U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the 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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–298 PDF 2011

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY: IS THERE A SECURITY GAP?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 24, 2011

Serial No. 112–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE

NATIONAL ARCHIVES

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona, Vice Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking Minority

Member

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 24, 2011 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Sarles, Richard, general manager and chief executive officer, Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Chief Michael Taborn, Metro

Transit Police Division; Chief Cathy Lanier, Metropolitan Police Department; and Anthony Griffin, county executive, Fairfax County Government .......................................................................................................... 8

Griffin, Anthony ........................................................................................ 41

Lanier, Chief Cathy ................................................................................... 34

Sarles, Richard .......................................................................................... 8

Taborn, Chief Michael ............................................................................... 32

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 47

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 6

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Griffin, Anthony, county executive, Fairfax County Government, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 43

Lanier, Chief Cathy, Metropolitan Police Department, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 38

Sarles, Richard, general manager and chief executive officer, Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, prepared statement of .................. 11

(1)

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY: IS THERE A SECURITY GAP?

FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Gosar, Davis, Norton, Clay,

Murphy, and Cummings (ex-officio).

Also present: Representative Connolly.

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Michael R.

Bebeau, assistant clerk; Howard A. Denis, senior counsel; James

Robertson, professional staff member; Peter Warren, legislative policy director; Ronald Allen, minority staff assistant; Jaron Bourke,

minority director of administration; Yvette Cravins, minority counsel; Paul Kincaid, minority press secretary; Lucinda Lessley, minority policy director; and William Miles, minority professional

staff member.

Mr. GOWDY. The committee will come to order.

This is a hearing on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority: Is there a security gap?

I want to welcome our witnesses. I do not have much of an opening statement. I am primarily here to listen.

I want to thank our witnesses again, especially our witnesses in

public safety and law enforcement, because I realize you have competing priorities. So thank you for being here.

Public safety is the preeminent responsibility of the Federal Government. As such, we’re here today to examine the security of our

Nation’s largest transit systems—one of our largest Nation’s transit

systems—the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Whether you’re a Washington resident or a visitor from the Fourth

Congressional District in South Carolina, it’s important that you

not only feel safe but that you actually are safe.

So I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses and, just a point

of personal privilege, whenever I see uniforms I want to thank both

the chiefs for your public service. I have a special place in my heart

for law enforcement and public safety officers. So thank you.

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the

ranking member, Mr. Davis.

2

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

very much for holding this hearing.

I, too, would like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for

coming.

The events of September 11, 2001, brought the attention of

transportation security and terrorism to prominence. Subsequent

attacks in Moscow, London, and Madrid have further highlighted

terrorism as a global threat to public transit.

Transit security is especially challenging due primarily to the

very nature of the business. It’s open, accessible to the public, with

predictable routes and fixed access points; and, more importantly,

it’s the transportation of choice for the masses in urban and metropolitan areas.

Further, transit officials cannot employ many of the strategies

used in aviation. Transit does not allow the conventional security

methods of X-ray machines, metal detectors, and pre-screening of

passengers.

I do not envy the balancing act that must take place ensuring

the safety, accessibility, and convenience of the transit system,

while also maintaining the attractiveness and reliability of the system. But it must be done and done well. So when people choose

public transit they should receive both a high degree of safety and

security, as well as convenience, all at an affordable cost.

Today’s hearing will look at all of these issues but none more

than security. The operation of a secure transit environment that

spans multiple jurisdictions geographically and that must integrate

the specialties of multiple law enforcement agency depends upon

interagency and jurisdictional coordination and cooperation. That

can be hard to do without practice, superior communication, and

rigorous oversight. I am interested today in learning from these

witnesses just how they have accomplished and improved these

tasks.

WMATA, similar to transit systems across the country, are constantly evaluating and evolving with new procedures, techniques,

and systems to increase security. Even in my home city of Chicago,

the Chicago Transit Authority recently announced this week new

security initiatives, a doubling of the amount of all-angle security

cameras across the rail system. Hopefully, this type of initiative deters crime as well as decreases opportunities for domestic or international terrorists to attack our country.

WMATA, I am certain, has similar sources. So I am very interested in today’s topic and greatly anticipate the testimony we will

hear.

Transit security is a timely and necessary topic. So I thank you,

Mr. Chairman, and again I thank the witnesses for coming and for

their participation.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. GOWDY. The chair would now recognize the ranking member

of the full committee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

for calling this hearing.

As a member of both the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I know how critical the Metro system is to the Federal Government and to the entire metropolitan Washington region. As a

youngster who depended on the bus to take me to a better school

on the other side of Baltimore, I also know how critical public transit is to, as the Metro says, opening doors.

I appreciate the opportunity today’s hearing provides to consider

security on the Metro system. This system serves 86 stations and

carries more than half a million passengers every day. Given their

openness, transit systems are inherently vulnerable to a variety of

potential security threats. This is particularly true of the Washington Metro, which is such a visible part of our Nation’s capital

infrastructure. It is critical that we understand the full range of

threats confronting Metro, as well as any gaps that may exist in

metro’s defenses.

Effective security on the Metro requires a system to counter a

threat to terrorism. But it also requires a system to protect the

passengers and system operators from other possible threats. I’m

deeply troubled by reports of violence against Metro bus drivers,

and I want to understand what can be done to ensure driver safety.

Given the threats that Metro and all transit systems in our Nation face, it is inexplicable to me that the House appropriation for

the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2012, which

provided funding for transit security programs, was less than half

of the administration’s request.

The Republican leadership in the House has also proposed deep

cuts across the board to other transportation programs.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, maintaining the

current funding baseline over the next 6 years for highway and

transit programs will require $331 billion. The Republican budget

would provide only $219 billion, cutting the investments in highway and transit programs by more than $100 billion.

We simply cannot maintain our competitiveness as a Nation by

failing to make investments that enable us to build, maintain, and

protect our essential transportation infrastructure.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our

witnesses. I join you, Mr. Chairman, as you salute our public employees and those in uniform; and that’s very refreshing, because

I know you mean it. I’ve said it many times. So many times we’ve

heard our public employees are not treated very fairly, and I was

very glad to hear you say what you said. Because they do so much.

They are the glue that keeps our Nation together, keeps our cities

and our States together.

So, again, I thank you; and, with that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

6

7

8

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

Members may have 7 days to submit opening statements and extraneous material for the record.

We will now welcome our first panel of witnesses.

I will introduce you from my left to right, your right to left. I’ll

introduce you at the same time, and then we’ll recognize you in

that order for your 5-minute opening statement.

Mr. Richard Sarles is the general manager and chief executive

officer of the WMATA. Chief Michael Taborn is the Chief of the

Metro Transit Police Department. Cathy Lanier is the Chief of the

Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Anthony Griffin is the county

executive for the Fairfax County Government.

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses must be sworn in before they testify. So I would respectfully ask you to please rise, and

I will administer an oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. GOWDY. Let the record reflect all the witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

You may be seated.

Many of you are more familiar with this process than I am, so

you should see a panel of lights. I am always reluctant to tell anyone who has a weapon or access to a weapon that they have to stop

talking, but you will notice the green, yellow, and red, and you may

do with that what you would traditionally do if you were driving

with those.

Mr. Sarles.

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD SARLES, GENERAL MANAGER AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN

AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; CHIEF MICHAEL TABORN,

METRO TRANSIT POLICE DIVISION; CHIEF CATHY LANIER,

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND ANTHONY

GRIFFIN, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SARLES

Mr. SARLES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Davis, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I am Richard Sarles, general manager and CEO of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA or Metro].

