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

42–324 PDF 2008

SECURING OUR PORTS: INFORMATION SHARING IS

KEY TO EFFECTIVE MARITIME SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

FINANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 10, 2006

Serial No. 109–253

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, FINANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania, Chairman

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA

MIKE HETTINGER, Staff Director

TABETHA MUELLER, Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 10, 2006 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Kelly, Ray, police commissioner, city of New York ........................................ 6

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 20

O’Brien, Captain Robert, Commander, Coast Guard Sector New York

and Captain, Port of New York and New Jersey; Bethann Rooney,

Security Manager, Port Commerce Department, Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey; and Stephen Caldwell, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................................................. 25

Caldwell, Stephen ...................................................................................... 53

O’Brien, Captain Robert ........................................................................... 25

Rooney, Bethann ....................................................................................... 35

Owens, Hon. Major R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 5

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 4

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

Kelly, Ray, police commissioner, city of New York, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 10

O’Brien, Captain Robert, Commander, Coast Guard Sector New York

and Captain, Port of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 27

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ...................................................... 3

Rooney, Bethann, Security Manager, Port Commerce Department, Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement of .............. 38

(1)

SECURING OUR PORTS: INFORMATION SHARING IS KEY TO EFFECTIVE MARITIME SECURITY

MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

FINANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Brooklyn, NY.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in Borough

Hall, 209 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY, Hon. Todd Russell

Platts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Platt, Towns, Maloney, and Owens.

Staff present: Mike Hettinger, staff director; and Tabetha

Mueller, professional staff member.

Mr. PLATTS. There is a quorum present.

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Finance, and Accountability will come to order.

Securing our Nation’s ports against potential terrorist attack has

become one of our Nation’s security priorities since September 11,

2001.

Given the fact that the ports are large, sprawling enterprises,

that often stretch across jurisdictional boundaries, the need to

share information among Federal, State and local governments, as

well as private entities, is central to effective prevention and response.

Today, the maritime system of the United States consists of more

than 300 sea and river ports, with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals, and more than 1,000 harbor channels spread

across thousands of miles of coastline.

The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Nation’s third largest

port, is critical to the economic vitality of the New York metropolitan region, as well as the entire east coast.

The Port of New York and New Jersey brings together diverse,

complex, and economically intertwined and competing interests

serving not only the States of New York and New Jersey, but also

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and my home State of

Pennsylvania.

Coordination between and amongst all of these entities is vital

for national security.

The U.S. Coast Guard has been designated as a lead Federal

agency, with responsibility of port security.

2

The Coast Guard, along with the New York Police Department

and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, has made significant progress in providing effective training for port security

here in this region.

There is more that needs to be done, however.

We are pleased to have with us today two panels; Mr. Ray Kelly,

police commissioner for the city of New York, Captain Robert

O’Brien, captain of the Port of New York and New Jersey, Ms.

Bethann Rooney, security manager of the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey, and Mr. Stephen Caldwell, from the U.S.

Government Accountability Office.

We appreciate all the witnesses being here today.

I will now yield to Mr. Towns for the purpose of an opening

statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts follows:]

3

4

STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Let me officially welcome you and the committee to the borough

of Brooklyn.

I thank you for holding this hearing on port security, and its

vital importance to the city of New York, and to our Nation.

I would like to welcome Commissioner Ray Kelly; also, Bethann

Rooney, Security Manager for the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey; Captain Robert O’Brien, commander of the Coast

Guard, and Captain of the Port of New York and New Jersey; and

Stephen Caldwell, acting Director of Homeland Security.

Thank you all for coming here today to testify on the vital issues

surrounding port security in the Nation’s greatest metropolis, New

York City.

This hearing could not be more timely or more important.

We New Yorkers really feel shortchanged by the current cuts in

Federal funding. New York City will receive 40 percent less than

the $207 million we received in 2005 to combat terrorism. How

could that be, if we are terrorists’ No. 1 target?

I’m sure that other cities have legitimate security needs, and obviously, there is only so much Federal money to go around. But

September 11th happened here in New York, almost 3 thousand

lives were lost. We have suffered the only foreign terrorist attack

on American soil.

