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

                     TRANSIT AND OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY
    =======================================================================

                                    (109-61)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 29, 2006

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    28-276 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
    Chair                                NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         Columbia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           BOB FILNER, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    SUE W. KELLY, New York               JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana          California
    ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio                  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    GARY G. MILLER, California           BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina  BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota           RICK LARSEN, Washington
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania            JULIA CARSON, Indiana
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska                LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    TED POE, Texas                       ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington        JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
    LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

                                      (ii)

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

                      THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

    SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              California
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SUE W. KELLY, New York               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana          ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    GARY G. MILLER, California           SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          JIM MATHESON, Utah
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina  RICK LARSEN, Washington
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 JULIA CARSON, Indiana
    MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota           TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska                RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington          (Ex Officio)
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    DON YOUNG, Alaska
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                   TESTIMONY

                                                                       Page
     Bushue, Sandra K., Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
      Administration.................................................     5
     Hecker, JayEtta Z., Director, Physical Infrastructure Team,
      Government Accountability Office...............................     5
     Henke, Tracy A., Assistant Secretary, Office of Grants and
      Training, Department of Homeland Security......................     5
     Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation
      Association....................................................    28
     Pantuso, Peter J., President and CEO, American Bus Association..    28
     Siano, Michael, International Executive Vice President,
      Amalgamated Transit Union......................................    28

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    48
    Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................    49
    Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada......................................    00

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESS

     Bushue, Sandra K................................................    41
     Hecker, JayEtta Z...............................................    56
     Henke, Tracy A..................................................    87
     Millar, William W...............................................   100
     Pantuso, Peter J................................................   127
     Siano, Michael..................................................   140

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

     Bushue, Sandra K., Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
      Administration, response to a question from Rep. Pascrell......    47
     Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation
      Association, Survey of United States Transit System Security
      Needs and Funding Priorities, Summary of Findings, April 2004..   107

                             ADDITION TO THE RECORD

    National School Transportation Association, National Association
      for Pupil Transportation, National Association of State
      Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, statement..........   145

                     TRANSIT AND OVER-THE-ROAD BUS SECURITY

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 29, 2006

            House of Representatives, Committee on
                Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
                on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines,
                Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Petri. The hearing will come to order.
        In today's hearing, we will examine issues related to the
    security of transit and intercity bus systems, including the
    roles and responsibilities of the Federal Transit
    Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, the
    state of preparedness in the transit industry, and federal
    programs and activities that help meet the security needs of
    the American public transportation system.
        Worldwide, the statistics on terrorist attacks are
    alarming. According to the Mineta Transportation Institute, 42
    percent of all terrorist attacks over the 10-year period from
    1991 to 2001 were carried out against rail systems and buses,
    42 percent. In just the last two years, we have graphic
    evidence that the transit systems are popular terrorist
    targets.
        In March of 2004, hidden bombs killed 192 commuter rail
    passengers in Madrid, Spain. Even more recently, last July
    suicide bomb attacks on the London Underground and buses killed
    56 people. Transit systems are particularly vulnerable to
    attack because they have open access with frequent stops and
    transfer points, and serve high concentrations of people in
    crowded areas.
        The threat is very real, but it is very challenging to meet
    this threat. Federal funding for transit security has not been
    particularly robust. Over four years from budget year 2003
    through 2006, Congress has appropriated only about $387 million
    to the Department of Homeland Security for transit security
    grants.
        In the United States, there are 9.5 billion passenger trips
    on transit annually. This means that we have averaged over
    those four years only about one penny of Federal funding for
    security per transit passenger trip. Compare this to aviation,
    where the average Federal security investment is about $9 per
    airline passenger.
        However, the public transportation industry has not been
    passively waiting for the Federal Government to save the day.
    U.S. transit agencies have invested more than $2 billion of
    their own funds for enhanced security measures. Even with this
    extraordinary local investment, transit security activities
    still are not being adequately funded. The American Public
    Transit Association estimates that there is a total transit
    security funding need of $6 billion.
        In addition to providing an appropriate level of funding
    for security improvements, we must ensure that the Federal
    agencies charged with oversight of the safety and security of
    these public transportation systems have a clear plan for the
    best possible protection against and response to any deliberate
    harm, whether the threat is from international terrorists or
    from domestic sources.
        SAFETEA-LU required the Federal Transit Administration and
    the Department of Homeland Security to develop and execute a
    transit annex to the two departments' memorandum of
    understanding which the agencies jointly issued in September of
    2005. The annex spells out in some detail the roles and
    responsibilities of the Federal Transit Administration, the
    Department of Homeland Security Office of Grants and Training,
    and the Transportation Security Administration. Each agency has
    a complementary role to ensure that transit agencies and their
    employees are prepared to effectively secure their systems,
    protect their passengers, and respond to any threat or actual
    incident.
        This Subcommittee held a similar transit security hearing
    in June, 2004. Shortly thereafter, Chairman Young, Mr.
    Oberstar, Mr. Lipinski and I introduced legislation to
    authorize transit and over-the-road bus security grants. The
    Committee reported H.R. 5082, the Public Transportation and
    Terrorism Prevention Response Act in September of 2004.
        Unfortunately, the bill was not considered by the full
    House before the end of the 108th Congress. It is likely that
    we will use what we learn here today to craft a similar bill
    authorizing general funds to be appropriated for these security
    grant programs.
        The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very
    broad jurisdiction that includes every mode of transportation.
    Each of these modes have unique opportunities and security
    challenges. These differences need to be recognized by
    providing separate mode-specific transportation security grant
    programs. These unique modal operations and vulnerabilities
    also should be reflected in a security grant program that
    ensures that funds are allocated using a fair, risk-based
    methodology, with grant eligibilities that meet the needs of
    the industry.
        SAFETEA-LU directed the Departments of Transportation and
    Homeland Security to issue joint regulations to establish the
    characteristics and requirements for public transportation
    security grants. Today's hearing requests and update on the
    status of these regulations, which we hope will establish a
    consistent grant administration process.
        We look forward to the testimony of all six witnesses this
    afternoon. The first panel is governmental witnesses, including
    Ms. Sandra Bushue, the Deputy Administrator of the Federal
    Transit Administration; Ms. Tracy Henke, Assistant Secretary
    and head of the Department of Homeland Security Office of
    Grants and Training; and Ms. JayEtta Hecker of the Government
    Accountability Office.
        The second panel includes witnesses representing transit
    and intercity bus operators and labor.
        I thank all of you for being part of this hearing. I would
    like to express my appreciation for your staff and
    organizations for helping to prepare your testimony. We look
    forward to the interchange to follow that testimony.
        Now I yield to Mr. DeFazio for his opening statement.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
    past efforts which preceded my service as Ranking Member on
    this subcommittee, to better focus on the needs of public
    transportation and the security issues.
        I serve both on the Homeland Security Committee and on this
    committee. I have seen reflected in both venues what I feel is
    a lack of really critical assessment to put forward what we
    think are the real investment needs. It seems kind of like
    avoidance to me. After we had waited so long for the National
    Transportation Security Assessment last fall, we got something
    that, as I said at the time, I thought a graduate student or
    maybe an undergraduate student could have written in terms of
    its specificity. It was very, very vague. Yes, there are
    threats is about how you could summarize it.
        We can do better than that. We have the transit groups say
    that there is a $6 billion unmet need. I don't know if the
    number is that high. I would like to focus-in. But I know it is
    certainly a lot higher than the amount of money we have
    allocated and spent so far. I really, since my principal
    service on this Committee has been on aviation, I don't want to
    see that we adopt a tombstone mentality, which was prevalent at
    the FAA for a lot of years, which was that you don't wade into
    something and deal with it proactively; you wait until there is
    an incident and then you try and figure out how you might
    prevent future similar incidents, as opposed to getting ahead
    of the issue.
        Here, we certainly have had some wake-up calls with what
    has happened in London, what happened in Madrid. I have to say,
    from my service on both committees, I don't feel that we have
    put in place the measures I feel are necessary to prevent a
    similar incident here. I am hoping to be disabused of that
    today. I hope to hear about other things going on I don't know
    about, or grand strategies and plans that are going to come
    forward.
        I know it is always difficult serving, particularly in this
    Administration, to ask for public money to meet public needs
    and security needs, but I always ask everybody to be honest
    despite what the people over at OMB tell you you can have, on
    what you think a realistic number is.
        So I look forward to the testimony and hope to be
    enlightened, and hope to be reassured, but I doubt that will
    happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        If the audience in the hearing room notices a kind of a
    mirror-effect, Bob Roe is on both sides of the hearing room and
    he has the same red tie on here that he has there. We are
    honored by the presence of our former chairman. Thank you for
    being here.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Oberstar?
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr.
    Chairman.
        I join in the welcome of our former Chairman Bob Roe, who
    was such a devotee of all the issues under the jurisdiction of
    this committee, and continues to be their advocate.
        Transit and ports continue to be the stepchildren of
    security in America. We are not investing what we need to do,
    what the law that this committee initially prepared, reported
    out, moved through the House and through conference on port
    security, the five major elements are not fully anywhere near
    fully funded.
        And transit, the transit systems of America responded on
    their own, without any infusion of Federal funds right after
    September 11, by installing in the intercity bus sector,
    Greyhound specifically, but others as well, putting in security
    systems that they funded without waiting for any Federal
    mandate or directive, and so has our transit.
        Transit is the fastest-growing sector in transportation in
    America. We are adding a million new transit riders a day, 10.5
    billion transit trips last year. Yet we are not investing in
    the security of our transit systems as we ought to be doing.
    Every day, two million Americans take their shoes off at
    airports; four million shoes come off at America's airports.
    What are we doing to keep our bus and transit and rail systems
    safe? Nothing, comparatively. Nothing except what the transit
    systems have done.
        Worldwide, 42 percent, nearly half of all terrorist attacks
    have been against transit systems, not against aviation. We
    need to do vastly more than we are doing now, and I hope that
    through this hearing we will prod action by the Administration
    to invest in the security of our domestic internal transit
    systems.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Any other opening statements? Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate what our Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, said.
    This has been a deep concern of mine. You might recall I had
    legislation for transit security in advance of 9/11. Provisions
    of that bill were picked up and dropped in their entirety in
    the Patriot Act. It has been something that has continued to
    concern me. There is something like seven times as many people
    who are on transit every day in our Country, including some of
    our most vulnerable members of society, people who are least
    capable of reacting in the event of an incident, be it
    terrorist or accident or anything else.
        Mr. DeFazio referenced the vast disparity between the
    resources that are lavished and, as a number of us are in these
    lines, there are a number of our shoes that hit the ground
    every week, we see up close and personal, maybe in some cases
    we are going further than we need to do in terms of some
    aspects of airport security, but we are certainly not giving
    the type of time and attention and resources to dealing with
    the millions of passengers and the hundreds of thousands of men
    and women who work to make these systems function.
        I would hope that in the aftermath of these discussions, we
    can look very hard at the resources that the industry needs;
    that we can be a better partner with them in terms of equipment
    and training; and there are things that they are doing for
    society as a general proposition that merit consideration of
    further public investment.
        We look at Katrina and we look at Hurricane Rita. We are
    not just talking about terrorist acts. We are looking at how
    transportation systems can prove vital to help cities respond
    to natural disasters. If Rita had come a little harder, a
    little sooner, that picture of the tens of thousands of
    Houstonians in a parking lot some 30 miles long, pushing their
    cars in the heat, running out of gas, dealing with making
    transit systems work are a critical part of emergency response
    in urban areas.
        I think we are going to be looking at that as we rebuild
    New Orleans at some point, but it is part of the basic
    infrastructure.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, but I hope
    that this will help shape our committeeFEs work to think about
    ways that we make sure that the systems themselves are
    functional, the communications work, the training that we know
    what needs to happen, and that we think of it in the broader
    context of not just protecting people who are transit riders,
    but thinking about transit system, intercity bus system, rail,
    as part of the defense mechanism that our communities have. I
    think it will be money and time extraordinarily well spent, and
    I look forward to this hearing as a way to launch further
    consideration for things we can do to make a difference in the
    future.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
        Now we turn to our panelists. As you know, your written
    statements are a part of the record of this hearing and we
    invite you to summarize those statements in approximately five
    minutes. We turn to the first member of the panel, Ms. Sandra
    Bushue, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