Accompanying me today is Metropolitan Transit Police Department

Chief Michael Taborn.

I am pleased to be here today to provide you with an update on

the progress we are making at Metro in a number of critical areas,

including safety, security, and returning our system to a state of

good repair. I will begin by providing a short overview of Metro for

those Members who are not familiar with the system or new to the

committee.

WMATA was created in 1967 through an interstate compact between the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and

the District of Columbia and approved by the U.S. Congress. Metro

provides 1.2 million trips a day and is the second largest rail transit system and the sixth largest bus system in the United States.

9

Americans from all over the Nation depend on the system when

visiting the capital and attending large national events. This

unique role is why Metro is often referred to as ‘‘America’s subway.’’ When your constituents visit Capitol Hill, Metro rail provides

safe and affordable transportation to see our Nation’s Capitol and

visit your offices.

Metro is also a critical Homeland Security asset and has demonstrated multiple times how important the system is in a time of

crisis, such as evacuation for major weather events and national

emergencies like 9/11. In particular, the Metro system is vitally important to getting Federal employees to our defense agencies such

as the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security. Approximately 40 percent of Metro’s peak period customers are Federal

employees.

The Washington region was recently ranked the second-most congested in the country. Without a doubt, we would be number aye

if not for the estimated half a million automobiles that Metro rail

and Metro bus take off the system. Whether you ride Metro rail or

drive your car, you benefit from system.

Metro also serves as a key driver of the economy, supporting both public and private investment and has spurred over $37 billion in economic development at or adjacent to Metro property. In

these difficult economic times, that development serves as a valuable source of revenue for our State and local partners.

Now let me turn to Metro security preparedness.

Metro rail is by design an open system, as was mentioned earlier, which provides unique challenges when it comes to securing

against potential threats. By design, it does not lend itself to an

airport-style security system. Securing our system starts with an

up-to-date threat assessment, helping us determine how to most effectively use our personnel and resources and to prioritize our actions to best combat terrorism.

Another important component of our security program is working

each day in collaboration with the three jurisdictions and more

than 40 law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region,

which enables us to share vital information and, when needed,

added support for our security efforts.

I want to thank both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the

Transportation Security Administration and our local partner,

Chief Lanier, for their support of Metro’s homeland security program.

In addition to working to prevent acts of terrorism, we also have

to have in place plans to help us quickly respond in the event of

incidents like September 11th or an attack on our system. In his

testimony, Chief Taborn will provide you with even more detail on

how Metro police works to keep Metro secure. But I’d like to briefly

touch on the topic of safety.

Safety is our top priority at Metro. While serving as interim general manager and as now as the permanent CEO for the past 5

months, my personal goal has been to make sure that every employee at Metro puts safety first.

Over the past 12 months, we have made great strides in addressing the recommendations of the NTSB and other agencies following

the 2009 Fort Totten incident. The first billion dollars of our 6-

10

year, $5 billion capital rebuilding program is dedicated to addressing those NTSB recommendations.

I want to especially recognize this committee for playing a key

role in helping to rebuild Metro. Under the leadership of then-committee-chair Tom Davis in 2008, Congress passed a 10-year, $1.5

billion authorization, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act [PRIIA], to address the capital needs of the WMATA system. The annual $150 million appropriations is the funding commitment Congress made in PRIIA as the Federal partner, matched

by WMATA’s jurisdictional partners—Washington, DC, Maryland,

and Virginia—for a total of $300 million a year. The $300 million

represents almost 40 percent of our capital budget.

Last year, in large measure due to the efforts of the Metro con- gressional delegation, we received $150 million in PRIIA funding.

Without PRIIA, the progress we have made will be at grave risk.

In fact, we would slide backward.

What will happen if we do not receive our Federal funding in fiscal year 2012? Let me be clear on this point. Safety will come first.

We will use whatever funds we have available to assure that the

system is safe. Everything else will be on the table.

Unfortunately, our customers, your constituents, will bear the

burden of cuts through more frequent train delays, less reliable

trains and buses, deteriorated station conditions, longer lines, and

delayed customer information. If our efforts are interrupted due to

a lack of funding, it would ultimately affect both the safety and reliability of the system.

Every day at Metro, we are making progress, but we have a long

way to go. However, with the continued support of our customers,

our jurisdictional partners, and congress, we will get there.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be

pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarles follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Sarles.

Chief Taborn.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF MICHAEL TABORN

Chief TABORN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Davis, and members of the subcommittee. I, too, thank you for the

opportunity to come here to testify today.

I am Michael Taborn, Chief of the Metro Transit Police for the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA or

Metro]. Mr. Sarles has provided an overview of Metro, and I would

like to provide additional details of our security program.

On June 4, 1976, President Gerald Ford signed into law a bill

passed by Congress authorizing the establishment of the Metro

Transit Police [MTPD]. The MTPD is the only tri-jurisdictional police department in the United States, operating in the District of

Colombia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland. The department has an authorized strength of 450 sworn officers, 153 special police officers, 13 emergency management personnel, and 35 civilian personnel.

The department police officers have law enforcement jurisdictions and arrest powers throughout the 1,500 square miles within

the transit zone and responsible for crimes that occur in, on, or

against the Metro, Metro rail, and all transit facilities. The Transit

Police is a full-time, 24/7 law enforcement agency.

Within the last year, Metro Transit Police has received approximately 60,000 calls for service and approximately 339 of those calls

we received just in the last 6 months that involve suspicious persons, packages, bomb threats, or similar events. Patrol officer are

deployed throughout the system with duties that are most clearly

associated with traditional police work. The department’s largest

contingent is comprised of foot patrol officers, followed by mobile

patrol, Metro bus enforcement, criminal investigations, and special

operations.

A year ago, Metro Transit Police created the ‘‘Metrostat’’ to identify crime trends and hotspots which allows us to strategically deploy our staff and resources most effectively. Using the Metrostat

information, patrol commanders establish crime reduction objectives for their districts, monitor statistics, and intelligence, and

then apply patrol tactics and/or specialized equipment to address

those identified needs.

To be most effective in responding to and preventing crime, we

enlist the help of other regional law enforcement agencies and our

own customers. Officers attend community meetings, promote public awareness campaigns, and often distribute crime prevention literature. The MTPD works aggressively with regional police departments, such as Chief Lanier’s, local schools, and youth organizations to prevent youth disorder in the system.

With respect to our security mission, as Mr. Sarles mentioned,

Metro, like the majority of mass transit systems in the United

States, is by design an open system. Security strategies are complex and multi-layered. The Transit Police utilize many tools, supported by a variety of local, State, and Federal agencies to ensure

our security strategies and policies facilitate accurate and timely

operational readiness to any identified threat or vulnerability.

33

Our overall strategy security approach combines the use of technology with enhanced operational awareness and puts an emphasis

on training, public awareness outreach efforts, emergency preparedness, and the use of various security assessments that take

into consideration the unique designs of our transit system.

Through the Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Government’s Police Chief Subcommittee, the MTP meets regularly with,

again, over 40 law enforcement law enforcement agencies in the

National Capital Region to address current and emergency law enforcement issues and tends to exchange information and ideas

about the delivery of public safety.