How much does this city have to take?

Do we have to sustain another terrorist attack before we get the

money we need to protect our ports and our cities?

I sure hope not. I believe that we must have a firm commitment

from our Federal Government to make sure that New York City

gets the money it needs to protect our ports, and our city from the

real threats of terrorism.

That leads us to why we are here today.

Since September 11, 2001, our Nation has been forced to confront

the vulnerability of its ports. I applaud the Port Authority in its

work to make our ports safe and secure.

Port commerce remains a vital component of our local economy.

Cargo activity alone accounted for over 230,000 jobs. That’s due to

increased demand for imported goods. That’s $132 billion that have

passed through the Port Authority in only 1 year.

Certainly, the Federal Government has provided a key role in securing our ports. The Port Authority is working with the Federal

Government to secure its terminals and improve its screening procedures, with help from the Department of Homeland Security.

This includes programs like the Container Security Initiative,

and the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism.

In addition, the Port Authority recently completed its second

phase of Operation Safe Commerce that helps to secure products

passing through Port Authority facilities.

But this is only a beginning. We need a more effective security

clearance process, and a better worker ID procedures for port employees. We especially need the sharing of timely port security intelligence between the Federal, State and local governments.

5

We are not asking for the world, but we are asking for the dollars that we need as our New York City and New Jersey ports handle the world’s good. We cannot continue to have less than the best

possible protection of our ports.

They are very important to our city, our State, to our Nation,

and the world.

That means that we must restore the budget cuts from the Department of Homeland Security as we continue to work together to

ensure that the finest ports in our Nation are fully secured against

the threats of terrorism.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you Mr. Towns. We appreciate your well-stated reporting. And we will be working with you on these and other

ports around the country.

We are also pleased to be joined by Congressman Owens, and I

recognize Congressman Owens.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAJOR R. OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much.

I would briefly like to welcome the committee, thank you for coming to Brooklyn, and applaud Congressman Towns’ influence in getting you here today.

It is very important that you be here, and let the rest of the

world know that New York City is not only Manhattan. Brooklyn

is where most of the people live.

When the World Trade Center was bombed, the air pollutants

and the wind was easily blown right across the river to Park Slope

and parts of Brooklyn here. And the distance is quite small. We’ve

had polluted air blowing in the wind.

And it’s hard for me to get Washington to recognize that we have

a problem with certain parts of Brooklyn as to contamination.

Of course, the Park Slope community had large numbers of people who worked in the World Trade Center. And a number of our

families lost members there.

We are very much part of being on the front line in terms of

homeland security and concerns.

I hope that you being here will help ease the burden that has

been placed on the New York City legislators.

We should not be a burden. Every high school sophomore should

look at the geography of New York City, and look at the richness

of the monuments minutes, and kind of targets that we have here,

and understand that we are vulnerable. Many terrorists would like

to make a statement here. That’s what happened with the World

Trade Center.

It is unfortunate, and I apologize as a member of the Government, we should not have to fight our Government to make them

realize the freedom. If you’re going to officially distribute moneys

for Homeland Security, they should certainly address New York

City, in particular, in a special way. And our ports, of course, are

the most vulnerable targets in our city.

Congressman Shuman has said it many times, loudly, intelligently, and others have said it. There is not much more to be

said.

6

It is obvious that we need to address the port situation, and we

need to do it right away.

The fact that there is pressure on Washington to distribute

Homeland Security funds with some kind of special formula, in a

Federal way, to everybody, gets a little bit, has been ridiculous.

New York City does not get the fair share of agriculture. We

don’t have farms, we don’t ask for agriculture subsidies, and numerous other kind of distributions of funds that take place. It is ridiculous to talk about a fair share. We need to money to go where

it’s needed.

We know that this is on the minds of all elected officials. I can

think of occasions myself. It’s something that’s a pressure.

In the area of Homeland Security, we are the front line. So this

is strictly not biased, nondistrict. Let’s distribute the money strictly

based on terms of security and targets.