     TESTIMONY OF SANDRA K. BUSHUE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
     TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; TRACY A. HENKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
    OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
      JAYETTA Z. HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM,
                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Bushue. Thank you, and good afternoon Chairman Petri,
    Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the Subcommittee.
        I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify on transit
    security. America's transit systems are dynamic, interconnected
    and composed of 6,000 local systems. Unlike airports, these
    systems are inherently open and therefore difficult to secure.
    At New York's Penn Station alone, more than 1,600 people per
    minute pass through its portal during a typical rush hour. This
    combination of open access and large numbers of people make
    transit systems an inviting target for terrorists.
        To help mitigate this risk, FTA has three strategic
    security priorities: public awareness, employee training, and
    emergency preparedness. Each of these provides focused benefits
    to the dynamic open nature of AmericaFEs transit network. As
    for public awareness, FTA developed Transit Watch. It is a
    program that educates passengers to be mindful of their
    environment and how to react should they see something
    suspicious.
        Employee training develops the skills of 400,000 frontline
    transit employees who are the eyes and ears of the transit
    network. Emergency preparedness programs build local
    collaborative relationships within communities that allow for
    quick and coordinated responses in a crisis. SAFETEA-LU
    mandates several steps that move transit security forward.
        In September 2005, FTA, TSA and now the Office of Grants
    and Training, signed the Public Transportation Security Annex
    and the DOT-DHS Security memorandum of understanding. The Annex
    identifies specific areas of coordination among the parties.
    The agencies have developed a framework that leverages their
    respective resources and capabilities. Using the Annex, which
    we have over here on an easel, is a blueprint. We have
    established an executive steering committee which interacts
    with DHS, DOT and transit industry leaders.
        This committee oversees eight project management teams
    spearheading the Annex's programs. The eight teams are: risk
    assessment and technical assistance. This team is using a risk-
    based approach to transit security, working toward one industry
    model for transit risk assessments.
        Transit Watch in connecting communities. This team is
    expanding two FTA programs that foster public awareness and
    coordinated emergency response.
        Training. Employee training is vital and this team is
    developing new courses on timely security products such as
    chem-bio protocols and strategic counterterrorism for transit
    managers.
        Safety and security roundtable. The Annex team is working
    on direct stakeholder outreach. They are planning two events
    per year for the safety and security chiefs of the 50 largest
    transit agencies.
        Web-based national resource center. This group is
    developing a secure library site for information on best
    practices, grants, and other security matters.
        Emergency drills and exercise. This team is reinstituting
    the well-received FTA drill grant program and has updated it to
    incorporate DHS exercise program guidance.
        Annual plan and grant guidance. This team is developing the
    process for joint FTA, TSA and GNT review of regional transit
    security strategies which is a requirement for the Transit
    Security Program.
        And finally, standards and research, which focuses on the
    development of critical industry security standards. This
    includes such topics as standards for closed-circuit
    television, intrusion detection, and training, to name a few.
        Again, I reiterate, this is a blueprint. SAFETEA-LU also
    requires a joint DOT-DHS rulemaking for the Transit Security
    Grants Program. FTA has partnered with GNT and TSA to develop a
    notice of proposed rulemaking which we anticipate publishing
    soon.
        I would also like to point out that FTA supports security
    projects through its 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants
    Program. Under this program, transit agencies must spent at
    least 1 percent of their annual formula funds on public
    transportation security. As you know, in contrast to TSA's
    broad statutory authority for security in all modes of
    transportation, FTA's regulatory authority is limited. We do
    not have a dedicated security grant program.
        Historically, we have influenced transit agencies from
    security practices through training programs, guidance and our
    research program. Working with DHS, we will continue to use
    these resources to improve transit security.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to assure you that FTA is using all its
    resources to strengthen the joint security initiative
    formalized in the September, 2005 Annex.
        In closing, we look forward to working with the Committee.
    Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Before hearing from the next panelist, Mr. Pascrell didn't
    realize we would be quite as efficient as we were, and was
    detained, but had an opening statement he would like to make.
        Mr. Pascrell. Can I present it, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Petri. Yes.
        Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
        Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio, I thank you for
    holding a hearing on the status of our Nation's transit
    security. Many of us have talked about this for a few years
    now.
        There are 6,000 public transportation agencies that provide
    9.6 billion transit trips annually. Every day, more than 14
    million people take 32 million trips on public transportation.
    Algebraically, you know how much greater that is than those
    that use airplanes.
        As we have witnessed most recently in London and Madrid,
    many members from the Homeland Security Committee went to
    London and Madrid recently to examine preparations or responses
    to those problems. Transit systems are popular targets of
    terrorist attacks worldwide. All modes of public transportation
    have been frequent targets of attacks because they are most
    vulnerable.
        These attacks provide a grim reminder of the terror that
    can easily be carried out on American mass transit systems, but
    those of us in New Jersey who work on travel or travel into New
    York City on a daily basis are dependent on our Nation's public
    transportation system. We are keenly aware of the
    vulnerability.
        To their credit, transit systems have invested $1.7 billion
    in security activities since 9/11. New Jersey Transit has
    expanded its uniformed police force by nearly 80 percent,
    upgraded the training of many of those officers, provided
    passenger safety advisories, increased patrolling on more
    trains and stations, and around the facilities, and conducted
    aerial inspections of its infrastructure.
        However, with only 200 police officers and six explosive-
    detection canine teams to protect and secure more than 3,000
    buses, 600 trains, serving 750,000 people every day, New Jersey
    Transit neither has the resources nor the budget to address
    these additional security concerns without undermining its
    traditional policing duties, and we can multiply this
    throughout the United States of America.
        The American Bus Association and the United Motor Coaches
    Association have teamed up to present a series of free security
    emergency preparedness planning. All of these critical actions
    bear costs that are not being adequately met through Federal
    funding.
        We have not made the necessary investment in improving the
    security of America's public transportation facilities.
    According to the American Public Transportation Association,
    transit security needs are both capital and operational at
    about $6 billion. Congress has invested a total of $387 million
    for the Department of Homeland Security transit security funds.
    This is about $97 million per year or less than one penny per
    transit passenger trip. If that makes sense to you, I will
    listen. If it doesn't make sense to you, then I want to have a
    good response to that one.
        Many on this Committee have spoken repeatedly over the last
    few years for greater prioritization to be assigned to transit
    security. Neither party is privy on this issue, both sides of
    the aisle.
        I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses. Our
    Nation's transit systems must have the employee training they
    need and the funding they depend upon to maintain at least a
    baseline level of readiness.
        Mr. Chairman, you have been more than kind and I thank you
    for allowing me this opportunity.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        The next witness is Ms. Tracy Henke, Assistant Secretary,
    Office of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland Security.
        Ms. Henke. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member DeFazio,
    members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity
    to discuss the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security's
    Office of Grants and Training and the work of our partners to
    secure our Nation's transit systems.
        Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
    Department of Homeland Security has awarded more than $250
    million to date to secure our Nation's transit systems. This
    includes funding under our Urban Areas Security Initiative and
    beginning in 2005, a new standalone Transit Security Grant
    Program.
        The goal of the Transit Security Grant Program is to
    protect regional transit systems and the commuting public from
    terrorism, especially explosive devices and threats that would
    cause major loss of life and severely disrupt our Nation's
    transportation system.
        Over the past two years, Mr. Chairman, grants and training,
    working with our Federal, State and local partners, has refined
    this program to ensure that transit security grants are
    targeted at systems facing the greatest risk. With the input of
    the Federal Transit Administration, the Transportation Security
    Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, the American
    Public Transportation Association, the American Railroad
    Association and numerous other groups, we have made a number of
    enhancements to the Transit Security Grant Program and have
    continued to improve our collaborative efforts.
        For instance, recognizing the critical importance of
    regional or multi-jurisdictional approaches to security, we
    require grantees to develop regional strategies for
    coordinating security measures across jurisdictional
    boundaries. We also require grantees, where appropriate, to
    coordinate transit security plans with Amtrak to ensure
    integrated security planning among all transportation partners.
    We require grantees to ensure that transit security plans mesh
    with the homeland security strategies developed by the States
    and the urban areas.
        Looking at lessons learned from the incidents in Madrid and
    London, we prioritize efforts for preventing, detecting and
    responding to attacks, using improvised explosive devices or
    IEDs. This fiscal year, the Transit Security Grant Program was
    further refined to require the alignment of regional transit
    security strategies with the interim national preparedness goal
    and its seven national priorities for achieving national
    preparedness. The interim national preparedness goal is
    designed to help responders at all levels understand what
    abilities they need to respond to terrorism or other major
    incidents.
        Our Transit Security Grant Program is complemented by two
    initiatives designed to improve security in specific
    transportation sectors. One, our Intercity Passenger Rail
    Security Grant Program provides funds and technical assistance
    to improving security along the most highly traveled passenger
    routes in the Nation: Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and its
    Chicago hub.
        This year, we are expanding the program to Amtrak's West
    Coast operations. We will use a portion of the $8 million
    Congress made available for 2006 to assess the security of
    Amtrak's operations in key urban areas such as Seattle, Los
    Angeles and San Diego. These assessments will, in turn, guide
    the further expenditure of intercity passenger rail funds.
        Second is our Intercity Bus Security Grant Program which
    enhances security for the millions of Americans who travel long
    distance by bus each year. Grantees are selected by a national
    review panel in coordination with the Transportation Security
    Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The 2005 program
    focused on passenger and baggage screening and facility
    security enhancements to prevent and detect IEDs, as well as
    chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear devices.
        In 2006, we are working to institutionalize a risk-based
    approach to intercity bus security funding. As part of this
    effort, we are requiring grantees to develop security and
    emergency preparedness plans using a template developed by TSA
    and the American Bus and the United Motor Coach Associations,
    under a grants and training grant.
        We are also working to coordinate initiatives under our
    Intercity Bus Grant Program with Highway Watch and TSAFEs
    Corporate Security Review Program.
        Interagency coordination is the hallmark of all the grants
    and training programs. It is imperative to how we do business,
    especially transportation security programs. To further
    facilitate that interagency communication and cooperation, the
    Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
    Transportation entered into that memorandum of understanding in
    September of 2004, as mentioned previously by my partner here
    at the table from the Federal Transit Administration.
        In September of 2005, this MOU was expanded to identify
    specific areas of coordination, including citizen awareness,
    training exercises, risk assessment and information sharing. As
    part of this effort, an executive steering committee was
    created with representatives from the FTA, TSA and Grants and
    Training to identify and close gaps in our transportation
    security programs.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are working with the Department
    of Transportation to develop final regulations for transit
    security grants as required under Section 3028 of SAFETEA-LU.