Further, the committee facilitates appropriate dialog to enhance

regional security and antiterrorism efforts and plans for the safe

and effective transportation of millions of passengers to the national level events such as the inauguration of the President of the

United States, July 4th Fireworks, National Cherry Blossom Festivals, Marine Corps marathons, and sports and entertainment

events.

To help coordinate law enforcement efforts with our Federal partners, the Metro Transit Police has an officer assigned to the FBI’s

local Joint Terrorism Task Force, the National Joint Terrorism

Task Force, with Chief Lanier’s Washington Regional Threat and

Analysis Center, and the Transit Police have taken aggressive

steps to combat the threat of terrorism and partner with the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Security Administration.

Officers use a variety of high visibility uniformed patrol techniques, technology, equipment, and national security initiatives to

assist in preventing terrorism. WMATA’s Security Inspection Program was launched in December 2010, which is a tactic also used

in transportation environments to effectively target prevention of

terrorist activity, a step which is modeled after successful programs

currently in use by transit properties in the United States, including those in New Jersey, New York, and Boston. The purpose of the

screening is to detect any explosive material and to prevent it from

being brought into the Metro system.

In 2009, WMATA’s Anti-Terrorism Team, ATT, was created

through a transit security grant. The team is comprised of 20

sworn police officers who provide high visibility patrols, focus on

protecting transportation patrons and employees. The ATT team

works closely with the Federal air marshals and the Transportation Security Administration to develop new strategies and techniques for combating acts of terror. Team deployment objectives include identification of system vulnerabilities, high visibility patrol,

surveillance and countersurveillance operations, and investigation

of suspicious activity, persons, or packages.

The Authority has made great strides in the utilization of technology to harden WMATA’s infrastructure, physical security enhancements including lighting sensing, access control, intrusion detection systems—as well as bus facilities. The Program of Response

Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical/Biological

Terrorism [PROTECT] system, is capable of detecting selected

groups of chemical warfare agents within a predetermined threshold at Metro stations. Simply put, PROTECT and its command and

34

control software offers information to chemical incident operations

disciplines to make more informed response decisions.

Currently, we have over 7,000 cameras throughout the system.

Eighty-one percent of those cameras are operational.

We also use customer communications in our stations, vehicles,

and facilities to raise awareness and remind the public to report

any suspicious behavior to the police. On any given day, WMATA

patrons hear a variety of safety and security related messages, including announcements by myself and by Department of Homeland

Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose announcement seeks

the assistance of transit riders in identifying suspicious persons or

packages in the nationally recognized ‘‘If You See Something, Say

Something’’ campaign.

Transit riders also witness high-visibility patrols in collaboration

with many local, State, and Federal partners.

Since 2006, Congress has appropriated approximately $1.6 billion

in transit security grant funds to help local transit authority such

as Metro to get trained personnel, participate in exercises, and

raise public awareness and protect critical infrastructure.

The remaining funds are fully obligated in the sense that we

have received, to date, $108 million in transit security grant funds.

In my written testimony, we have provided detailed information

on the challenges faced in spending those dollars as quickly as possible. We’re working internally at Metro to expedite those processes.

In addition, we have provided bipartisan leadership of the House

and Senate Homeland Security Committee input on what changes

need to be made in the legislation that created the grant program

to streamline DHS grant programs.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you this overview

of our efforts to keep Metro safe and secure, and I will be pleased

to answer your questions.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief Taborn.

Chief Lanier.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF CATHY LANIER

Chief LANIER. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy, members of the

committee, Congresswoman Norton, and staff.

I appreciate the opportunity to present the statement on behalf

of the Metropolitan Police Department on our collaborative efforts

with our Federal, State, and local partners to address the security

in our Metro system.

Today, I’ll provide an overview of how MPD works with Metro on

not only homeland security issues but also highlight the joint efforts that we have to address crime and public safety. It’s relevant

to all of us.

Obviously, mass transportation is one of the most attractive targets for anyone wanting to disrupt a major city. The TSA’s Office

of Intelligence concurs that mass transit and passenger rail systems are viable targets for a terrorist attack. An attack on a passenger rail system would garner attention not only because of the

damage and casualties but also because it could disrupt daily operations of a major metropolitan area for an extended period of time.

35

As rail systems are easily accessible to the public and difficult to

secure, they are extremely vulnerable to attacks, as we have seen

overseas. Since 2004, there have been four major attacks on mass

transit, in Moscow, Mumbai, London, and Madrid, with almost 500

total fatalities and more than 3,000 people injured. Given the possibility of an attack on Metro and the impact it would have on the

District and the entire region, it is important to review how authorities in the National Capital Region work together to safeguard

the transit system.

Clearly, all of the law enforcement agencies in this region play

a critical role in securing our transit and rail systems. Although we

are often thought of as first responders, our most critical role is

prevention through detection and deterrence. Through a robust

Suspicious Activity Reporting, we are uniquely positioned to detect

and prevent terrorist incidents right here at home. Information

provided by local police and, very often, the community, if discovered early and matched with the right intelligence, can help detect,

disrupt, and prevent a terrorist plot.

Recognizing that information sharing is critical in both preempting and responding to an attack, MPD maintains daily contact

with Metro Transit and Amtrak police in our fusion center through

the intelligence analysts that are collocated to other partners

around the region.

In addition to tracking operational law enforcement activity and

identifying emerging threats in the fusion center, MPD is also engaged in the Homeland Security’s pilot project of the Trap Wire, a

predictive software system. This system supports the use of our

suspicious activity reporting to detect patterns of pre-attack surveillance and logistical planning.

Beyond that, the flow of information among Federal, State, and

local partners through our Joint Terrorism Task Force is excellent

in the Nation’s capital. Our agencies have worked together for

many years sharing information and coordinating responses to a

variety of situations and the many special events that take place

in the Nation’s capital.

In addition to the pre-established relationships to the members

of the task force, the areas chiefs of police meet on a monthly basis

to address regional issues, including rail safety, through the council

of governments.

MPD also facilitates a weekly intelligence meeting with a number of our key partners that include Metro Transit, the FBI, the

Secret Service, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, Amtrak police, as well as D.C. Fire and EMS. These meetings provide

a forum for us to share critical information about sensitive law enforcement operations as well as classified intelligence.

As real-time information is critical in the event of a major incident, the MPD is in the process of integrating real-time computer

aided dispatch information with not only Metro Transit Police but

other law enforcement agencies around the region to enhance our

situational awareness.

From an operational perspective, the MPD actively participates

in Metro Transit’s Terrorism Identification and Deterrence Effort,

or Blue TIDE, through coordinated patrols in and around Metro

stations. As a part of these patrols, MPD’s bomb units conducts

36

regular sweeps to detect explosive materials, including unattended

packages which have the potential to store IEDs.

MPD also participates in similar programs on Operation Rail

Safe, which provides enhanced patrols in and around our commuter

rail posts.

With so many police departments working in the region, coordinated information sharing and response planning is essential. Even

beyond the National Capital Region, MPD has been participating

in the Northeast Corridor Coalition since 2005. This consortium of

police and transit agencies works together to enhance security

planning and programming along the Amtrak rail between Washington, DC, and Boston. This training includes response for active

shooter scenarios as well as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive attacks.

MPD and Metro Transit have a strong relationship that is

grounded in a history of mutual support. From sharing crime information around Metro platforms to responding to events occurring

in a transit system, our overlapping jurisdictions that require efficiency in collaborative responsibilities.