I’m hoping that you being here today will drive home the voice

of the New York City delegation. It’s common sense.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Congressman Owens.

We will now proceed to our first panel, our witness, Commissioner Kelly.

It is our practice to swear in all witnesses.

I ask you to stand to take the oath.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. PLATTS. Commissioner, we appreciate the written testimony

you provided us, and the floor is now yours.

STATEMENT OF RAY KELLY, POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF

NEW YORK

Commissioner KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Platts, Congressman Towns, Congressman Owens, thank you for inviting me today.

Security of New York City’s ports and waterways is a huge concern for the New York City Police Department.

Today I would like to discuss with you the range of maritime

counter-terrorism activities that we engage in, including our collaboration with the Federal agencies that bear the primary responsibility for port security.

In general, information sharing between the Department and our

Federal partners has never been better, and it is growing stronger

every day.

That is a credit to the various interagency initiatives that I will

discuss in a moment.

Without question, these have improved our joint efforts to protect

the homeland certainly in New York City.

At the same time, the complex, diffused nature of port management and security leaves these facilities vulnerable to exploitation

by terrorist cells or networks.

At the end of the day, we are still left with the question of who

is really in charge of protecting our ports.

In actuality, it is a responsibility shared among the scores of

public and private stakeholders present at the ports, a situation

that creates its own set of challenges.

Two recent cases highlight why we should be concerned about

the security of our ports.

7

In 2003, working through the Joint Terrorist Task Force, the Police Department took part in an investigation that resulted in the

arrest of a Queens-based Pakistani national, Uzair Paracha, and

his father, for conspiring to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

The family owned a clothing import business in Manhattan’s garment district.

In Pakistan, they plotted with September 11th mastermind

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to use shipping containers controlled by

that company to smuggle weapons and explosives into New York

for delivery to Al Qaeda operatives.

Fortunately, they were arrested before that could happen.

We are not certain if Paracha’s plan would have included recruiting operatives to pick up the deadly cargo at its port of entry. What

we do know, this task probably would have been accomplished easily, given the lax security check in place in our ports.

As was reported in the media this past March, a recent Federal

investigation exposed the minimal identification requirements for

truck drivers seeking access to New York and New Jersey terminals. Many were revealed to have serious criminal records, and

they were not required to disclose in their applications, including

21 individuals who had outstanding warrants.

The Federal Government has sought to address this problem

with the creation of a secure, biometric ‘‘smart card’’ for workers

at critical transportation facilities. However, that program has experienced significant delays and is not expected to be fully implemented until late 2007, at the earliest.

In contrast, progress in the area of information sharing has been

far more expeditious.

As you know, the Police Department takes part in a number of

interagency initiatives with the Federal Government to gather and

assess potential terrorist threats against critical infrastructure.

They include the Joint Terrorist Task Force with the FBI. We

currently assign over 120 New York City Detectives to that task

force, up from the seventeen investigators posted there on September 11, 2001.

Any threat information received through the JTTF that is related

to ports or waterways is shared and analyzed with the U.S. Coast

Guard’s Field Intelligence Support Team, or ‘‘FIST.’’

As part of our excellent working relationship with the Coast

Guard, the Police Department assigns a detective to ‘‘FIST,’’ which

also includes liaisons from numerous other Federal and State agencies.

In addition, we work with the Coast Guard and other agencies

through the Area Maritime Security Committees. Members of our

Intelligence Division, Counterterrorism Bureau and Harbor Unit

regularly participate in meetings of the Intelligence and Response

and Recovery Subcommittees.

I also want to note a new Port Intelligence Center concept that

we are currently developing with DHS agencies.

The center, which will be housed at a DHS facility, will focus on

intelligence collection within the Port of New York and New Jersey.

Turning to our physical protection of the waterways. The Police

Department currently deploys more assets to protect New York

Harbor than any other single agency. Our harbor units joint with

8

the Coast Guard in boarding high profile vessels, like the Queen

Mary 2, so as to provide additional security when it enters local

waters.

We also jointly enforce restricted zones for ships during events

such as the U.N. General Assembly. In addition, police dive teams

routinely inspect docking facilities and ship hulls for signs of tampering.