    Through these efforts, the Administration is working
    collaboratively to ensure the security of our Nation's transit
    systems and to protect those who rely on these vital
    transportation services. We appreciate this Committee's
    continued support for these critical initiatives and we look
    forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and members of this
    Committee, on all of these important efforts.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I am happy to
    answer questions at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Now, a familiar witness before this Committee, Ms. Hecker,
    Director for the Physical Infrastructure Team, Government
    Accountability Office, GAO. Please proceed.
        Ms. Hecker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio and other
    members of the Committee. It is really a pleasure to be here to
    focus on some key transit security issues.
        I think many of you who have spoken talked about the
    inherent vulnerability and attractiveness of this mode. Its
    openness, its accessibility makes it a clearly natural target,
    The large gatherings and concentration of people, but also the
    enormous number of stakeholders really add to the complexity of
    trying to improve the security of this mode.
        One of the reasons we have been concerned and done at least
    four major studies in this area is how important it is to
    target funds to maximize and optimize the impact and the
    effectiveness in reducing the risk and improving the security
    of this very inviting target.
        Basically, there are two key points that I will make today.
    One is based on the fact that we have done a worldwide review
    of transit security, looking at 13 systems internationally and
    close to every single system domestically. In comparing them,
    we basically found that are a lot of similarities in what
    different transit operators are doing. We identified several
    areas of relatively unique and distinct actions that foreign
    countries, foreign operators were taking, and we have
    recommended that they be examined for their potential
    applicability domestically. I will talk a little bit about what
    we learned and outline that for you.
        The second area is basically about the coordination area.
    GAO has completed a report about six months ago, and in that
    report we found notable gaps in coordination by Federal
    agencies within the Department of Homeland Security and between
    the Department of Homeland Security and its various elements,
    and the various units within DOT. While some measures have
    clearly been taken and our information admittedly is only up to
    date as of when our report came out six months ago, we continue
    to recommend very vigorous oversight by this committee of the
    progress in this area because of the importance of improved
    coordination.
        On the first area about the similarities and differences,
    it was really an extraordinary experience to have the
    opportunity to visit so many different operators, 32 in this
    Country, and as I said, 13 overseas. A lot of the key elements
    really are very common. At the heart of it is really risk
    assessment. That really is essential. With the fundamental
    vulnerability and attractiveness of this mode, it has got to be
    targeted. You can spend an infinite amount of resources and it
    will still be vulnerable. So to clearly target what the
    priorities need to be is the foundation of all major efforts
    worldwide.
        Another is the customer awareness program. You see it, you
    say something. Is this yours? There are a whole number of
    different types of initiatives and it is really engaging the
    passenger.
        A third is the use of technology, particularly cameras, but
    even smart cameras. That is really the best of the application
    in this area. It is not just hundreds of cameras, but it is
    cameras that actually look for some aberration, which even
    could be something never moving, which could be a package that
    was left. So there are smart cameras that are being used and
    really are representing an efficient tool for targeting scarce
    resources.
        A fourth areas is tightening access controls, particularly
    for employee access, and getting better identification.
        So in these areas, there really were not notable
    differences. In contrast, however, there were four areas where
    we found foreign government operators had some relatively
    distinct and unique practices. The first one was covert testing
    of employee actions. There would be rules, requirements,
    procedures, and they would basically test their employees and
    give frequent feedback so there would be an automatic
    opportunity to review how well people understood the procedures
    and how well they really worked. So covert testing was in use
    in a couple of places.
        Random screening of passengers and baggage, everyone
    recognized that this was not ever going to be able to replicate
    what is done in aviation, but some kind of deterrence that on a
    strategic basis does randomly check, and this was done in both
    New York and Boston during the conventions. So we have had some
    use of it here, but we have not systematically studied how it
    can be used, where it can be used and with what kinds of
    triggers and challenges it can be used without shutting the
    system down.
        One of the most important things that we saw overseas was a
    centralized research or a testing and information clearinghouse
    on technology. Basically, operators are bombarded all the time
    by marketers and people trying to sell them different
    technology, and they have very little independent information.
    Most of the operators really were crying out for more
    assistance from the Federal Government in providing a
    clearinghouse on information about the new technologies.
        Very quickly on the coordination area, as I mentioned
    earlier, GAO found very poor coordination in several critical
    areas in this important area. One was in the area of risk
    assessment. Basically, there were active measures going forward
    by one part of the Department of Homeland Security, and other
    measures going forward in another part, and really not
    effectively coordinated with all the stakeholders, with FTA.
    This is a real gap because this is the foundation of strategic
    investment of resources.
        The other was emergency guidelines, rail security
    guidelines that were issued just two months after the London
    attacks. Those guidelines lacked very effective stakeholder
    input. Nearly all of the operators we talked with were very
    concerned about it. They felt the standards were unclear. There
    were no criteria for inspections or enforcement. It did not
    build on best practices. And most severely, it even had
    inconsistencies with standing FRA regulations.
        In conclusion, we think there are important initiatives
    overseas that we could learn from. We have a recommendation
    that the departments evaluate them. As of our last
    understanding, there was no action on this. In the coordination
    area, we have not had an opportunity to systematically evaluate
    the new initiatives, but we would continue to recommend
    rigorous oversight by this Committee on the quality and
    effectiveness of coordination.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members. I would be
    pleased to answer questions.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. We will turn to questions.
        Mr. DeFazio?
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Henke, you have essentially, as far as I could follow
    in your testimony, really kind of talked about the way things
    were. I guess I would like you to talk about the ways things
    are going to be.
        As I understand the Targeted Infrastructure Protection
    Program, it is essentially going to replace the program that
    you are talking about, which has been used recently in terms of
    apportioning funds to needs, to transit systems and others. And
    now we are going to have, as I understand the President's
    proposal, one large, well not so large, one inadequate pot of
    money for which ports, transit, rail and trucking will all
    compete.
        Can you kind of look at it and tell us, because what you
    told is how it has worked. How is that going to work in the
    future?
        Ms. Henke. Congressman, if enacted and if the Congress
    moves on the President's proposal as submitted, the President
    has proposed the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program.
    The President proposes this in recognition, one, of limited
    resources; two, of the fact that the threat that this Nation
    faces is ever-changing; and three, that to address that threat,
    we need to have as much flexibility with resources as possible
    so we can prepare based upon most recent intelligence
    information, the risk assessments, et cetera, that we have, and
    make certain that we are working to protect the Nation from the
    next threat and the next attack, not the one that just recently
    occurred, as we continue efforts across the Country,
    recognizing our shared responsibility in securing the Nation.
        So once again, the TIP program would be a comprehensive
    risk assessment. It would look at where the threats are. It
    would look where the consequences are and the vulnerabilities
    are, and then allocate the limited resources available to those
    highest risk areas.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, great in theory, but I have yet to see
    comprehensive risk assessment, particularly in the evaluation
    we received last fall, and I read both the classified and the
    unclassified version. The classified wasn't much different than
    the unclassified.
        I didn't see any quantification there in any meaningful way
    to compare a threat in a port to a threat against mass transit
    and rail, versus aviation. I mean, they couldn't even compare
    within categories, and now we are going to create, somehow we
    are going to say, okay, we are now going to look at, and the
    ports estimate they need $6 billion. The transit folks estimate
    they need $6 billion. I don't know what trucking needs.
        So let's, you know, let's just round it out to $15 billion.
    The President is proposing $600 million this year. So you know,
    we are coming in at 5 percent of what we need. I am just
    wondering how we are going to apportion that pathetically small
    amount of money among so many needs, and how we are going to
    meaningfully compare the threat to the ports and nuclear or
    radiological devices where we are failing, to the threats in a
    transit system which doesn't have interoperable communications,
    and has other vulnerabilities, to potential attacks against the
    hazardous waste-carrying trucks or the use of hazardous waste-
    carrying trucks as weapons of mass destruction.
        I just am really puzzled. I understand sort of in some sort
    of an optimal rule we would be able to do that. I just fear
    that losing the focus here, losing a focus of, okay, we have an
    inadequate amount of money, but here is the way we are going to
    apportion it. This part is going over into, you know, transit
    other than aviation; this part is going over into ports. And
    then within that, we will determine what our priorities are in
    some way, and then we will apportion that inadequate amount of
    funding.
        But to suddenly say in the whole world, we are going to
    compare all that. I mean, what system have you developed? I
    guess maybe I will ask Ms. Hecker. Are you aware of a system
    they have developed to meaningfully compare among the modes and
    somehow go assess if we have this giant pot of money, how that
    money would be apportioned? Are you aware of any system like
    that?
        Ms. Hecker. Not as of the time we completed our report.
    There is merit in that, but I think there is also merit, as
    your question implies, in some base-level of continuity of
    support for a minimum level of security within individual
    modes. The uncertainty or the flexibility is something that
    really would raise some questions about the ability of
    operators to really make plans over time. These, of course, are
    publicly subsidized operators. These are not profit-making
    institutions.
        Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So Ms. Henke, has something been
    developed in the last five months we are not aware of that
    would help us deal with this new program? What is it called,
    TIP, or whatever?
        Ms. Henke. Targeted Infrastructure.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right, TIP. Yes.
        Ms. Henke. TIP. Sir, the department has made great strides
    in its risk analysis ability. I will be honest with you. I have
    been there for three months. I am not aware of all of the work
    that has been done to date. I can tell you that we have made
    significant progress.
        In our risk analysis, we are looking at individual assets.
    We are looking at geographic areas. We are taking into account
    as it relates to these different systems, for instance on
    transit, we are looking at passenger numbers. We are looking at
    route miles. We are looking at once again most recent threat
    information. We are working with the partners in the field to
    gather the data points to ensure that we have that risk
    assessment capability to move forward with the PresidentFEs
    proposal.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, I have yet, serving on both committees
    of jurisdiction, to hear that there has been anything
    meaningful developed. Perhaps they are just withholding it from
    Congress. I don't think there has been, so I am very skeptical
    about merging. I mean, it is a way to blur the inadequacy of
    the funding is to say, well, we have a $600 million pot, but
    now it is actually addressing a larger need, as opposed to say,
    well, we are only going to put $150 million in to ports and we
    are going to put $180 million here in that.
        I really doubt that we can meaningfully choose among those
    modes with such an inadequate amount of money, but I won't
    belabor that point. In a more lighthearted way, I just have a
    question, if you could tell me who replaced Mother Teresa. I am
    curious.
        Ms. Henke. No one yet, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So you are open for suggestions?
        Ms. Henke. Completely open for suggestions.
        Ms. DeFazio. Okay, all right.
        Ms. Henke. This is an issue to help make certain that
    people truly understand in terms that people, when we are
    trying to explain what the Federal Government does, and
    sometimes when we are trying to explain what the Office of
    Grants and Training does, it is kind of complicated. And so as
    a way to boost morale and as a way to involve all the
    employees, and way to come up with how to explain what the
    Office of Grants and Training does, we determined this was a