For major events occurring in the District of Columbia, WMATA

has been quick to offer services such as buses for cooling centers,

blockades, and transportation. During the school year, Metro Transit Police participate in a daily conference call with MPD to ensure

situational awareness regarding the safe transport of our students

after school.

MPD also assists—has assisted Metro in metering large crowds

at busy stations like Gallery Place, providing traffic control during

incidents, and coordinating criminal investigations.

While all of the joint exercises and coordinated efforts have

worked well to build relationships and enhance operational effectiveness, the best example of our joint efforts occurred on June 22,

2009, when nine people were killed as a result of a collision on

Metro’s Red Line. This tragic incident required the coordinated response of numerous agencies. The District’s Fire and EMS quickly

coordinated the unified command, which delineated the roles in response of all of the responding agencies. The quick response and

communications between law enforcement and first responders led

to the determination very quickly that the event was not related

to a crime or an act of terrorism. MPD immediately set up our

Joint Operations Command Center to serve as an area command

for police resources, and practiced protocols were quickly implemented. Security perimeters were established on the scene to identify responders and restrict unauthorized personnel, and a rotation

schedule was established to ensure relief of personnel. This was a

3-day operation.

Radio communications and external communications with the

media operated in strict accordance with the National Incident

Management System and Incident Command System procedures.

This incident exemplified proficient efforts of our responding agencies in dealing with disasters of this magnitude.

Ultimately, while much collaboration has and continues to take

place, it is imperative that relevant partner agencies continue to

train, exercise, and share information on a daily basis in order to

37

effectively respond to any future scenario. I can assure you that the

MPD remains committed to this process.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the

hearing today. I’ll be happy to take any questions.

[The prepared statement of Chief Lanier follows:]

38

39

40

41

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief Lanier.

Mr. Griffin.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY GRIFFIN

Mr. GRIFFIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ranking member,

members of the subcommittee. I am Anthony H. Griffin, county executive, Fairfax County, VA, a position that I have had the privilege of holding since January 2000.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the security challenges facing the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority, otherwise referred to as WMATA. My comments are

formed from two perspectives: first, as CEO of the largest jurisdiction in the region by population and as Director of Emergency

Management as set by the Code of Virginia; second, as co-chair of

the decisionmaking process for the National Capital Region since

the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative grants until the

conclusion of 2010, or seven grant cycles. Additionally, I served as

chair of the Chief Administrative Officers Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, otherwise referred to

as COG, for 10 years.

Based on my own experience, the five existing rail stations in

Fairfax County, a shared bus facility, and having consulted with

my police and fire chiefs, I can say that the relationship between

Fairfax County and WMATA from a public safety perspective is

very strong. WMATA is an active participant with the Chiefs’ Committee at COG and is present when security issues are discussed

on a regional basis.

On a police operational level, collaboration and coordination is

good, whether with a specific District station or with the County’s

specialty units, such as SWAT, K–9, or EOD, when there is a need

for a station sweep or for high visibility.

WMATA regularly communicates fire systems status updates and

when there are upgrades to equipment or modifications to stations.

Fairfax County has regularly participated in large-scale multi-jurisdictional exercises with WMATA, with a focus on rail security

and safety.

In summary, there is a strong professional relationship between

WMATA and the County’s public safety agencies, and I personally

have worked well with the senior management of WMATA.

As previously noted, WMATA is an active participant when discussing how preparedness in the National Capital Region can be

improved, and the grant process has been a major facilitator. It has

been accepted by the participants that transportation is a key issue

when considering threats and mitigation. Rail facilities and stations are recognized as potential targets, and rail is integral to

being able to move a significant percentage of the region’s population during a time of crisis.

WMATA has access to other Federal grant programs specifically

oriented to transit security and safety. However, the CAOs—or the

chief administrative officers—and the Senior Policy Group—representatives from the Governors—have agreed that WMATA should

be a funding recipient because its security requirements exceeded

its normal resources. Consequently, in addition to the NCR localities receiving and managing subgrants, WMATA was allocated

42

funds for specific projects which would enhance its security and its

ability to respond to emergencies. I have attached a list of the

projects and the amount of money assigned.

Is there a security gap? In my experience with public safety,

there are never enough resources, whether it is with my own agencies or with WMATA. My job, and our jobs, is to prioritize the risk

and manage the resources available to the greatest effect and benefit.

In my opinion, based on my exposure to the subject and WMATA,

I believe that WMATA has done a good job with the resources

available but that if there were more resources available, it would

help narrow the gap. I should note there will always be a gap, but

I believe continued vigilance and effort will tilt the odds in favor

of WMATA and the public safety agencies.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege to speak. I will be

pleased to respond to the committee’s questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:]

43

44

45

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Griffin.

At this point, the chair will recognize the ranking member of the

subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and, again, I

want to thank all of the witnesses.

Chief Taborn, WMATA’s security program consistently ranks

among the top 20 percent of transit systems nationwide as measured by TSA inspectors using the Baseline Assessment and Security Enhancement program, BASE. However, I know that items

such as fully operational cameras at all stops are still lacking. So

could you discuss some security needs that might exist on challenges that you think need some additional attention?

Mr. TABORN. Well, thank you very much, sir. We are very grateful for the Federal Government, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, the Federal Transit Administration, for all of the support they’ve provided to Metro through the course of many years.

Many of those items that you talked about, cameras, we have a

35-year old system, and it wasn’t until 10 years ago when our second police officer was killed in the line of duty that those cameras

did not have the capability of recording. As we have gone through

the years, we have sought out grants to enhance our camera capabilities, and those are the steps that we are taking now. We have

cameras that recently, through the UASI process, have identified

the 86 Metro rail stations, so we’ll have the opportunity through

sharing with jurisdictional partners to see those types of things.

But we are in the process of working with the general manager and

the new leadership to seek funds to provide more cameras in our

systems. We know that cameras aren’t always the solution, but

they aid in investigations or telling us what’s going on in any particular period of time.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I know that you were instrumental in the development of the

transit security protection measures that has been adopted nationwide. Can you tell us about the anti-terrorism training that your

office received and how often are these drills conducted?

Mr. TABORN. Again, as a response to the events of 9/11, initially

before the birth of Department of Homeland Security there was a

$23.5 million Department of Defense grant that was given to the

Federal Transit Administration to go out and do an assessment of

transit properties all over the United States. Part of that involved

three basic premises: enhance employee training, emergency preparedness, and public awareness; and part of that training was a

spin-off from that terrorist activity recognition and reaction program that was given to transit agencies across the country, the

BAT, Behavioral Assessment Training program. That was spearheaded by the Transportation Security Administration, and it affords not only police officers but front-line employees what to look

for from a terrorist standpoint.

And so, as typified by the events in Time Square where a person

saw something and said something, those are the types of things

that we encourage both our employees as well as our riders to report something that may not be a big deal but may be the key to

investigate crimes. So training is something that continues to happen.

46

TSA has a very good training program. The National Transit Institute, through funding from FTA, has a great training program.

And it’s getting this type of training to transit agencies across the

country.

Mr. DAVIS. And how often is that used?

Mr. TABORN. We provide training every year. We’re in the process now of providing training to all of our front-line employees,

over 7,000 employees, for Metro emergency response training to familiarize them not only with terrorist tactics but what to do in the

case of an emergency. So that training is ongoing. As new people

come on in the department, come on to the agency, we do a repetitive requirement to provide their training.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would the chairman yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. GOWDY. Yes.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not a member of the subcommittee, but I am a member of

the full committee. I have a statement I would like to enter into

the record as a long-time supporter of Metro expressing my support

for management endeavors to enhance public safety and to encourage the Federal Government to do its fair share in support of the

same.