Our Special Operations Division has conducted drills in which

police officers fast rope from helicopters onto ferries and party

boats operating in New York Harbor. And we are prepared to do

the same thing, if confronted with a real need.

Our Harbor, Scuba and Aviation units have also drilled in exercises with the U.S. Park Police in responding to mock incidents at

the Statue of Liberty.

And under our ‘‘Nexus’’ program, detectives routinely visit port

warehouses, trucking companies and importers. They work with

employees in these businesses to train them to report any suspicious activity.

As much as the Police Department and its law enforcement partners are doing at the local level, I also want to highlight the critical

need for an effective international program to pre-screen cargo.

The fact is the last place that we should be looking to intercept

a container that has been co-opted by terrorists is in a busy, congested and commercially vital port.

Ultimately, we should see to it that every container that arrives

in a U.S. port has been pre-screened.

In Hong Kong, the public-private partnership that operates the

port has developed a prototype in which 100 percent of the cargo

that passes through its facilities is inspected for radiation and density distortions.

The system guarantees that any container shipped to the port is

thoroughly inspected for weapons of mass destruction.

I’ve been to Hong Kong and seen the incredible volume of cargo

moving through that port. If it can be done there, it can be done

anywhere.

We need to replicate that system locally.

A 100 percent scanning regime is doable. It is effective, and it’s

affordable, especially when compared to the disastrous cost of a

weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the country.

In a little publicized port security war game conducted in 2002,

terrorists attacked the United States with dirty bombs sent in shipping containers. One hypothetical bomb was detected. The other

was not.

It blew up in Chicago, and closed every U.S. seaport for more

than a week. It also caused the Dow stock index to drop 500 points,

and resulted in $58 billion in damage.

This is the kind of nightmare scenario that we have to prevent.

Unfortunately, the fact that New York City’s Federal

counterterrorism funding was just cut by 40 percent isn’t going to

help.

The Police Department had intended, for example, to use that

funding in the new initiative to secure lower Manhattan with a

comprehensive new camera network and other technology. It is not

clear now if we will be able to do that.

9

As if the decision to reduce the City’s share of Federal dollars

wasn’t baffling enough, last week, the public learned of the latest

terrorist plot to attack the Hudson River tunnels.

It is a further reminder of Al Qaeda’s enduring obsession to target the world’s financial capital, not just its ports, but also its

bridges, its tunnels and its subways.

It is a wake-up call that more must be done to harden New

York’s infrastructure, across the board, if we are to prevent disaster, and defeat the terrorists.

Thank you for inviting me today, and I’ll be happy to answer any

questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

And we appreciate you being here, and also, the service of yourself and all the men and women in the New York City Police Department day in and day out, in the service to the citizens of New

York City and the terrorists that come through the city of New

York.

Commissioner KELLY. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PLATTS. A couple of issues that I would like to touch on.

The funding issue, that is of real concern to New York and other

urban areas.

And in some of the analysis regarding the urban area security

initiative where now we look at both risk and effectiveness of the

proposed use of grant funds.

And New York was ranked No. 1 in the risk assessment, but not

ranked high in effectiveness.

I’m curious as to what, if any, feedback the City received in

guidelines in preparing the grant applications, requests that have

been submitted, or since the decision has been made as to why

your proposals perhaps weren’t scored by the peer review panel as

high as others.

Commissioner KELLY. Well, first let me say that the application

itself was prepared by Office of Management and Budget. The Police Department is only one agency that submits a plan, and submits a request.

I, myself, have not received what I would consider to be an adequate explanation of the analysis, or the evaluation process that

has gone forward, and I haven’t met anybody who has. I haven’t

met anybody who can explain it.

The explanation keeps changing, as far as the evaluation of our

effectiveness is concerned.

So it’s difficult for me to answer your question.

I know that we, as an agency, the Police Department, adhere to

all of the Department of Homeland Security guidelines, as far as

the requests were concerned.

I think there were some changes made in the application, the

OMB application. I believe that was made after discussion with

Homeland Security officials.