    way to do it. But no, we are open for suggestions, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Great. So if anybody on the Committee
    has a suggestion, you could be in line for a free lunch. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I really just have one question. It is kind of a
    broad question. I will just address it to all three of you and
    whoever wants to answer it. I am very interested in this
    because I had two young women from my District who were injured
    in the London bombings and received a lot of national publicity
    from their experience in the hospital and so forth. And then I
    went with a group of members at one time, not long after the
    Madrid bombings, to a memorial that they had set up over in
    Spain about those bombings.
        I heard Secretary Chertoff say something that made a lot of
    sense in a speech he gave one time. He said we have to make
    people understand, or have people understand that we cannot
    protect against every conceivable harm at every place at every
    time. I remember two or three months after the Department of
    Homeland Security was created that I was driving in one morning
    to work here and I heard on the NPR news one morning that the
    department already had, and they told what the number one, I
    don't remember the exact number, but it is like 3,782 ideas for
    security devices, and probably there are thousands more
    already.
        What I am getting at, the odds, all these incidents are
    terrible, but the odds are still extremely low. I mean, you are
    more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed
    by a terrorist. How do we achieve balance? How do we do what is
    reasonable for security without going ridiculously overboard or
    being wasteful about it? And then secondly, where are we
    getting the most bang for our buck? What do we really need to
    do that we are not doing now, as opposed to just doing pie-in-
    the-sky type things?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, if I may? One of the things that Secretary
    Chertoff and I have discussed, and other leaders at the
    Department of Homeland Security, is that we do need to be
    looking at manmade terrorist attacks, as well as natural
    disasters. That is what we need to do.
        When we talk about how we are proceeding and what we are
    doing in these communities and States across the Country, it is
    not one or the other. What we are doing is developing
    capabilities, capabilities to respond whether it is a tornado
    going through my home State of Missouri; whether it is a
    terrorist attack somewhere in the Country; whether it is a
    hurricane; the New Madrid fault zone; an earthquake in
    California, et cetera. We are developing capabilities.
        The department has identified, along with the national
    preparedness goal, the national priorities, 37 targeted
    capabilities. The GAO and other organizations have validated
    that those capabilities are necessary regardless of what the
    event is, regardless of what we are looking at.
        So what we are doing is preparing the Nation overall,
    regardless of what that is. It gets to citizen preparedness.
    That gets to medical surge issues. That gets to chemical,
    biological, radiological, and nuclear, et cetera. Investing
    resources and improving those targeted capabilities throughout
    the Country makes us better as a Nation. It will hopefully make
    us safe as a Nation.
        I agree, sir, with what the Secretary said and what you
    were alluding to. Can we necessarily ever say we are safe 100
    percent? Likely, no. Can we say that we are safer and can we
    work to become safer? Yes, we can and we can do that by being
    better prepared, and we can be better prepared by addressing
    those targeted capabilities and investing our resources in
    those targeted capabilities throughout the Country.
        Mr. Duncan. And we also want to make sure that we are
    spending our money wisely and on things that provide real
    security, as opposed to going with some company that is well-
    connected or has high-level former government employees in it,
    or well-connected lobbyists and they are going to make a lot of
    money, but what they are providing is not that valuable from a
    security standpoint.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, if I may, on something else at the
    Department of Homeland Security, specifically at Grants and
    Training, we have, and I am going to apologize because I am not
    going to remember all the alphabet soup. We have something
    called SAVER, though, and that deals with equipment, for
    instance.
        As you pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of
    equipment out there. There is a tremendous amount of
    individuals who have ideas on how to move forward. The SAVER
    Program takes some of this equipment, puts it in the field, and
    it is tested by first responders themselves. And then in
    essence, we issue a consumer report on that specific piece of
    equipment.
        We now are going through an internal measurement of
    determining how many entities are utilizing those reports, that
    information, before they make a purchase. We are finding,
    because the program is relatively new, as is the Department of
    Homeland Security, we are finding that entities across the
    Country are using these reports to help guide their decision
    making on equipment purchases. So that is a step that we are
    making and taking forward.
        In addition to that, we understand the need for items such
    as identifying best practices. One of the things that we are
    working on with the Federal Transit Administration is the
    Transit Resource Center that will provide information, that
    will help identify those best practices, that will help guide
    decisions that our partners in the field, our stakeholders in
    the field are making every single day. So we are making
    headway.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, my time is up, but let me just say very
    quickly, you know, I have tremendous respect and admiration and
    appreciation for those who serve in the military, but the other
    side is that all these defense contractors hire these retired
    admirals and generals, and then they come back and they get us
    to buy all ths defense hardware and some of it is good and some
    of it is really wasteful. I don't want to see the Homeland
    Security Department become that way or spend whopping amounts
    of money just because something has the word ``security''
    attached to it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
        Ms. Hecker, I noted that you have, in addition to looking
    at 32 American systems in metropolitan areas, you did a review
    of a dozen or some such number systems overseas. I wonder if
    you could, you referenced in your testimony that were some
    things that you saw that could potentially be employed, that
    might have beneficial effects, random searches and what not. I
    just wondered if there was one system in the review that you
    and your team conducted, if there was one foreign system that
    stood out, that had elements that seemed to be balanced and
    effective?
        Ms. Hecker. We didn't evaluate the performance and
    effectiveness of each one, but on a personal basis and on
    observation about the comprehensiveness of the effort and the
    risk-based focus and the care, I would say two stood out for me
    personally. One was London, which we visited before the
    bombings; and another one was Hong Kong. London had been a
    target for a decades because of the IRA. It was a very
    comprehensive and genuine realization that they really needed
    to focus on what could be done. While they had a very
    comprehensive set of practices, education and information and
    technology, at the end of the day they really couldn't prevent
    those attacks.
        They did, however, provide the tools to arrest the
    perpetrators, so it was very profound and it did allow tools to
    provide the response capability and mitigate some of the
    problems in an area when you have good information and good
    communications. So it both typified excellent risk assessment,
    strategic investment of resources, but vulnerability still at
    the end of the day.
        Hong Kong and Singapore and Japan, actually, all of which I
    visited, they are all privatized and it was extraordinary how
    seriously they take their investment in security. It is a
    bottom line issue. If the system is interrupted, they lose
    revenue. So the strategic focus of each of those operations in
    many ways was extraordinary, how it permeated the organization.
    There isn't just a security officer, but it was part of the
    operation of the entire business, and very, very, very careful
    consideration of what made sense. A lot of Mr. Duncan's point
    about that you don't just throw money at things, you make
    strategic decisions.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Right. Well, I guess in following that up,
    we are looking here, in terms of the Committee's jurisdiction,
    just as it relates to transit, a very rich mix of public and
    private agencies. Some are metropolitan-focused. Some are
    statewide. Some are intercity private. And we are talking about
    hundreds of thousands of men and women who make these systems
    work.
        Your thoughts about what should be done to help these
    disparate operators with different levels of sophistication,
    equipment, capitalization, to enable them, that we have a
    minimum threshold of training and safety procedures. Do you
    have any thoughts on that, recommendations, observations?
        Ms. Hecker. That is such an important question. I hesitate
    to present that somehow I have a simple answer.
        Mr. Blumenauer. You have another minute of my time.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Hecker. I think it was very impressive, the leadership
    and initiative that FTA took after 9/11. I think there was
    really a collaborative approach with industry to really target.
    There was very limited authority, very limited resources, but
    there was a very, very targeted and collegial approach.
        I think when both TSA was formed and then ultimately
    transferred over to DHS, as I have made clear in my testimony,
    I think there are really enormous challenges in coordination.
    FTA is the face of the Federal Government to the transit
    community, and a constructive face. They don't just give out
    money willy-nilly, but they understand the diversity of the
    business, and having the lines of communication. These all
    sound good, but again I would say these cooperative
    relationships with the true security focus and expertise of
    DHS, but recognizing that you have the transportation expertise
    and communication within DOT in making those partnerships work
    is actually vital.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I would hope that
    part of what we may be able to do, following up on what you
    have done with this hearing here today. We have in the audience
    people who represent the Public Transit Association. We have
    private bus operators. We have people who represent the
    employees, ATU, and our being able to drill down on pursuing
    some of these questions and trying to convene.
        I have great sympathy for FTA, which is the Federal
    Government's place for mass transit, but people are surprised
    to find out what a small agency it is. I must say, some of our
    colleagues in the appropriations side of the equation I think
    have had a different view about equipping and providing the
    tools for just day-to-day FTA management, let alone things like
    this.
        I think, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, that there would
    be a great service played if there was a way for us to continue
    this conversation, make sure that some of the things we have
    authorized don't get sideways in the appropriations process. We
    have that continuing tug-of-war.
        Because I just feel that this is a massive potential
    problem. I fear that there will be an incident and I would hope
    that we are not sort of caught overreacting or swinging the
    other way, but be able to work with these folks to sort of look
    at resources, look at making sure that Congress is coordinated
    and help move this conversation forward.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Sodrel, any questions?
        Mr. Sodrel. I don't have any questions at this time, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Cummings?
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bushue, you know, I was just wondering, has the FTA
    developed any guidelines for security systems that would come
    under the New Starts projects?
        Ms. Bushue. We do not have the statutory authority to put
    out any type of regulatory efforts in that regard. We work very
    closely with the Department of Homeland Security in doing that.
    The New Starts Program is really an altogether different
    program. It does focus on construction and our grantees are
    very much looking at security. We do require that they do
    provide some kind of security perspective in their proposals,
    but it is not that we mandate it.
        Mr. Cummings. The reason why I ask is it seems to me we are
    doing New Starts. It seems like the ideal time that if we have
    technology new and more effective and efficient technology
    coming into play every day that we would be looking at those
    kinds of things.
        Ms. Bushue. The transit industry is a really take-control
    industry. They are doing so much of it themselves. For example,
    rail cars now are equipping themselves with video cameras, as
    well as buses. So that activity is certainly occurring.
        I also would like to state that they can use their formula
    money for these security upgrades. That is definitely allowed.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, this whole issue of the urbanized area
    formula, that 1 percent.
        Ms. Bushue. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. How long has that been in effect?
        Ms. Bushue. I think a year, two years? It goes back to 221.
    Excuse me. Like my colleague at the Department of Homeland
    Security, I have been at FTA for three months.
        Mr. Cummings. No problem, no problem.
        I was just wondering, and maybe you may have to get back to
    me on this, I was wondering if FTA or DHS, I mean, if you have
    any information with regard to compliance, whether the transit
    agencies, are there any that are out of compliance, or are they
    in compliance. Sometimes I think you can have something a
    requirement like that, and people don't consider it important.
    And the reason why I think they don't consider it important is
    because they don't think anything is ever going to happen. I
    was just wondering, do you have any information with regard to
