[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]