Mr. PLATTS. And given, as you reference, the disclosure this past

week regarding the targeting of the tunnels, the importance of us

adequately filling our commitments to New York as a No. 1 likely

target, one of the other aspects besides funding is information sharing.

And in our second panel, we will get into a little detail as to how

we stand in that.

From your perspective as police commissioner, how do you see information sharing with regard to port security as compared to

other aspects of homeland security for the city of New York?

Commissioner KELLY. I think information sharing is good. And

port security information sharing is part of a larger process of information sharing.

And all indications are that all agencies are willing to share information, and they have, obviously, there are some constraints as

far as security clearances are concerned, but once that’s addressed,

the information is shared.

15

I believe that the area maritime security committees that have

been set up are effective, and it’s working well here in New York.

The information that I have, those are committees that have

Federal, State and local representatives, and private sector stakeholders, as well.

I think that vehicle is effective. It’s particularly helpful when we

have major events here in New York. We have 146 square miles

of water here in New York Harbor. We have many major events

on the water. For instance, just on July 4th we had hundreds of

pleasure craft, party boats—actually, big cruise ships here for the

fireworks display.

And I’m told that the coordination was excellent.

Mr. PLATTS. On the security clearance issues, specifically, I know

there has been some great improvements made in getting the security clearances through the pipeline.

Is the Police Department still experiencing problems, delays, in

that area, or have changes been made to help to kind of speed up

that process?

Commissioner KELLY. We still have some problems in that regard. Part of it is the fact that, of course, we are rotating people

in and out. People retire, they have to go through the process

again.

Unlike Federal agencies, where if you come on board in certain

jobs, you’re going to have a security clearance, that s a requirement

for the job.

That’s not the case in the Police Department. It depends on your

specific assignment.

It’s a bit of a challenge for us.

But you’re right, the procedure has improved. I would like to see

it even quicker than it is now.

Mr. PLATTS. In relation to the clearance issue, is there any intelligence information that you believe is available through the Federal entities that your department, even with clearances, doesn’t

have available access the way we should, or things that you working on?

Commissioner KELLY. I think that we are, as an agency, we have

access to that information. Certain people in the agency may not

have it, but we as, an agency, will have people with the appropriate clearance.

There are certain units that we have, that have the adequate

clearances to receive the information.

So I can’t think of any examples where we are not getting information that I think we should have.

Mr. PLATTS. One final question before I yield to my colleagues.

In your testimony you talk about the identity requirements on

accessing the ports, truck drivers and long-term security, as the intent of the smart card, perhaps sometime in 2007, maybe best case

scenario.

Where would you say we stand today to address the type of

failings of identity checks in the past? Where is that identity check

process?

Commissioner KELLY. I think we have a long way to go.

We do have a Waterfront Commission here in the Port of New

York. They do a certain amount of vetting.

16

In fact, you have to have a waterfront clearance to work in the

ports, or certain functions in the ports.

I think that procedure could probably be perhaps one that delves

a little deeper, and done a little more effectively than it has so far

been done.

So we have talked to the Waterfront Commission folks.

But I think that we could all be helped if that procedure was

made more effective and more in-depth.

So we await the Homeland Security’s initiatives. So the biometric

card, I think, would be a big step in the right direction.

Mr. PLATTS. Are we at a stage where at least we are better vetting the criminals and those with known records?

Commissioner KELLY. Yes.

Mr. PLATTS. Actually, outstanding warrants. That’s not defeating

itself?

Commissioner KELLY. Yes. I think the background checks, the

criminal background checks, are going forward. And yes, I think

that’s reasonably effective.

But I think we need more to be done in that area, more to be

done, in a deeper examination.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Commissioner.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Towns.

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

Thank you, again, Commissioner Kelly, for coming.

There are always statements and rumors about the lack of communication.

Do you feel comfortable today in terms of communications between the various agencies that have responsibility for making certain that our ports are secured?

Commissioner KELLY. Yes, I do.

As I said before, Congressman, I believe these areas, the maritime security committees that have been put in place, are an effective vehicle to foster that communication and coordination.