    that? I see your staff jumping up and down back there.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bushue. Well, we track it. And again, the Federal
    Transit Administration, we don't regulate security, but we do
    track it, sir.
        Mr. Cummings. What has your tracking shown? I guess what I
    am concerned about, when we first were dealing with homeland
    security right after 9/11, there were all kinds of reports that
    a whole lot of money was spent, not necessarily in this area, I
    mean generally, where we spent a lot of money ineffectively and
    inefficiently, trying to deal with problems.
        I am just trying to make sure that we are dealing with the
    taxpayers' dollars in an effective and efficient manner. I
    don't want to give taxpayers and transit riders a false belief
    that they have certain security that they don't even have. I
    guess that is why I am so concerned that if we are tracking, it
    would be wonderful for us to know how those dollars are being
    spent.
        Another reason I am concerned about it is I like the idea
    of best practices, if there are practices that are working in
    certain places, or if we have seen certain security procedures
    put in place or equipment, and then have had some situations
    where it has been shown that they have proven to help keeping
    people safe, I think we need to know about those things.
    Because it seems to be a project, ever evolving. That is why I
    asked the question.
        Ms. Bushue. I appreciate your comments. Let's get back to
    you on that 1 percent and let us get back to you on what we
    find.
        Mr. Cummings. All right.
        Ms. Hecker?
        Ms. Hecker. I actually wanted to add, in our report one of
    the things we noted is that FTA is actually responsible for
    verifying that agencies are complying with the requirement for
    security improvements in the urban area formula funds, and is
    authorized to withhold funds if agencies are found no in
    compliance. We found that FTA had never in fact withheld any
    funds.
        I might say also, one of the initial observations we have
    had about the Annex on transit security and the coordination is
    there are 100 new inspectors over at DHS, but there are FTA
    safety inspectors and there are FRA safety inspectors, and the
    coordination and the relationship and the focus and the
    strategic use and integration in the use of those resources is
    something that we are concerned about.
        Mr. Cummings. Just lastly, I know my time is up, but I
    guess my concern is that when you say no funds have been
    withheld, it sounds like you are also implying that just
    because no funds have been withheld that does not necessarily
    mean that everybody has been doing what they are supposed to
    do. It may very well be that somebody was asleep at the switch
    and did not withhold funds when they maybe should have been
    withheld.
        I don't want to be in a situation five years from now where
    some incident happens and then we say that we didn't do what we
    were supposed to do. It sounds like there may be a question of
    coordination, and if that is the case, I think we need to make
    sure we address that.
        Ms. Henke. If I may, sir? Just to add one thing, one thing
    that we are doing, once again collaboratively and working with
    our partners on, is making certain that they have security and
    emergency preparedness plans at the regional level for these
    jurisdictions. And that those plans then provide us an ability
    to then measure, from a DHS perspective, working
    collaboratively with our partners.
        We have a regional approach. We develop security and
    emergency preparedness plans. And then, from the reporting
    information, the programmatic reporting in, financial
    reporting, we will then be able to track the measurement and
    the progress made and identify those best practices that can
    then be incorporated in the Transit Resource Center that will
    be available.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Hecker. Mr. Chairman, can I just add one small point,
    because I think the question about New Starts was an extremely
    important one. As a Country, this Committee, as a Country, we
    spend multiple billions of dollars a year in supporting the
    development of new systems. In fact, one of the things we did
    find looking abroad is that there was a much more systematic
    effort both in new investments and in just upgrades, to secure
    systems, and sometimes not even technology, just removing
    obstructions and improving the line of sight.
        So it is a very obvious and important area and an
    opportunity. If FTA believes they don't have the authority to
    really follow up on this, it may be an area worth further
    exploration on this Committee, given the significance of the
    public funds involved.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Pascrell?
        Mr. Pascrell. Ms. Hecker, thank you all for your service.
        I am very disturbed whenever we talk about the chances of
    this happening. If you were to ask people before 9/11 of the
    chances of this happening, we cannot protect America with that
    philosophy, number one.
        Number two, I want to commend the transportation people of
    this Country who have invested close to $2 billion. When you
    take 14 million people using the transit system every day, with
    32 million trips, which comes to, as I said before, a penny per
    transit passenger trip, there is something radically wrong when
    you compare what those transit people have invested in security
    to what airlines had invested before 9/11. We have a serious
    problem here and we are not confronting it. Period. I have come
    to that conclusion.
        According to the Department of Homeland Security and the
    GAO, the FTA conducted security and vulnerability assessments
    of the Nation's 36 largest transit agencies. I want you to
    summarize very briefly and perhaps in writing to the Committee
    the primary conclusions of those assessments, and does a
    prioritized list of mass transit vulnerabilities even exist.
        Two questions.
        Ms. Hecker. You are asking that of GAO?
        Mr. Pascrell. I am asking that of you, Ms. Hecker.
        Ms. Hecker. At the time of our review, we actually did try
    to look at the security assessments and risk assessments and
    strategies that had been completed, mostly by the Office of
    Domestic Preparedness. They were incomplete at the time. They
    were ongoing. A lot of our focus was really on the process and
    the rigor and the consistency of what was being done.
        Mr. Pascrell. Are they still incomplete?
        Ms. Hecker. They were when our report was issued six months
    ago.
        Mr. Pascrell. Do we have a list of the priorities that you
    have established or anybody has established in terms of mass
    transit?
        Mr. Pascrell. I would say that would be an excellent
    question to ask Ms. Henke. That is the resource.
        Mr. Pascrell. Ms. Henke? I will take your advice.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, we do have some information as it relates
    to priorities on where we believe Federal resources should be
    invested, based upon, once again, the national preparedness
    goal, our national priorities, and our targeted capabilities,
    and making certain that we are investing the limited resources
    in manners that are going to have a great return or hopefully a
    very positive return on the protection and safety and security
    of the Nation.
        Mr. Pascrell. As you know, Ms. Henke, since fiscal year
    2003, the Department of Homeland Security has managed the
    Transit Security Grant Program. The basis on which the funds,
    as I understand it, are allocated and the procedures for making
    funds available to the transit agencies have changed
    significantly in those three years.
        In fiscal year 2003, the security grants were made directly
    to the transit agencies. In 2004, the funds had to be passed
    through a State administrative agency. In 2005, the transit
    security grant funds were made available to regional transit
    security working groups, which had to reach a local consensus
    on funding allocations within an urban area before applying for
    security grant funds in the first place.
        It hardly seems efficient to me to change the grant funding
    mechanism each year. Why is it changing each year?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, it has evolved each year.
        Mr. Pascrell. What has evolved?
        Ms. Henke. The way in which the resources--
        Mr. Pascrell. I mean the history of man evolves. I mean,
    what has evolved?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, what we have done over the past couple of
    years is once again look at the resources we have available and
    try to figure out--
        Mr. Pascrell. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The resources that
    were made available? Is that at the source of the problem?
        Ms. Henke. No, sir.
        Mr. Pascrell. You said it.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, we are looking at the resources.
        Mr. Pascrell. This is not the Colbert Report. That is what
    you just said.
        Ms. Henke. I apologize, sir. I am not sure I understand
    your point.
        Mr. Pascrell. What does this depend upon, these changing
    from year to year of how we fund the programs in transit?
        Ms. Henke. It is looking at the risk that we have and how
    to allocate the resources we have to address the risks
    throughout the Country, and making certain that as we are
    addressing risk, we are doing it in a comprehensive manner,
    that the strategies that the transit systems have feed into a
    systems approach, that feed into the urban area, and feed into
    a State homeland security strategy, or a multi-state strategy.
        Mr. Pascrell. Do you think that it is comprehensive, what
    you just said, and that what is happening out there is
    comprehensive?
        Ms. Henke. I think what we are looking at, we are trying to
    once again utilize the resources from the Federal level, and
    with our partners at every single level, to maximize resources
    available to address risk.
        Mr. Pascrell. I have 26 questions here, but obviously my
    time is up.
        Ms. Henke. Okay.
        Mr. Pascrell. I want to conclude by just one quick
    question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When you are talking about a penny a trip, okay, do you
    want me to make that comparison to what we spend in protecting
    our airlines and our airports? How do I reconcile the two? Help
    me do that. Are those people who fly more important than those
    people who take choo-choo trains? Are those people who fly more
    important than those people who take the bus? Let's get to the
    heart of the issue.
        I am not speaking to you personally. I thank you for your
    service. I sincerely believe that, but you know, we have heard
    this rhetoric over and over and over again. I want to know how
    you help me reconcile the major differences between what we
    spend per passenger in the air as well as on land, for transit.
    You tell me.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, aviation security by law is a Federal
    responsibility. That is not the case for transit security.
        Mr. Pascrell. What the heck happened before 2001 if it was
    a Federal responsibility? The Federal Government did not
    provide money before 2001.
        Ms. Henke. I am not saying that it did. I am saying
    currently, sir, aviation security is a Federal responsibility.
        Mr. Pascrell. Is it a Federal responsibility to deal with
    the transit systems of this Country? Is that a Federal
    responsibility? What is the beginning and end of the Federal
    responsibility with that regard?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, we have a partnership with all our
    stakeholders on the Federal, State and local level and with
    communities across the Country to address our transit security.
        Mr. Pascrell. We use the word ``partnership'' when we talk
    about the airlines, too now, since we are investing so much
    money in airline security. So we have a partnership with the
    transit companies and systems throughout the Nation. Therefore,
    we have a responsibility, I guess, don't we?
        Ms. Henke. It is a shared responsibility, sir.
        Mr. Pascrell. Are we meeting our Federal responsibility as
    far as you are concerned?
        Ms. Henke. That is something for the Administration and the
    Congress to determine.
        Mr. Pascrell. I have no more questions.
        Mr. Petri. All right.
        Let's see. Mrs. Schmidt, any questions?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, I have one.
        Could you tell me, any one of you, what you feel, do you
    think that the United States transit systems and intercity bus
    companies need? What kind of Federal assistance do you think
    that they need to adequately meet the security needs, and have
    the amounts provided specifically for transit security been
    adequate to those needs?
        Ms. Bushue. Since you were late, I am Sandy Bushue and I am
    the Deputy Administrator for the FTA, so I would be happy to
    take on that question.
        While we were talking earlier today, while there is no
    amount of money that can protect it from the threats, I believe
    at FTA what we have done in the area of human capital, which
    oftentimes we minimize, but what we have done in the human
    capital area are three things. We have focused on public
    awareness, which is a kind of PR campaign that we have given to
    all of our grantees, worked with them, and have come up with
    really catchy phrases like in New York City, they have a phrase
    that the passengers use on poster all over that says, ``see
    something, say something.'' A great program. That is really
    important. Passengers are alert.
        The second human capital area on which we focus on is
    emergency preparedness. Grantees' employees receive money to
    conduct drills, and that has been very effective. So when
    something does happen, in the event that it does,
    unfortunately, employees know how to respond.
        And the third area we focus on is employee training. That,
    too, we believe has been very, very effective. We can do more
    of it and we will be doing more of it, but that has had a very
    effective role, I believe, in our transit community.
        Mr. Petri. Very good.
        I have one or two questions, and we will go into a second
    round.
        This first one is to Ms. Bushue and Ms. Henke. Do you know
    when the joint Department of Homeland Security and Department
    of Transportation regulation governing transit security grants
    will be issued? The statutory deadline I think is February 10,
    2006. So that has come and gone.
        Ms. Bushue. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. I am
    here to say that we have worked very, very closely with TSA and
    GNT and FTA on getting that grant program out the door. We