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection, and thank you for being here. We

are delighted to have you with the subcommittee.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly follows:]

47

48

49

Mr. GOWDY. To our witnesses, our guests, and my colleagues,

who are probably aware, if not more aware than I am, votes have

been called. I think it is a very short series.

Here’s the pledge I will make to you. We will sprint to the Capitol to vote. We may walk briskly. We will go as quickly as we can

to the Capitol and vote, because we want to be good stewards of

your time. I am coming back the second I cast my vote. I know that

other colleagues will as well. This is a very important hearing.

So Mr. Davis has graciously offered to buy any of you drinks or

something to eat if you want it during the break. We’re going to

come back. If it happens again, I won’t make you do it again. But

if you would indulge us to go vote, come back, I would be very

grateful; and if it happens again I won’t ask you to do it again.

So we will be in recess pending votes. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. GOWDY. Welcome back. On behalf of all of us, thank you, the

witnesses, for your indulgence.

I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just got some background checks or questions, Mr. Sarles.

When we’re looking at doing background checks, do we also do—

what kind of protocol do we have for monitoring our force periodically?

I think one of the things we’ve learned in some of our Homeland

Security issues is that we may have had somebody come by, come

through and have a different background than they profess to be.

What kind of progress do we have for monitoring particularly like

maintenance, all of our different types of employees?

Mr. SARLES. Basically, when they’re hired, we have background

checks.

With regard to bus operators, we do checks on driver CDLs to

make sure that they continue to maintain their license.

Also, with regard—we have a lot of contractors working on the

sites, so we have checks on that that we do. It’s basically every 2

years—every year background checks on them. So that’s the extent

that we do it today.

Mr. GOSAR. Is that mandatory by compliance from the contractor

head—or is there random review?

Chief, you can answer as well.

Chief TABORN. Many of the guidelines and recommended practices that came by way of either TSA or FTA talks about background checks. It’s something that’s not mandatory, but we embrace that, and we do it on a yearly basis for all contractors, bus

operators, as indicated by Mr. Sarles, or train operators, their driver’s license, their criminal records. We want to check that to make

sure that they’re don’t have a criminal charge or traffic violations

that prevents them from delivering good-quality service.

Mr. GOSAR. I know that when we reviewed TSA we had some

concerns about some of the folks in delivery, maintenance, that aspect, because we’ve got a number of access points that don’t really—we’re more reactive than we’re proactive. And I want to know

more about where you would go with that.

50

Chief TABORN. Again, probably the whole universe of operation,

8,000 employees, we on a—probably every 2 weeks, do a records

check so we know if someone is wanted for a particular crime.

As part of their employment—initial employment, they go back

and they look at 10 years. But on a consistent basis we run the

checks of our employees, both traffic and criminal, probably about

every 2 to 3 weeks.

Mr. GOSAR. Do we review how the systems actually work themselves and how people can infiltrate a system? I guess just more

review.

As a business owner, there’s always—you know, we have an employee, we bring them in, we always have a 6-month review. Sometimes we’ll actually have another review from another employee.

You know, those kind of things for monitoring. Because just a background check is not going to catch everything.

Chief TABORN. Well, from the standpoint of our contract, we do

it on a yearly basis for our employees. As I indicated, about every

3 weeks we do a check. Sometimes, depending upon the jurisdiction, if they left this area, we don’t to do a nationwide check. We

do the jurisdictional check in Maryland, and Virginia, and District

of Columbia or if, in fact, they live in Pennsylvania, something like

that.

Mr. GOSAR. And a protocol if you have suspicious activity. What

would be your normal protocol if you had somebody with suspicious

activity? Or a warning light?

Chief TABORN. Again, we partner with the FBI Joint Terrorism

Task Force. So if there is any suspicious activity that arises to that

level that sort of borders on terrorism, we will immediately let

them know.

Again, we have a person, the same as Cathy Lanier, and track

it, and that information is put in there. So if there is a possibility

that there is a hit or somebody has additional information, we all

in law enforcement would know about it.

Mr. GOSAR. And, last question, how do we involve the public?

How do we go about improving that relationship? Because the public—I mean, we can’t catch everything. We need the public’s insight

here. How do we keep them involved and constantly take their

proactive ideas?

Chief TABORN. Good. If you go back, the basis of the ‘‘See Something, Say Something’’ had its birth in Transit Watch and was

similar to Neighborhood Watch where messages were—things were

delivered to transit properties. New York took ‘‘If You See Something, Say Something.’’ Others adopted ‘‘Is That Your Bag’’ or ‘‘See

It, Say It.’’ So those were slogans that sort of embraced the public

into the security in protecting themselves while they were in public

transportation.

And there are a host of initiatives. I think I was with Chief Lanier when Secretary Napolitano launched the ‘‘See Something, Say

Something.’’ Because it has application not just in transit but in all

types of sectors. So if we say something suspicious, we want to notify the authorities so actions can be taken.

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you.

Mr. GOWDY. The chair would recognize the gentlelady from the

District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes-Norton.

51

Ms. NORTON. I thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of

the witnesses for your very helpful testimony.

I especially want to thank you, Chairman Gowdy, for today’s

hearing on a matter of great importance to the Federal Government because of the importance of WMATA to the Federal Government.

I am not sure all of us were here, but in the winter of 2009 and

2010 the Federal Government itself shut down. The major reason

was because WMATA shut down.

And I think it was 2008 Congress did something with respect to

WMATA it would never do for any other regional or local system.

It authorized $1.5 billion of capital repairs of WMATA. This was

done when my good friends on the other side were in charge.

I do want to read what this committee said at the time, at least

in part. ‘‘Metro bus and rail service plays an indispensable role in

the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government.’’ And then

the committee went on to speak of private citizens who have business with the government who depended upon WMATA, about the

matters of State, and concluded, thus, Metro is a national asset in

which all Americans have an interest.

Well, the Congress did come to that conclusion, and it’s interesting that we had difficulty getting the funds out. We got the first

$150,000 installment only after nine people were killed in the tragic Metro accident, as it turns out about 2 years ago this week.

Now, you have indicated, Mr. Sarles, that you did not receive the

$150,000 this year—that would be the third installment—that you

would not let safety slip and that you would take everything else

away or as much of it as you could in order to keep the Metro safe.

And I am sure you would. But I am not sure the committee understands what you are doing and what we mean by ‘‘keep it safe.’’

Would you be able, for example, to keep on track for the repairs

and rehabilitation necessary to make this a safe line? For example,

the accident involved cars from the 1970’s, which were obsolete but

which you have no alternative but to use. So you are still using,

are you not, the 1970’s vintage cars where virtually all of those

who died were killed? And what are you going to do? What would

be your priorities? Would you be able to be on track if we pulled

all the funds away? Describe to us what the work is all about.

Mr. SARLES. With regard to the $150 million a year, that,

matched with the local contribution of $150 million, is $300 million

a year, which is nearly 40 percent of our budget. If we lost that,

we would, as I said, cause us to slide backward. We would still proceed with the purchase of those cars for replacement.

Ms. NORTON. How many of those have you purchased?

Mr. SARLES. There’s 300 cars to be replaced. Those are the oldest

cars.

