[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