detect anything that is of a
    contraband nature.
        That probably means every cart gets stopped. But there was
    technology that he had developed himself. I would like as a
    followup to present to you what he presented to me. That was
    several years ago, but I think let us look at any kind of
    solution that we think might be workable, because as I said, by
    the time the guy got up to the counter it was too late then.
        Dr. Null. Yes, ma'am. We certainly would be more than happy
    to look at the technology.
        Ms. Watson. This is to the chair, I remember, Mr. Chair,
    that many years ago Cardiss Collins did hearings all over the
    country and that was very enlightening, because this is a very,
    very critical issue.
        Certainly we want the Nation's Capital well protected, but
    there are other major airports, particularly on our borders,
    that need this kind of evaluation so that we could be sure we
    can secure our homeland, so thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. I just note that the check-
    in area detection would be a lot easier if you did not have
    those big machines that are up there, that the in-line system
    could do.
        Anything else anyone wanted to add? This has been a great
    hearing. We obviously need to get an in-line system here at
    Dulles as quickly as possible for a lot of reasons. We look
    forward to working with you in the coming months to try to get
    a plan to do that.
        Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [The prepared statements of Hon. John L. Mica and Hon.
    Elijah E. Cummings follow:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]