Ms. NORTON. How many have been purchased so far?

Mr. SARLES. We placed the order for the 300 plus some other

cars——

Ms. NORTON. So none of those cars have been replaced as of yet.

Mr. SARLES. No. They are being designed right now with the

manufacturer Kawasaki in Nebraska, and then we start taking delivery in of them in 2013.

52

But if we lost 40 percent of our capital budget, we would still operate safely. That doesn’t mean we would operate reliably. For instance, we would not be able to do the track reconstruction. We’re

dealing with tracks, rails that are 30, 35 years old. We would not

replace them. What happens when you don’t replace them is you

have to operate at slower speeds. So it would slow down the system.

You would also—we would find ourselves doing a lot more daily

inspections and finding problems, which would mean there would

be interruptions during even the peak period if we have to go in

and make the quick fix to keep the railroad running.

The same thing is true with buses. We have been able to, over

the last several years, buy enough buses to get the bus system in

shape, at least with regard to the age of the buses. We would have

to stop buying those.

As a result, the buses would get older and older, and they would

break down, and the service that we provide to our bus customers

would deteriorate. When you don’t do the reconstruction, it means

that you have more breakdowns, you operate more slowly. Because,

in order to keep it safe—and, ultimately, we’ve seen tragically what

has happened when there wasn’t enough funding for the system.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.

The chair at the point would recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman; and I thank the

witnesses for their appearance today.

Chief Taborn, news reports have highlighted an increase in crime

at the Prince George’s County Metro stops. In fact, 6 of the top 10

Metro stations with the highest crime rates in the D.C. metropolitan area were in Prince George’s County. Can you detail what is

being done to curb this crime?

Chief TABORN. Sure. In the 86 stations, we have many stations

that are end-of-the-line stations; and that’s where we have the

larger parking facilities, whether it is garages or parking lots. Seventy-five percent of the crimes that occur on the Metro are crimes

against property. So whether it’s stealing the GPS, the catalytic

converter, or seeing change and breaking the window and stealing

that, those are the types of crimes that we see most in the outlying

jurisdictions and in particular Prince George’s County.

What we’ve done is work with Interim Chief Magaw and reached

out to his department, Prince George’s County. The general manager met back in April with 17 of the local jurisdictional law enforcement leaders or their representatives and talked about the

crimes in and around the entire jurisdiction and specifically those

that we had seen an elevation in crime; and we got a commitment

from those chiefs to do as much as they possibly could do.

One of the solutions was to provide them with a SmarTrip card

so their officers on patrol, as they go into the parking lot, they

could go, wherever they are doing patrol, have access to that. And

when you increase the visibility of law enforcement, there is a

probability that those people who are committing those crimes will

be reduced.

53

We also have, as Chief Lanier indicated, Blue TIDE, where we

partner on a quarterly basis with law enforcement throughout the

National Capital Region and show a combined effort, whether it’s

in Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, the District of Columbia, and we show that we are there to support and those types

of efforts are those that we advocate and jointly participate in collaborations.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

Chief Lanier, I want to say it was last year at the L’Enfant Station, or one of the southwest stations, there was a group of young

people that were attacking passengers, and of course the public

saw some of the disturbing video. Has that been curtailed as far

as these roving groups of young people that attack passengers indiscriminately?

Chief LANIER. I can speak to the cases that I am aware of that

have occurred at the entrance of the Metros and around the Metros; and, yes, we have been very successful.

Gallery Place was another place where we saw large groups of

young people who came down, particularly evenings and weekends,

that were creating all kinds of havoc around the train. We worked

jointly with Metro to put together kind of a crowd metering system,

an experience we learned in some of the larger special events here,

to kind of separate and meter those groups into the transit stations

a little bit carefully to keep those groups that are looking to start

trouble with other groups separated, and that really has made a

big difference, and particularly around the Gallery Place Metro.

I know we have still had some disturbing incidents, though.

There is a lot of young people that come from all over the region

that just are using the Metro as a way to carry out their bad behavior.

Mr. CLAY. And have there been arrests made from officers witnessing some of this activity? Are you all looking at video?

Chief LANIER. I would have to defer to Chief Taborn.

Chief TABORN. The case that you are making reference to that

happened at L’Enfant Plaza, we did in fact arrest the young lady,

a female approximately 15 years of age. She was found guilty, and

she was sentenced.

We have other situations where we utilize the videos or any type

of information that is provided to us and we do a concerted effort

to investigate all of the sources. We visited many schools that these

young people were attending; and, based upon that type of collaboration with the Metropolitan Police Department, we were able to

identify this young lady and she subsequently admitted her involvement in this. And, again, she was sentenced.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you both for your responses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. One of the core functions of Federal Government,

obviously, is national security and national defense. One of the core

functions of State government, at least in my State, education is

in the Constitution, and public safety is near and dear to my heart

as well, and it is also a core function of government.

I feel the pain of the budget debates. I can tell you in South

Carolina, being married to a public schoolteacher, it was tough last

year watching our friends be furloughed; and as a prosecutor havVerDate 17-JUN-2003 13:38 Dec 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\71298.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
54

ing to furlough your employees in your office for 5 to 7 days without pay and then watch your sheriff have to furlough deputies, it

is tough. Because if you can’t spend money on public safety and national security, it makes you wonder where you are spending

money.

But at some point after the debate is over about our fiscal

straits, you all still have to do the job. So I guess what I am asking

is, aside from the resources which my colleagues have so aptly and

ably asked you about, aside from the resources, is there anything

else Congress can do, is there anything else we can do to help you

do your jobs better? I understand the budget part and the finance

part. Is there anything else we can do?

Chief LANIER. Well, everything kind of centers around finances,

unfortunately.

I will just say from my perspective, I have been here 21 years

in Washington, DC, so I have been here throughout Metro’s development and watching the population in Washington, DC, and the

region continue to grow and watching the shifts in economic development and the crime patterns that go along with that. Crime patterns traditionally follow transportation, whether it be major roadways or trains or what it is.

We have been really successful driving crime down in the city.

Unfortunately, our success is creating issues for Metro. Because

when you are really successful at pushing the kind of hard-core,

committed folks, people who are committed to crime, they are going

to go the easiest place to carry out their crimes and get away. And

Metro makes it difficult to police.

I can’t imagine how Chief Taborn does his job with the size of

the force he has. I was at the Pentagon last week with a chief over

there. The Pentagon Force Protection Uniformed Police Department has 850 officers. They are not subject to the volume of 911

calls. They are not subject to the—typically, the ridership on Metro

is almost the population of the District of Columbia. I can’t imagine

how Chief Taborn polices that Metro. It is geography that moves.

It is very difficult.

So I don’t know what always is the politically correct thing to say

when we are here testifying, but I know that he being probably

won’t say it, but I will say it for him. I think he needs more police

officers. I really, really do. We work together, and we try and help

with that challenge, but police officers in those train stations and

on those platforms not only make people feel a lot safer but they

will be safer. So that’s my two cents.

Mr. GOWDY. Chief Taborn, Chief Lanier, this is such a different

world that we are living in, at least those of us up here who grew

up in different times. One of the beautiful things about summertime in Washington is the influx of young people, either working

in my colleagues’ offices or working for committees or just visiting

the Nation’s capital. And you stop and think what this current crop

of young people have seen, from Colombine, to Timothy McVeigh,

to 9–11, to shootings in schools. It is a world that I didn’t grow up

in. I grew up with the garden variety of stealing and shoplifting

and that kind of crime. It is a different world.