    expect to publish the notice for proposed rulemaking in May, if
    not sooner. After doing so, I think we will be ready to start
    making grants, hopefully going through the process review for
    that, probably in early fall.
        Mr. Petri. So the proposed rules will come out, when did
    you say?
        Ms. Bushue. We expect to publish early May.
        Mr. Petri. Early May.
        Ms. Bushue. Yes.
        Mr. Petri. And then the comment period and then they go
    into effect.
        Ms. Bushue. That is correct, sir, yes.
        Mr. Petri. All right. Well, we look forward to that.
        And then also, budget year 2006 transit and rail security
    grants have not been released by your office for this current
    budget year. Do you know when they will be allocated? This is
    for Ms. Henke, actually.
        Ms. Henke. I figured that out.
        Mr. Petri. How much of the $150 million will go for transit
    security grants, if you know?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, I am going to try to remember the numbers
    off the top of my head. I believe it is $21 million that will
    be for intercity bus. I think it is approximately $8 million
    that will be for Amtrak, and the remaining for transit, out of
    the funding that has been made available. Those are approximate
    numbers. We can get back to you with the specifics on that.
        It is my hope and our anticipation that they will be
    released very soon. They are in the final clearance process. We
    are on a similar timeline as last year. Last year, they came
    out I believe on April 5. So we are on a similar timeline as
    last year.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio?
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Henke, since we are now thinking about, although my
    mind is closed to the possibility, but I am in the minority. We
    will see. This new consolidating of the grants and not
    recognizing different sector, I want to understand how we might
    apportion those scarce funds. I am going to give you one
    example that was pointed out, and this predates you, so there
    is no way this is aimed at you. The Office of Inspector General
    had a follow-up report in February, 2006, and in that they say
    that Fortune 500 companies have been in and out of the pot.
    They were in the pot originally to get grants, then they were
    out of the pot, and then they were back in in the last round.
        In the last round, a Fortune 500 refinery received a port
    security grant in round five totaling $1 million for fencing
    and surveillance upgrades at a refinery located in a major
    port. It put up matching funds. That is good.
        However, you are looking at, as I understand it, $600
    million total funding for port, rail, truck, transit, all the
    security we have been talking about. This company had $1.2
    billion of profits in one quarter. That is $12.9 million a day.
    They could have taken two hours profit and put up the $1
    million on their own. Do you support further allocations like
    this out of that scarce $600 million?
        Again, you were not there when this was done. Are we going
    to take the Fortune 500 companies back out of this rather
    scarce grant competition, or are going to put them back in? Do
    you have any information on that?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, the law has them eligible. That was a
    determination made by Congress, as well as the match.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, they were ineligible in round four by
    administrative rule. Does that mean there was a violation of
    the law in round four when they were made ineligible by rule?
        Ms. Henke. No. I am speaking to the law now. I will have to
    go back and check.
        Mr. DeFazio. I would like to see that the law is changed
    between round four and five. I am not certain of that. In any
    case, well, let's just say if we are having to prioritize, how
    high would you put on the list giving $1 million to a company
    that makes $12.9 million a day, as opposed to a public transit
    company or some other business that is struggling more, for
    instance, the trucking industry?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, I will be honest. I can't answer that
    question. We need to look at once again the risk that all our
    infrastructure faces, and we need to make determinations and
    follow the law on how to allocate those resources.
        Mr. DeFazio. Sure, but I guess I would just suggest to you
    that the American public would be pretty incensed to find that
    we had given a Fortune 500 oil company a $1 million grant to
    put up fending they should have paid for with two hours of
    their own profits which they have extracted from the American
    consumers by price gouging. But be that as it may, I will look
    forward to seeing the legal requirement that we require Fortune
    500 companies to be eligible for these grants when so many
    other folks are being shorted.
        I was told that I created some puzzlement with the way I
    ended before, so I just want to make it clear. It was something
    meant to be lighthearted. This is a very heavy subject. Ms.
    Henke in her former position had boiled down the mission of her
    agency to Santa Claus, Batman and Mother Teresa. She said
    Mother Teresa wouldn't work in this new position. So she was
    having a competition among her staff to replace Mother Teresa,
    and that is what I was referring to because some people
    apparently out there were puzzled by my reference.
        I put some thought to it, since I asked the question, and I
    would suggest to you that you change the whole triumvirate
    here.
        Ms. Henke. I am listening, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Here we go. I will see if I can get the lunch.
    Santa Claus we would replace with Scrooge, because there is not
    enough money; Batman, because he is too powerful, we would
    replace with Underdog, one of my favorites, but he can't quite
    get things right; and then Mother Teresa, I would replace, and
    this has a lot of resonance with me, because there is the same
    amount of money involved that you get for grants and
    everything, Dennis Kozlowski, because as Tyco's CEO, he is
    alleged to have committed a $600 million fraud, which is the
    amount of money we are going to spend on all of our grant
    program this year. I think there is just kind of a wonderful
    resonance there. But anyway, you can take it under advisement,
    and I will see if I get the invitation to lunch.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Henke. If not an invitation to lunch on this, maybe on
    something else, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Petri. I would advise you not to sip the tea.
        Mr. Pascrell?
        Mr. Pascrell. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. You
    have to admit that.
        I have an FTA question. According to the Department of
    Homeland Security, States that use their homeland security
    grant funds for transit authority and transit security, and you
    and I both know that States must use most of these funds to
    meet the urgent training for police officers and firefighters
    and paramedics. Both are urgent and deserving causes. It seems
    that transit security needs are being pitted against that of
    first responders. In my mind, this is an untenable situation.
        What are your thoughts on the ramifications for mass
    transit security and the FTA's mission in this area? Ms.
    Bushue?
        Ms. Bushue. Thanks for the FTA question.
        I have to say to you, I am a little surprised at that. I am
    not aware that transit security--
        Mr. Pascrell. This is pretty basic. I am not making it up
    either.
        Ms. Bushue. I am not saying that you are, but I am not
    familiar that DHS transit security grant money does go,
    probably it maybe goes to those first responders as it relates
    to the drills that transit agencies, the money that they
    receive to conduct the drills, because those drills do include,
    as I understand, the first responders, which would make sense.
    When there is an incident in security in transit, it is going
    to be more than just the transit security police will be
    involved. The first responders of the community will also be a
    very vital part of that drill.
        So I believe as it relates to the program at the Department
    of Homeland Security, if money is going to first responders, it
    is to conduct the transit drills that are very necessary and
    needed.
        Mr. Pascrell. Madam Deputy Administrator, I am not just
    talking about no general State homeland grants. I am not just
    talking about transit. I am talking about all the money. What
    we have done, and this is piggy-backing on what Mr. DeFazio was
    talking about. We have established a system at the Department
    of Homeland Security, that pits one interest against the other.
        I never, never got an answer to his question. I am piggy-
    backing on that, because according to DHS, Homeland Security,
    States can use their homeland security grant funds. They may
    use it for transit security, but they also have to use it to
    train and equip the needs of police and fire. These are
    competing needs.
        Are you clear on what I mean? Maybe I am not making myself
    clear. I don't think this, in my opinion, that this is the best
    way to provide transit security.
        Ms. Bushue. Congressman Pascrell, at the FTA, we advise on
    transit.
        Mr. Pascrell. I know.
        Ms. Bushue. We work very closely with the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        Mr. Pascrell. I am not blaming you guys. I am saying to you
    do you accept the system?
        Ms. Bushue. Well, I think as it relates to first responders
    working closely with transit, I think it does make sense. You
    have to have a comprehensive approach to security. So from that
    respect, I think, yes, it does make sense, that first
    responders are working with transit security police and transit
    security personnel to ensure when a crisis does occur that they
    know how to respond and how to react.
        Mr. Pascrell. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with
    you at all on your answer, which is maybe immaterial. I would
    ask you to go back and look at that.
        Ms. Bushue. I would be happy to do so.
        Mr. Pascrell. And I would gladly supply the question,
    because I think we have established an untenable situation
    here.
        My second question to you is this, SAFETEA-LU, which was
    our huge five-year plan for transportation in this Country,
    directs the Department of Transportation and the Department of
    Homeland Security both to issue a joint final regulation to
    establish the characteristics of and requirements for public
    transportation security grants, as you know.
        Ms. Bushue. Yes.
        Mr. Pascrell. The legislative deadline was February 10. I
    just want to make sure if I caught your answer, those
    regulations will be done by May?
        Ms. Bushue. The notice for the proposed rulemaking will be
    out by May, correct.
        Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
        My next question to you, the Federal Transit Administration
    has explicit statutory authority to oversee and regulate
    transit safety through making grants. Federal transit funds are
    required to be expended on security improvement as well. In
    fact, transit systems in urbanized areas, areas of more than
    50,000 population, are required to expend at least 1 percent of
    their Federal formula grant funds each fiscal year for transit
    security projects.
        In your opinion, have these sources of funding been
    adequate for FTA to successfully carry out the mission and how
    are FTA grants and Homeland Security grants harmonized for
    maximum security? What kind of meshing, melding is going on
    here? And are additional funding sources necessary?
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. The 1 percent is the floor. Our
    transit grantees can use actually as much as they want, but the
    5307 money for eligibility for transit security activities such
    as, again getting back to the public awareness campaign, the
    training of employees in emergency preparedness drills, they
    can use their urban formulas urban grant money for those
    activities.
        Now, regarding coordination, that gets back to our chart
    here.
        Mr. Pascrell. I was looking at it before.
        Ms. Bushue. I know it probably looks maybe a little bit
    bureaucratic.
        Mr. Pascrell. That is one of the more simple ones that we
    have seen.
        Ms. Bushue. Thank you. I think it is as well, and that is
    why I wanted to show it to the Committee, because this is the
    blueprint. I would like to say that we really do have a very
    good relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and
    we are fixing and looking at that coordination to ensure that
    those eight, I would submit to you, very important what we call
    project management teams or modules are working and be
    effective.
        Mr. Pascrell. I just wanted to alert you that the more
    folks on that side say that there is great coordination and
    relationship, we have found that there is trouble in Dodge
    City. I just wanted to warn you in that regard.
        Just in conclusion, I would say this, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for your patience, number one. And I thank the members of
    the panel. But I have some serious reservations about how this
    is working. I truly believe, and I don't think you have
    contributed to it, I hope not, that this attempt to help
    transit security in this Country, which I think is a huge
    problem, a huge problem, which we have not started to solve,
    reflects the dysfunctional nature of DHS.
        If we can't get this right, in terms of past history before
    9/11 in other countries, then we cannot say to the American
    people that we have moved. We are never going to have a
    seamless system. We know that, but to simply say that the
    chances of this happening, that is not good enough. You know it
    is not good enough, and that is not how you protect American
    citizens. That is not how you protect American citizens.
        So thank you for your presentations.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Other questions? If not, we thank this panel, and turn to
    the second panel, which consists of Mr. William Millar,
    President of the American Public Transportation Association;
    Peter J. Pantuso, who is the President and CEO of the American
    Bus Association; and Mr. Michael Siano, International Executive
    Vice President of the Amalgamated Transit Union.
        We thank you all for coming and for reducing the summary of
    your testimony to five minutes. We will begin with the very
    familiar figure before this Committee, and that is Bill Millar,
    President of the American Public Transportation Association.

      TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC
      TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND
      CEO, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL SIANO, INTERNATIONAL
          EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION

        Mr. Millar. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    that nice introduction. It is certainly great to be back before
    this Committee. I want to particularly commend you and Mr.
    DeFazio on the Committee for having these hearings on this very
    important topic.
        I believe the last time that I appeared before this
    Committee on this topic was in June of 2004. It was shortly
    after the terrible terrorist bombings in Madrid. Much of what I
    have to say unfortunately is the same as it was then. I am
    particularly appreciative as I hear the members' questions this
    afternoon. It is very clear that many of the members of this
    Committee have a very clear understanding of the issues and
    some of the difficulties that are here.
        Also, I want to thank the Committee for sponsoring H.R.
    5082 in the last Congress. We believe legislation like that is
    essential if we are going to get proper resources for improving
    the security of the millions and millions of Americans who rely
    on public transit. We look forward to continuing to work with
    the Committee to develop such legislation as you may feel are
    appropriate.
        In my testimony, I cover many of the basic statistics. I
    can tell from the members' comments that they are well familiar
    with those statistics, so I think I will move along and really
    focus on a couple of issues.
        First, and I think it is inherent in some of the question
    that were asked earlier and it is very important. We cannot
    make everybody perfectly safe. We understand that, but we can
    do better. We can do reasonable, common sense investments in
    transit security that will make the citizens who rely on our
    systems safer; that will make our employees safer; and will
    make the communities in which we operate safer.
        With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I didn't bring it with
    me today, but I would like to submit to the record a copy of
    the oft-referred to earlier survey that we did on the kinds of
    things that our members believe are necessary to improve
    security.
        Mr. Petri. Without objection, it will be a part of the
    record when you submit it.
        Mr. Miller. Now, that survey suggested that we ought to
    invest at least $6 billion. It was the best estimates we had in
    late 2003, when that survey was taken. Some have suggested that
    seems like a very high number. Well, it certainly would be good
    rhetoric to say how much is one life worth, how much are
    thousands of lives worth. Yes, it is very hard to say exactly
    what the right number is, but the kinds of things that our
    members know need to be done are exactly the kinds of things
    that the GAO just told you, based on their examination not only
    of U.S. transit systems, but transit systems from around the
    world.
        And they are very common sense things, making sure you have
    good, reliable, interoperable radio and other types of
    communication systems; making sure that you are using the
    latest in technology of camera and video technology, both to
    prevent and, as we heard in the London case, quickly arrest the
    perpetrators afterwards; make sure we have automatic vehicle
    locator systems; make sure we have proper training for our
    employees; make sure that our employees have the opportunity to
    drill, to practice the skills that they have been taught. And
    the list goes on and on and on.
        As one might say, this is not rocket science. We know what
    needs to be done to make our systems safer and more secure. We
    have invested well over $2 billion. That is a number from two
    years ago. We hope to update that number. We have invested well
    over that.
        We understand, with all the financial pressures on the
    Congress, we may need to, rather than look at $6 billion
    quickly, we may need to spread that out over time. This year,
    we have asked the Appropriations Committee to provide at least
    $560 million in the 2007 Homeland Security appropriations for
    transit grants. That would be a good down payment on the $6
    billion investment we should be making.
        We have also asked that the Congress provide $500,000 to
    the Department of Homeland Security to support the development
    of the standards. Our chart over here, if you notice there is
    APTA up in the upper right-hand corner there. One thing we are
    very pleased with is that the Department of Homeland Security,
    like FTA, like FRA, have understood the wisdom of using
    industry knowledge and knowhow to develop standards, but it
    takes investment. We are suggesting at least $500,000 a year in
    that investment.
        Finally, as again the GAO found, one of the key things to
    making our system safer is to have proper intelligence ahead of
    time of what the terrorists may be wanting to do. The Congress
    gave FTA a number of years ago a grant to help establish
    something called the Public Transit Information Sharing
    Analysis Center, ISAC is the inevitable acronym for that. The
    money for that has frankly run out. We have suggested to the
    Department of Homeland Security that has turned out to be very
    valuable. We should fund that, so we are also asking the
    Congress to provide $600,000 so we continue a proven success in
    the ISAC area.
        Finally, we are asking the Department of Homeland Security
    to simplify the grant process. Several of the members earlier
    talked about the complications of the DHS grant process. I
    happen to have here a recent presentation that staff members
    from the DHS made describing the last few years of the program.
    As was correctly identified, we have had this program four
    years. We have had three different agencies inside DHS that
    have tried to administer this program. In last year's program
    alone, in addition to all the other requirements, there were
    five new requirements.
        Some people have said the money has flowed slowly. In fact,
    we have said the money has flowed slowly. Well, when you
    constantly change the requirements, when you shuffle new
    personnel in and out, when you keep moving the shells, it is
    very hard to get the rules right to move quickly on the grants-
    making process.
        We think there is a simple answer. We think the work this
    committee has done over the last frankly couple of decades in
    developing a process that works very well, and that is all of
    our members already have a granting relationship with the
    Federal Transit Administration. We think it should not be a
    problem for the Congress and the DHS to agree on the rules.
        Then whatever that is and whatever appropriation it is,
    simply transfer it to FTA, and let it go out through their
    grant mechanisms, which we already do, and then you have the
    audit trail already established because it is already there. It
    is something this Committee developed years ago. It works very,
    very well. There are coordination mechanisms in it to make sure
    that we properly spend the money, and it goes on and on.
        I know my time is up. I would be happy to go into these or
    any other topics in greater detail at your pleasure. Again, I
    appreciate the invitation to be with you today.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Pantuso?
        Mr. Pantuso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    DeFazio, and the members of the Committee, for holding this
    hearing.
        The American Bus Association and our members take very
    seriously the duty to provide safe bus transportation and
    efficient transportation. We want to make sure that ``safe''
    also means secure.
        While our name may connote only transportation, our reach
    is certainly much broader. We serve as the voice for almost
    1,000 bus and tour operators around the Country, representing
    65 percent of all the private buses on the road, as well as
    another 2,800 members who are in the travel industry, State and
    local tourism offices that represent national treasures like
    the Sears Tower or the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate
    Bridge.
        ABA members have assessed the security needs in the
    industry over the past number of years. Our operators tell us
    that what they need to protect their passengers is security
    training as their first priority. They need to train personnel,
    drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, both in techniques of threat
    assessment and in threat recognition, as well as in crisis
    management.
        Their second greatest need is for equipment, including
    communications systems that connect buses with the home-bases,
    and with first responders wherever those buses might be in the
    Country. They also need equipment such as driver shields and
    cameras and wands to wand passengers at bus terminals around
    the Country. And they need protection for bus terminals.
        Third, they need information systems that allow operators
    real-time information, including the status and location of
    their equipment and their personnel.
        This need for security funds and grants extends to
    intercity schedule operators, to shuttle operators, to charter
    and tour operators, to other providers in the industry.
    Beginning each spring, for example, the charter and tour
    industry begins to arrive in the Nation's capital, tens of
    thousands of buses roll into Washington over the next couple of
    months, and millions of tourists blanket our city. And while
    the motor coaches that bring these citizens are ubiquitous on
    the streets of Washington, the buses and the people they carry
    must be protected.
        Compared to other modes of transportation, as has been
    mentioned, the security needs of the private bus industry are
    fairly modest, but the need for Federal funding is large. The
    private bus industry is one of small businessman and
    businesswomen. Since 9/11, Congress has given the airlines tens
    of billions of dollars for security. Since the Madrid terror
    bombing, rail security funding has been increased. But the
    amount appropriated to the private bus industry amounts to less
    than one cent per passenger. At 774 million passengers that we
    move annually, we move more than the airlines and Amtrak
    combined, that level of funding is totally inadequate.
        Over the past several years, ABA has worked with this
    committee on security funding, but as you pointed out earlier,
    Mr. Chairman, Congress has not yet passed a comprehensive bus
    security bill. ABA has also worked with the Appropriations
    Committees in both houses to obtain security funds and grants,
    but have only received $55 million over the past five years in
    total, slightly more than $10 million per year.
        The private bus industry has made good use of the funds
    that we have received, providing nationwide classroom security
    training, printed and electronic materials for the industry,
    and individual bus companies have likewise developed successful
    initiatives with these funds. Greyhound, for example, is using
    funds and their own money to increase wanding at their largest
    terminals. Wisconsin Coach Lines has used grants to purchase
    wanding devices, as well as metal detectors. Other grants have
    been used to secure garages and for training as well.
        Obviously, there is much more to be done, since only 20
    percent of the demand was met in 2005 grants and since only
    one-half of the companies that applied for grants received
    them. And that, under the auspices that 90 percent of the
    private bus companies in the Nation were excluded from even
    being able to apply for security grants last year.
        I would also point out that what we have discussed and
    proposed today can and will be of benefit in any emergency or
    disaster situation. After the aftermath of Katrina and the role
    that our members played in moving people out of that disaster
    area, those kind of services, systems and products that we are
    talking about would be beneficial in the future.
        In the future, Mr. Chairman, our members need improved GPS
    systems, additional real-time information. More importantly,
    they need expanded baggage, passenger and package express
    screening.
        In conclusion, what this industry really needs in the long
    term, as has been mentioned by my colleague, is some type of
    sustainable funding, something that will continue the efforts
    which began a number of years ago. The programs and the funding
    stream for security cannot start and stop. Security is not a
    start and stop exercise, but one that requires an ongoing plan
    and the funding stream to maintain that plan.
        Mr. Chairman, the American Bus Association looks forward to
    working with you and with the committee to ensure that the
    transportation system justly lauded for safety, reliability and
    low cost, retains that ranking when security is added to the
    list of duties.
        Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you
        Mr. Siano?
        Mr. Siano. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio and
    members of the Committee, on behalf of the members of the
    Amalgamated Transit Union and International President Warren
    George, I would want to thank you for giving me the opportunity
    to testify today on the ATU's priorities and strategies for
    enhancing transit and over-the-road bus security.
        Faced with the realities of terrorist attacks against mass
    transit, the ATU has for years worked to raise awareness of our
    members and employees to this danger and to advance the real
    solutions and initiatives to enhance the safety and security of
    the systems that our members operate and maintain. We firmly
    believe that the labor community must be a partner in any
    effort to address the security threats facing our industry.
        For that reason, we have worked closely with our members,
    the transit and bus industries, Federal Transportation
    Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and
    elected officials at all levels of government.
        A short list of our efforts include producing and
    distributing a security training video and pamphlets,
    conducting a joint labor and management conference on transit
    security, working with DOT and industry security experts to
    develop Transit Watch, and contributing to the design,
    distribution and promotion of the National Transit Institution
    security and emergency response training programs for frontline
    transit employees.
        The transit and over-the-road bus industry themselves have
    also taken steps toward securing their operations, but due to
    in large part funding constraints, they have not gone far
    enough. The Federal Government must step up to the plate and
    provide the necessary funding, guidance and even mandates to
    provide the level of security that transit and bus passengers
    and employees deserve.
        Common sense tells us that the single most important thing
    that we can do to increase transit and over-the-road bus
    security is to provide each and every frontline transit
    employee, including rail and bus operations, customer service
    personnel and maintenance employees, with security and
    emergency preparedness and response training. While we should
    not abandon research and development of new technologies, we
    must recognize what has been proven to be the most cost-
    effective security measure: employee training.
        In the event of a terrorist attack within the mass transit
    system, the response of employees at a scene within the first
    few minutes is critical to minimize the loss of life and the
    evacuation of passengers away from the incident. Transit
    employees are the first on the scene, even before the police,
    firefighters and emergency medical response. They must know
    what to do in order to save the lives of their passengers and
    themselves.
        During the 1995 sarin gas incident in the Tokyo subway
    system, two transit employees unnecessarily lost their lives
    when they tried to dispose of the gas devices themselves,
    instead of simply evacuating the scene. Proper training would
    have prevented these losses and possibly decreased the number
    of passengers who were exposed to this deadly gas.
        Frontline transit and bus employees are also crucial in
    preventing attacks. They are the eyes and ears of the system
    and are often the first to discover suspicious activities and
    threats, or the first to receive reports from passengers. They
    need to know how to recognize threats and the appropriate
    protocols to follow for reporting and responding to these
    threats.
        Security experts and officials from both the FTA and the
    TSA have publicly recognized the need for employee training,
    and yet little, if anything, has been done to ensure the
    training is provided. While many in the transit industry claim
    that employees are being trained, this is simply not reality. I
    know it because I have talked to our members, the ones who
    supposedly are being trained, and they tell me a different
    story.
        A survey of ATU members conducted in the past fall confirms
    what I have heard from members. While the results are still
    being compiled, the preliminary results indicate that
    approximately 60 percent of ATU members working for the U.S.
    transit systems remain untrained in emergency preparedness and
    response. Surprisingly, this number includes employees of
    transit systems in major cities that are high-risk of terrorist
    attacks. For security reasons, I will not publicly disclose the
    names of these systems.
        Despite overwhelming evidence supporting the need for
    training and the availability of free training programs through
    NTI, transit systems continue to resist calls for training
    because of the operating cost to pay employees and to keep the
    buses and trains running during the training sessions. It is
    time that the Federal Government stepped in to not only provide
    funding for the operating costs associated with training, but
    also require all transit systems to train each and every
    frontline transit employee.
        The leadership of this Subcommittee and the T&I Committee
    as a whole recognized the need for such action in the last
    session of Congress when you reported out a bill that would
    have authorized significant funding for both transit and over-
    the-road bus security, and would have required transit systems
    to provide the training to frontline employees as a condition
    of receiving such funds. The ATU supported this bill and we
    will encourage the committee to move similar legislation as
    soon as possible.
        We need to take action now to address the security needs of
    the transit and over-the-road bus industries, and most
    importantly to train the workers in these industries. Doing so
    now will save lives.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf
    of the ATU, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
    may have.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much.
        Mr. DeFazio?
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to you three for your testimony.
        I guess I would just ask one question. I think you were all
    here in the room when we were, and I am not going to ask the
    three people to describe the agency, although you might get in
    the contest too and see if you can get a free lunch from Ms.
    Henke.
        But this new TIP Program, I mean, I think Mr. Millar, you
    pretty much addressed that in saying how if every year you
    changed the program, it is pretty hard for people to figure out
    how to apply consistently and actually get the money. And then
    they say, well see, the people don't really need the money
    because, hey, we didn't use it.
        I mean, do any of you think this is a good idea that we
    would have transit compete with ports, compete with trucking,
    compete with all the other needs we have?
        Mr. Millar. Sir, we do not think it is a good idea. All the
    things you have just mentioned are important, and in their own
    way have to be properly secured. Homeland security is part of
    national security. Since the founding of the republic, national
    security belongs to the Federal Government. I learned that in
    civics class a long time ago. I assume everyone else in the
    room did too. They have not yet learned it at DHS.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, we are busily rewriting the textbooks as
    they change the grant process.
        Do either of the others, yes?