I believe we are talking now, we are communicating now, better

than we ever have before, and as far as the ports are concerned,

that’s a vehicle that we have facilitated.

Mr. TOWNS. If someone asks a question about who is responsible

for the security of our ports, what would be the answer?

Commissioner KELLY. It’s not an easy answer to give.

In 2000, I was the U.S. Customs Commissioner, I co-chaired a

committee on security in our ports.

One of the conclusions that we came to is, if you see one port,

you’ve seen one port. They all look different, they are all, the jurisdictions, there are multiple jurisdictions, no two ports look alike.

It’s not easy to answer that question.

Certainly, the Coast Guard has a significant responsibility, but

then you have multiple jurisdictions.

In New York, you have New York and New Jersey.

You have New York City, New York State. You have cities in

New Jersey. You have a Waterfront Commission. You have Federal

agencies that are involved, customs and border protection.

You have Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Those are multiple agencies, multiple State, and local, Federal

agencies that are involved.

17

There is no one agency that’s in charge of security in the ports

throughout the country.

Having said that, again, the communication, the improved communication that we have, and coordination, I think goes a long way

to addressing some of the concerns that existed in the past.

We had no one in charge, we didn’t have very good communication. Now we have much better communication than we’ve had in

the past, much better coordination.

Mr. TOWNS. Now with the cuts, Operation Atlas, which everyone

had so much hope for, is that in jeopardy now, without the money?

Commissioner KELLY. Which program, sir?

Mr. TOWNS. Operation Atlas.

Commissioner KELLY. Well. No, Atlas is a program where we

take large numbers of uniformed officers and deploy them at sensitive locations throughout the city.

We are going to continue to do that program. We’re using local

funds to do it.

The Mayor has made it clear that he will find the money to enable us to do that.

But our counter-terrorism efforts in New York City, in the Police

Department alone, averages about $200 million a year. And the

Atlas program is a portion of that.

So we are going to continue to do it. We think it’s very important

to have booths on the ground, technology can only do so much.

Yes, we want additional cameras, we want license plate readers.

But there is nothing like having a uniformed police presence at

locations that we are concerned about.

So we’re going to continue to use our police officers in our Atlas

program in a comprehensive way.

Mr. TOWNS. It seems unfair that we are cutting funds, knowing

that the need is so great. That sort of bothers me, to be honest with

you.

When we look at the formula, when you look at the risk factor,

how do you feel about that?

It seems to me that money should be based on risk.

I think Congressman Owens is right when he said that we need

to put the money where we know that the problems are going to

be.

And the fact that New York has already been hit, it’s not something that—we know about September 11th.

So it seems to me that being we are very much aware of what

happened on September 11th, and knowing in terms of the fact

that we have all these buildings and possible threats, a strong

rumor about the Brooklyn Bridge, which you and your department

did a fantastic job in avoiding that, and we appreciate that.

But don’t you think that risk should be the key factor, if you’re

giving out money?

Commissioner KELLY. Absolutely.

There’s no question about it.

If you look at all of the analysis, both the classified analysis, the

public analysis, there is no city in America that is anywhere close

to being at risk the way New York City is.

We are on top of the terrorists’ targets, we’re in the cross hairs,

as we say.

18

And when we examined, or when there was a big public concern

about the distribution of funds, or the reduction in funds, this came

out when Congressman King and others talked about the fact, in

closed door sessions, that it was obvious that no other city in America comes close to New York in terms of the risk factors, and the

threat information that comes in.

There is no doubt in my mind.

Yes, there are other cities, there are other locations that are at

risk, but you just can’t, in good conscience, cut New York City 40

percent, when you’re aware of, when you’re given the information

that New York is far and away the city that is most threatened by

terrorism.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

And thank you for your dedication to the city.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Owens.

Mr. OWENS. Yes. Commissioner.

I noticed you mentioned in your statement that you had not been

apprised of the evaluation results, what things were found to be

wrong in your evaluation that was done, the plan submitted by

New York.

I have seen at least one article where the columnist said that

part of New York’s problem was the Homeland Security people in

Washington didn’t think that you had done anything new with the

funds that were available. And a large percentage of the money

was spent just on covering overtime, covering things that you always do.