My colleagues have addressed the national security part. For the

garden-variety assaults—and you mentioned property damage—are

55

you getting the prosecutorial support that you want? Are the

crimes being taken seriously? And I say that with some trepidation

as a former prosecutor as to what the answer may be. Is safety

that doesn’t amount to something cataclysmic and horrible being

taken seriously, in your judgment?

Chief TABORN. I think, in response to your question, those crimes

involving crimes against persons, we do get a lot of support. Other

crimes that may involved fare evasion, disorderly conduct, spitting,

drinking, eating, doing a lot of the smaller things, our offices make

the stop, they write the citation, they go to court, and, more often

than not, those cases are not prosecuted.

So what that does in operating under constraints with the budget

is we pay overtime when we send an officer to court. So when there

is no follow-up—and we have not even talked about the juveniles.

Because juveniles, you either issue them a warning citation or you

do a custodial arrest. They now know that there is not going to necessarily be follow-up if you issue them a citation. So that is an area

that we could see some improvement in.

We would also like to improve the grant process to assist us with

getting dollars back into the transit security grant program and to

look at the flexibility of those grants. We know that the Department of Homeland Security focuses on terrorism, but many of the

crimes that happen in the subway, we may not be able to get funding to attack that. But if we attack the regular day-to-day crime,

the spin-off is it makes it difficult for a terrorist to commit any

other crime.

So the funding of an explosive K–9 is an example. That will be

funded, but a regular patrol dog will not be funded. So we often

ask and we will be asking TSA next week when we meet with the

top 50 transit chiefs in Denver to see if, in fact, there is some flexibility in the grant so that we cover the whole universe of security.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief.

To my colleagues, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact

that our witnesses were gracious enough to wait on us, if anyone

interested in I guess we’ll call it a lightning round to ask a couple

of follow-up questions, please proceed.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your indulgence.

I have just one question. I would like to do a little follow-up on

the whole question of background checks. I would like to ask a hypothetical question.

Basically, because I am concerned that we don’t deny individuals

the opportunity to reenter the work force or to regain acceptance

back into society after they have been convicted of criminal violations, if a person had gotten caught with enough marijuana 13

years ago to be arrested and convicted, come back under the 10-

year rule, depending on what the transgression may have been,

would that person be eligible for employment with the agency?

Mr. SARLES. I really have to get back to you on that, the specific

answer on that. We try to balance what the crimes were against

what the person is being asked to do. So I would have to get back

to you with a more specific answer on that.

[The information referred to follows:]

56

[NOTE.—The information referred to was not provided to the subcommittee.]

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I would appreciate that.

Because I have run into so many instances where there was

blanket denial. And then, when you do a little checking, you find

out that the individual may have done something and that he or

she would actually pose no threat at all to anything. But their

record is there, and they are denied an opportunity. So I would

very much appreciate an answer to that question.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. No further questions.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, just one question. I would be remiss

if I didn’t ask it. After all, this is a committee consisting of members from throughout the country.

My question really has to do with the effect of the Red Line

Metro crash on other parts of the country. Most of us did not

know—I don’t believe I knew until the crash—that there were no

national rail standards. I was astonished, because I am accustomed

to safety standards in every other mode of transportation. No one

would think of getting on an airplane if they thought that every

city could do its own standards. It is the very essence of interstate

commerce. Obviously, these trains don’t always go across State

lines the way that ours do.

But Congress, in the wake of this historic crash that so alarmed

the country, many of us introduced a bill, and it is reintroduced

this year, that would require the Department of Transportation to

develop national rail standards. Now local jurisdictions could have

their own standards if those standards were consistent with national standards. They wouldn’t have to be enforced by the Department of Transportation, or they could ask the Department of

Transportation to take on that task.

I ask this question, Mr. Sarles, because we are fortunate that

you have led two major transit systems. I would like to know

whether you think national rail standards would help improve the

safety of Metro and other rail transit agencies around the country;

and if so, how and why?

Mr. SARLES. In fact, in my last position we ran commuter rail

which is governed by Federal regulation, the FRA. I welcome that.

I think it is good to have national standards.

Ms. NORTON. So commuter rail here in the district?

Mr. SARLES. A commuter rail here would have FRA regulation.

Ms. NORTON. So they would be governed by national standards?

Mr. SARLES. Right.

Ms. NORTON. You are from New Jersey?

Mr. SARLES. From New Jersey, right.

Ms. NORTON. So part of what you had jurisdiction over was governed by national standards.

Mr. SARLES. Right.

Ms. NORTON. How did you do the rest?

Mr. SARLES. Well, we had a State oversight commission or committee which oversaw the light rail lines. We worked well with

them.

57

I will say that, as an operator, the primary responsibility for

safety rests with us. But it is excellent to have oversight, because

you never see everything.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you have some oversight.

Mr. SARLES. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. But you don’t have the same standards, though, so

you can have apparently a very low standard in one part of the

country and a high standard in another.

Mr. SARLES. And that is why I think Federal Government involvement in terms of making sure that, even if the State agencies

are doing it as an oversight, that there is some overlaying uniform

set of criteria so that everyone lives up to the same standards I

think is a good idea.

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask—I was astonished that bus drivers,

Chief Taborn, were being attacked apparently often enough so that

a job action was threatened and that the attacks may be over fares.

Could you explain what prompts these attacks and what you are

doing to protect our bus drivers?

Chief TABORN. Sure. So far this year there have been approximately 22 to 25 assaults on bus operators. They span from either

spitting upon a bus operator, throwing a cup of water upon a bus

driver, assaults with a weapon.

The case that we had last week out at Capitol Heights was a

mother who had a stroller and wanted to bring the stroller on. It

is the policy of WMATA that you fold your stroller up for safety

reasons. She didn’t want to do that. She decided to spit in the face

of the bus operator and subsequently punched her. So that was a

situation that happened.

Most of the assaults stem from fare cases, people who don’t want

to pay the fare. And one would conclude that the bus operator

probably has the most difficult job in transportation. They have to

ask for a fare, deal with people who may not care for them, and

then drive the bus while they are sitting behind them. So, oftentimes, they may be the subject of assaults.

So we have been working with the various unions to come up

with a way that we can——

Ms. NORTON. Are there more officers on the buses? Our chief

spoke about how you need more officers. But when you see something like that happen, how does a bus driver know that he is

going to go out and he is going to get home in the evening?

Mr. SARLES. One of the other things that we are looking at is

how to protect the bus drivers. You can’t have a police officer on

every bus.

Ms. NORTON. No, you can’t.

Mr. SARLES. So we have been working with the union to come up

with a shield that would separate the bus driver from the passengers. It is one way to provide protection to them.

Ms. NORTON. I regret that that has to be done, but you can’t ask

somebody to drive a bus if you are going to be assaulted, and you

don’t know who is going to get on your bus and do so.

Thank you.

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CLAY. Just real quickly, I won’t take the entire 5 minutes.

58

Chief Taborn or Mr. Griffin, in fiscal year 2011, Congress appropriated $2.2 billion for a FEMA State and local program which include the Transit Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative. For fiscal year 2012, President Obama requested

$3.8 billion for the State and local programs. Earlier this month,

the House passed the fiscal year 2012 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill which provides $1 billion for State and

local programs, or $2.8 billion below the President’s request and

$1.2 billion below fiscal year 2011.