        Mr. Pantuso. Yes, sir, Mr. DeFazio, we would certainly
    agree that it makes no sense to put each mode in competition
    for funding. There are too many instances where the modes
    compete for other funding programs right now, and where it
    relates to security we should all be working as a system and a
    unit for security.
        As Mr. Millar pointed out earlier, it makes no sense to
    have programs that change from year to year or time to time. We
    have been through that in our own industry enough. Every time
    that there is a grant application available and up for the
    members of the industry, it is different than what they applied
    for before. Sometimes they can participate, sometimes they
    can't. Some things they want, some things they don't want. It
    makes it confusing. So it is very, very difficult to try to
    secure a system, let alone a mode, when you are changing all
    the time.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
        Mr. Siano. My answer would be no. Transit should be a
    separate grant program and should not have to compete with
    ports and rails for funding.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you.
        I guess one other, Mr. Chairman. I can't help myself on
    this one. Do you have any opinion on giving a Fortune 500 oil
    company that makes $12.9 million a day a $1 million grant to
    put fencing around one of its port facilities? Do you think
    that is something, given the amount of money we have available
    and the needs of your folks, that that is a good expenditure of
    tax dollars? Does anybody want to volunteer on that one?
        Mr. Millar. I will volunteer and add to it. It certainly
    does not make sense to us. We just don't understand it. The
    other thing don't understand is that sometimes our members are
    told to do certain things in the name of security. I think of a
    small Midwestern transit system member we have. They were told
    to put fencing all around their property. They are in a very
    small town.
        I am not sure what the risk is, but hey, they were told to
    put the fence in. They applied for grants. They put the fencing
    in. Right next to them is a major fertilizer company producing
    the kind of product that blew up the building in Oklahoma City,
    and they aren't required to do anything. We really wonder in a
    small town in the Midwest which is the greater threat.
        So you see these kind of inconsistencies all the time. It
    is very frustrating to our members and our members simply don't
    understand it.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, neither do I, Mr. Millar. Maybe we will
    find that in the new textbook, too.
        Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. I would just like to follow up on one item.
    When we are talking about prioritization for grant monies,
    there are a number of areas that are legitimate targets for
    terrorism. It seems to me that what you gentlemen represent in
    the presentations you made is you represent a sector that is
    not just a target, but it is part of the solution to incidents,
    be they terrorists or natural disaster.
        Earlier, you may have heard I referenced what happened with
    Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, where transit had the potential.
    We have referenced what the independent bus operations did, for
    instance. We have had transit agencies and employees from
    around the Country step in to try and help New Orleans.
        It seems to me that one of the areas that deserves special
    consideration, and why we need to train the workers and equip
    the systems is that there is a likelihood that they may be a
    target based on the last 20 years of history, and what you
    represent will be a solution to a wide range of incidents, be
    they terrorist or more likely natural disasters.
        Do you have any thoughts about how we might weight the
    grants, weight the attention, weight the oversight and
    investment to represent the dual nature of the service that you
    gentlemen represent, or services you gentlemen represent?
        Mr. Millar. Yes, sir. We have several ideas in that regard.
        First, we believe that there is a basic level of training
    and information that must be given to all transit operators to
    all transit employees. We certainly agree with the ATU on that
    point. Beyond that, we are certainly in agreement with DHS that
    for significant amounts of investment, we certainly are
    prepared for some kind of risk-based approach. That would seem
    to make logical sense.
        But I think as several of the members questioned the
    previous panel, figuring out how you figure out those risks is
    another matter. For example, last Friday I was in Gulfport and
    Biloxi, Mississippi meeting with the transit officials who are
    struggling the best they can, now seven months after Katrina.
    Their FEMA money was taken away from them on March 1, and now
    they are making it on their own, so to speak, in this.
        It is very clear to me from what I saw that day that, one,
    they have done a great job in supporting their community; and
    two, they could do a lot more; and three, much of what is
    necessary to improve transit systems in the security area is
    equally applicable in natural disasters, as my colleague from
    ABA has already said.
        So if we are going to go to a risk base, which makes sense
    to us. I think we have to think of it in bigger terms. We have
    to realize the contribution that transit makes and, as several
    of us have said, the transit workers are also the first-line
    responders, so how does that factor into the whole thing as
    well.
        So yes, it is complicated, but if there isn't sufficient
    resource, if there isn't enough money, then we wind up fighting
    over crumbs and we really do not get better security and we
    really do not get better at preparing for natural disasters. So
    we need a significant increase in funding and then we need to
    work together and cooperate to develop what makes sense in
    terms of risk assessment.
        Mr. Pantuso. Congressman, let me only support what Mr.
    Millar just said and my other colleague from the ATU, that if
    we are looking at priorities, the first priority is certainly
    the people. The efforts that were put forth by the transit
    community, by the private bus industry following Katrina relied
    on people. But it also relied on equipment, on some basic
    communications equipment and systems that are not in place
    right now.
        Our buses, unlike the transit systems, move all over the
    Country, and they have a different need because they are in
    different places. They are not at a home base every single
    night. So in simple terms, people and some basic levels of
    equipment are what we need and what we should prioritize. It is
    not a lot of money in terms of the scope, but it is moving in
    the direction much further than we have done in the past.
        Mr. Siano. Just a comment. The people and the bus drivers
    and mechanics down in the area of Hurricane Katrina, just so
    you understand that the people that they are talking about,
    they are our members down there. So we have a big stake in what
    is being done down there.
        I had an opportunity just a few weeks ago to visit three
    days down there with our members down there. I cannot explain
    to you at all the devastation that is down there. You can't
    imagine and you have to be there to see it. They are running
    some service down there. They are not collecting any fares.
    Maybe about 50 percent of the employees are driving the buses.
    Other than that, 85 percent of the people are not working yet,
    not collecting a paycheck, and it is obviously a disaster all
    the way around.
        Mr. Blumenauer. I was disturbed, Mr. Siano, in your
    testimony, that still over half your members have not received
    training.
        Mr. Siano. Oh, that is absolutely true.
        Mr. Blumenauer. I find that troubling, deeply troubling.
        Mr. Chairman, my point about looking at transit systems and
    bus operations as part of the infrastructure, as well as the
    target, it seems to me that there may be some special
    consideration we may think about, because it is not just
    protecting and site-hardening and training, but it is how we
    use them to help in the next flood, the next hurricane, the
    next catastrophic event that requires moving large numbers of
    people safely. I would love to explore with our witnesses if
    there are ways that we might be able to quantify and factor
    that in as we look at other legislative vehicles.
        I think they are generically different than other targets
    that we are looking at. We don't rely on a chemical plant to
    help recover from a hurricane or to avoid one. So I think there
    is some special weight that needs to be considered.
        Mr. Millar. If I might just comment on that. Within APTA,
    we have created a task force of transit systems around the
    Country to examine how we might do a better job of helping each
    other in times of disaster. While it is focused on all kinds of
    disaster, certainly trying to learn the lessons coming out of
    Katrina, and we would be honored to share with this committee
    the work that we are doing there and seek your input and advice
    as well, because we believe that as an industry, we can do a
    better job of being better prepared so that we can do the
    things that you alluded to and that we agree need to be done.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Pascrell?
        Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like your very brief reaction to the following. I
    want to finish the equation I was talking about earlier. That
    is, since fiscal year 2003 to now, 2006, $387 million has been
    spent by the Federal Government to assist you in transit
    security. So that is a little bit more than $100 million a
    year. In that very same period of time, we have spent $14
    billion in aviation security. That is almost $5 billion a year.
        And then I said, that is a penny per passenger for transit.
    It is $9.16 per airline passenger. Now, how do you read that?
        Mr. Millar. We read that as there has been enough
    investment in transit security. I don't know whether $9 is the
    right number for airports. That is not my field, but a penny is
    not enough for public transit.
        And while I have not taken our $6 billion and divided it,
    we could make that mathematical calculation, but the point is
    we need to get serious about this investment. There are common
    sense investments that need to be made. Only the Federal
    Government has the financial resource base to make sure that
    the things that should be at every transit property are at
    every transit property. We need to go forward to protect the
    millions and millions of Americans who use public transit every
    day.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Pantuso?
        Mr. Pantuso. Well, I think if you use as the backdrop the
    Chairman's opening remarks, looking at the fact that surface
    transportation has been the target around the world, again, if
    you look at our segment of surface transportation, moving 774
    million people a year, and only receiving on average $5 million
    per year over the last five years, we are nowhere close to what
    it takes to protect this industry, or even to begin thinking
    about protecting this industry. We are millions and millions of
    dollars away from that point in time.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Siano?
        Mr. Siano. Yes, it is my belief that people of influence
    and money fly planes. It is as simple as that. I think there
    was a time when I was younger and remember that everybody rode
    a bus, whether they were going across the Country or just going
    to the next city in New Jersey where I live.
        So I mean, the bus business was booming. But now with the
    airlines taking everything, and I agree, I think that is the
    ratio, a penny to almost ten bucks. I think that is a disgrace.
    I think that the people that ride our systems, whether Bill or
    I like it or not, are mostly, except for commuters living
    outside a big city like New York and driving into New York City
    from New Jersey, I think that they get the short end of the
    stick.
        Mr. Pascrell. It was implied after the natural catastrophe
    of Katrina, which was like an onion, when we peeled it away and
    saw the poverty that existed, both in that area and then after
    Rita in Southeast Texas. It was implied that if this happened
    in other areas, the response would have been quite different.
    Is anybody that cruel, that we would divide our money in terms
    of everything is a priority, nothing is priority, so we
    prioritize. We haven't said, or you don't perceive it that way,
    do you, that this group of people is obviously more important
    than those group of people. You don't think that is at the
    basis of this, do you?
        Mr. Millar. I would certainly hope not. That cannot be the
    basis for our democracy.
        Mr. Pascrell. Well, of course, of course. Let me ask one
    more quick question. What is the first thing that you need,
    besides, we are talking about Federal money, what is the first
    thing that you need, each of you, that you see the money should
    be going for? So it is not just general, say, categorical
    money?
        Mr. Millar. The money needs to go to prepare our people to
    implement the plans we already have, so it goes into training;
    it goes into drills; it goes into making sure they have the
    basic equipment they need to do the job they want to do.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Siano, do you agree with that?
        Mr. Siano. Yes, absolutely. I absolutely agree that we need
    the money to do the necessary things to keep this transit
    system afloat in this great Country of ours, without a doubt.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Pantuso?
        Mr. Pantuso. I agree with that for the most part. The
    personnel and training and communications are the two
    priorities. The other thing that I would put in that box as
    well that is not an additional cost is the issue of
    coordination, coordination between the different segments. Most
    of Mr. Millar's members, all of Mr. Millar's members obviously
    fall under FTA, and there are some great things that FTA is
    doing. But I can tell you that two years ago when we sat
    together on the same panel, and we looked at a similar kind of
    chart--
        Mr. Pascrell. Funny you bring that up.
        Mr. Pantuso. We don't get in the private bus industry
    access to some of the great information that is already put
    together, that FTA has developed and working with Bill's group.
        Mr. Pascrell. We are no further down the road in
    interrelating, and I apologize for the Federal Government for
    that, really. It is a darn shame.
        Thank you very much.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        I have one question for the panel, and that is whether as
    an industry, the transit and intercity bus communities are
    still seeking authorization for transit and over-the-road bus
    security grant programs, authorization language or legislation.
    Since you are already receiving appropriations, why would
    authorization be important?
        Mr. Millar. We think authorization is essential. Yes, we
    are seeking that. We believe that the President has said that
    the battle against terrorists is a long-term proposition. Our
    understanding is that having solid programs properly authorized
    and funded by the Congress is going to be what is necessary
    over a long period of time to fight this battle and to have our
    citizens and communities and employees safer than they are
    today.
        So yes, we think authorization is important, essential, and
    that then it be followed up by proper appropriations,
    consistent with the program structure that would be authorized.
        Mr. Pantuso. Mr. Chairman, I would agree. The authorization
    process also doesn't pit mode against mode or dollar against
    dollar. Part of the challenge I am sure we all face by going
    the appropriations route, as opposed to through an
    authorization, is that we are competing for other programs,
    other projects, regardless of what they may be, whether they
    are security or something completely unrelated.
        The appropriations process sets out a long-term commitment
    that we can follow as an industry, put the plan in place, and
    allows us to move forward and meet that plan, and not have a
    program that is going to stop, start and change from minute to
    minute or year to year.
        Mr. Petri. Maybe just one follow-up question, Mr. Millar.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that there is already a kind
    of a grant and an interrelationship between the Federal Transit
    Administration and your members, and accounting the whole
    process in place, and that therefore homeland security grants
    would make sense to do as part of that process, or as an add-on
    to that process, rather than a whole separate process with
    different bureaucratic requirements and all of that.
        I am just curious as to whether you both feel that way.
    Your bus programs do not have that same relationship, so it
    probably doesn't make much particular difference to you how
    that grant process is organized.
        Mr. Pantuso. A long-term commitment regardless of how that
    is developed is important to us, but where that money goes,
    whether it continues to go through DHS as opposed to through
    Transit or through other programs is really immaterial. We are
    not unhappy with working with Homeland Security right now. What
    we are unhappy about is the way that program has been managed
    off and on over the last number of years.
        Mr. Millar. We think that history has proven that the
    coordinated approach that is in the Federal Transit program
    works. We think that the Department of Homeland Security has
    advocated, for example, sending the grants through States, and
    then the States send it down to the regions. Well, that just
    adds an unnecessary step and adds additional costs.
        In the months following the terrible tragedies and
    terrorist attacks of 2001, we developed, because we already had
    a relationship with FTA, FTA immediately stepped out. They did
    sensible things. They consulted with the industry. They were
    very good to work with on this. We think that you may as well
    take advantage of the relationships that are well established.
        We also can appreciate DHS's problem. They may not want to
    deal with several hundred transit systems. We can understand
    that. But FTA already has those relationships established. So
    as I said in my testimony, let the Congress set the policy; let
    DHS set the policy; and then once that is set and the funding
    levels are set, turn the money over.
        All the transit systems, urban and rural, already receive
    formula money. It doesn't seem like it is that big a stretch to
    us to then have another line item put in that budget, use the
    electronic funds transfer mechanisms. For example, in DHS right
    now, transit systems have to complete the project, get it
    certified as done by DHS before they can get the money to
    reimburse. So you know, you go a year or more getting the
    money.
        With FTA, the way you have structured their program,
    progress payments can be made available. You can get electronic
    funds transfer within a day or so of when you submit the
    properly supported invoice. The infrastructure is already
    there. To us, it seems like taking advantage of the
    infrastructure that is already there and works makes sense,
    rather than starting up a new infrastructure, as has been
    proven in the four years so far of DHS. I am certainly
    sympathetic that they are evolving their program, but we are
    losing time, and time is money.
        So our plea has been, let's use what works and makes sense.
    That isn't to say every year you won't have a little bit of
    variation as we learn more. That is natural, but this wholesale
    changing, three different organizations to manage the funds in
    four different years, five major changes in the program last
    year alone, that is not conducive to good management of public
    funds, in my opinion.
        So I think there is an answer. If there were no answer, the
    way DHS is doing it might be the only way. But there is an
    answer, and it works, and it is proven, and we ought to take
    advantage of it.
        Mr. Petri. Well, we are from the government and we are here
    to help.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Petri. Thank you all for your testimony.
        [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 28276.109