Chief Taborn, how would substantial cuts to the Transit Security

Grant Program affect Metro’s ability to prevent a terrorist attack?

Chief TABORN. Well, any cuts in grants would have an impact,

but we cannot just think about this transit agency. There are about

6,000 transit agencies across the country, many who are larger and

who are in metropolitan areas, and we can’t selfishly want to make

sure that we get all of the funds. So the decision as to how they

go about assigning the grants based upon the risks and the assessments is a difficult one. But many of the programs that we want

to move forward that are based upon assessments that have been

conducted on our system would sort of fall by the wayside. So, you

know, we would encourage the funding of those programs to the

highest level.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Griffin, how would substantial cuts to the Urban Area Security Initiative affect the National Capital Region’s ability to prevent

a terrorist attack, including against Metro?

Mr. GRIFFIN. It certainly would make it a greater challenge.

Given my experience over the years, I have cautioned the decisionmakers on two issues. One, I think it is advisable to use the

grants to the extent possible on one-time acquisition, more capital

oriented, so that if the grant goes away you still have the capital

and you are not building in operational requirements.

The second guideline that I have advocated is that we should not

initiate any program with the UASI funding that we are not willing as local governments to sustain, and that has been a tough

message and not one that has always been adhered to. But the reality of it is, for the process that we have just completed, there was

an 18 percent reduction in UASI funding, and that was handled

primarily by Homeland Security by eliminating funding for the second-tier UASI-eligible communities so that the first-tier communities could continue to receive the funding they had received the

previous year.

I would forecast that funding is going to continue to decline, and

we have to embrace our decisionmaking that leads to continuing

programs that we can sustain at the local level once the funding

disappears.

Mr. CLAY. And the Washington Metro area is second tier or first?

Mr. GRIFFIN. We are first tier. We rank fourth in terms of the

amount of funds received behind New York City first, Los Angeles

second, Chicago third, D.C. fourth.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Illinois.

59

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and this is certainly my last question.

Mr. Griffin, the Transit First Coalition has called on WMATA’s

board of directors and member jurisdictions to look at alternatives

to cutting services, knowing that something has to occur. Are there

any other options that you might be thinking of that would provide

the opportunity to not cut services but continue to provide those

that are obviously greatly needed?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I can only speak from the perspective of Fairfax

County. In Virginia, a substantial amount of the operational funding, the operational subsidy that is provided to WMATA, is actually

provided by the local jurisdictions; and so it is a significant consideration.

When I prepare a budget for my board of supervisors, we have

over the years continued to support WMATA and have paid the

county’s share for both operational and for capital. We see that as

a very valuable investment. We do have to balance that against all

of the other activities that we have within the county.

I am not advocating that we give more, necessarily. What we do

is we take a balanced look at what our requirements are and what

is desirable in the way of service provided by WMATA. That is not

just the rail. It is also the bus service. We look at doing things collaboratively.

Fairfax County recently built a new bus maintenance facility in

the western part of the county. We collaborated with WMATA. It

is actually a shared facility. It meets WMATA’s requirements, and

it clearly meets our own requirements. We run a very large bus

system as well. So we look for collaborative ways to do business together to enhance the service but minimize the cost.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

The gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Mr. GOSAR. My colleagues bring up a good point. As a business

owner, there is only a limited amount of money here. So I want to

ask the question, I think one of the major concerns from the GAO

and the congressional fellows in regards to budget is we have a

problem and we want to know why we have a problem where we

have 80 percent of the funding not being used. Tell me, can you

provide us why we have funding with estimates of almost 80 percent of the Federal grant dollars that you have received have not

been used? Can we get a detail on that?

Mr. SARLES. Which grant program are you referring to?

Mr. GOSAR. Unused security grants.

Mr. SARLES. Unused security grants. I think there—and I will let

the Chief go into the details. But one of the issues in that particular case, I think we have obligated almost 100 percent of the

grants. But when you look at the process—unlike the FTA, when

you look at the process that is used by the agencies that provide

that funding, it is a different process. It is a very lengthy process

to get to the money. I will let the Chief go through the details on

it.

Chief TABORN. I think, as Mr. Sarles indicated, many of the

grants that we have received through the transit security grant

60

programs came to us oftentimes 161⁄2 months into a 30-month program. They also come with requirements that we have to do environmental, historic preservation. So there are a lot of different requirements.

And oftentimes when we make applications for those grants

using the design and technology that we applied for, that technology may have changed. So anytime there is a change, we have

to go back through the cycle, reach back out to FEMA, and submit

again.

It is not something that is unique to this transit agency. I think

you find the same thing with transit agencies across the country.

Internally, we are working to do everything that we can in the

most expedient manner to comply with FEMA, to comply with the

Department of Homeland Security, but there, too, there is a discussion of policy, which policies to use and which guidelines to go

through. And oftentimes transit agencies are waiting to find out

what it is that they need to do. Because we definitely would like

to expend that money. We have identified those projects, and all of

that money, as indicated by Mr. Sarles, has been obligated. But we

have to adhere to the requirements of FEMA or, in some of the

grants, the State administrative office.

Mr. GOSAR. So, in context, a lot of the problems have to do with

who has the jurisdictional aspects and the lack of a nimble Federal

Government and agency review; am I speaking clearly?

Chief TABORN. You’re absolutely correct.

Mr. GOSAR. Because I know I am one of those people that actually had to sponsor a jurisdictional problem over two agencies over

who had jurisdiction over a pipeline and who had the ground. It

has become obscene as a taxpayer, as a businessman, and as a citizen.

Mr. Sarles, my point comes back to you again. One size doesn’t

fit all. I heard a comment about having one set of standards. One

size does not fit all at all; does it?

Mr. SARLES. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I

want you to contrast in terms of Federal rules and grant making.

On the ARRA grants, I think we got $100 million. Maybe it was

$200 million. We have expended two-thirds of that. Because the

rules were different, the process for getting the money was different, and we were able to put it to work faster. And we see the

same thing when you look at formula funding grants from the FTA,

the rules are different. We are able to get through the process faster and be able to expend and get improvements from it.

Mr. GOSAR. So, to me, it seems like we should be evaluating

agencies based upon like a nonprofit; should we not? For example,

an agency like the Army Corps of Engineers, where you have a $3

million grant and only $1 million of it actually goes to the services,

the administrative costs within that of two-thirds is ridiculous.

So what we have to have is an agency that is much more nimble

and working with local and State facilities to make sure that more

of that dollar is actually spent and allow you the nimbleness to utilize it the way you see fit based upon the conditions here. Because

the conditions here are going to be a lot different than they are for

me in Arizona; are they not?

61

Mr. SARLES. I don’t know about Arizona, but I know here that

when we get the money we expend as fast as possible to get the

improvements to our customers.

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you.

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank our panel.

Ms. Holmes Norton was gracious enough to take me to meet

Chief Lanier, and then Chief Lanier was gracious enough to introduce me to her department, and that visit remains one of the highlights of my first 5 months. So, Chief Taborn, I would love—and

I don’t know whether Ms. Holmes Norton would be willing to take

me anywhere else or not. I think she probably will. She is very gracious.

Ms. NORTON. Anytime, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOWDY. I would love if she would allow me to join her to

visit you so I can know more about it and be a better advocate for

you and your officers.

Chief TABORN. Absolutely. We would be honored.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, and again I thank the guests for indulging us while we voted.

We will be adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Æ