So I wonder if you can address the situation in terms of, first of

all, is the Police Department being asked to do too much in this

situation in terms of taking on new responsibilities, when there are

demands that are ongoing.

There are some things that only the police can do.

When it comes to certain other surveillance, some other types of

things that can be done to secure our ports, there may be other

agencies that can also do that, but the police can do it better.

The police have other things to do that only they can do, and

they are police officers with weapons.

So is there a need for a clear distinction of what you can do, and

what you do best, and a definition of what else is needed, and if

more people are needed, Customs, whatever, or maybe there is a

new set of divisions that are needed somewhere in terms of the ongoing need to maintain security in our ports.

This is going to be a thing with scanning machines and modern

equipment, manpower. Manpower, human power, is low.

So should the police be having too great a portion of that burden?

Commissioner KELLY. Who else is there to do it?

Mr. OWENS. There are parts that only you can do.

Commissioner KELLY. Well, we have a city of 8.1 million people

here.

Mr. OWENS. But the ports is something new.

Commissioner KELLY. I’m sorry?

Mr. OWENS. Securing the ports is something new.

Commissioner KELLY. Securing the ports?

Mr. OWENS. That’s something new added to your regular duties.

19

Commissioner KELLY. When you say securing the ports, there are

other agencies. Obviously, the Port Authority has a major role in

securing the ports.

We don’t have a presence on the piers, you know, immediately

at the piers.

What we are doing is patrolling the waterways here. We have 26

police launches. We are working closely with the Coast Guard.

There are other maritime agencies. The State Police has a presence here.

But nobody has an agency that comes close to us in size. There

are no other resources available.

So we will take help from any quarter, and I would welcome your

recommendation, or suggestion, as to who else there is out there

to help us.

If you’re talking about more resources to help us protect the

ports, from Federal agencies, I’m all for it.

Mr. OWENS. I just wanted to clarify the situations.

Are you being asked to do more than you can do with your help,

and then you’re criticized because you use additional moneys, resources, to pay overtime, because you use the same people, but

they are doing more.

How do you get out of that bind?

Can you work with the other agencies? Who can do what best,

and how you should not be burdened.

Commissioner KELLY. We will take help from any quarter.

But we still have not had a coherent explanation as to why those

funds were reduced 40 percent.

You said you’ve seen articles. I haven’t seen an article.

One of the categories that said that we were insufficient in was

sustainability.

We have been sustaining protection of the city since September

11th as far as our kind of terrorism programs are concerned.

We have the biggest counterterrorism bureau in the country. We

are the first in a municipal police agency.

We formed our Intelligence Division. We have police officers

funded by private sources, by the way, that are overseas.

I think the rest of the law enforcement world is coming to New

York, to see what we are doing.

So I think we’ve done a lot of innovative things here, and I think

we sustained it for almost 5 years now.

You just can’t comprehend what their explanations are as to why

New York shouldn’t get money. It doesn’t stand the light of day.

If you’re looking at it in depth, as I say, nobody has explained

it adequately.

We are doing what we believe we have to. If anyone else wants

to come along and add resources here, more law enforcement personnel, in the harbor, protecting our ports, we welcome that.

Mr. OWENS. Well, how much are your precincts involved in training local citizens for preparedness?

Is that a city-wide policy with respect to all the precincts, one

point or another, they are involved in local groups?

Commissioner KELLY. When you say local groups, we have several initiatives in that regard. We have auxiliary police officers in

20

our precincts. These are volunteers. We have about 5,000 of those

throughout the city.

There are CERT’s, there are citizen emergency response teams.

We have some of them in our police precincts.

The overall obligation of training those CERT’s is with the Office

of Emergency Management.

We are also involved in training them, as well.

Then there are several volunteer groups, citizen patrol groups,

that we work closely with.

Not every precinct has them. Some precincts in Brooklyn, and

some in Queens, have citizen patrol groups that we work closely

with.

We also welcome that. We welcome citizen involvement. We

stand ready to train any group that wants to get involved in helping us protect the city.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

Mr. PLATTS. I’m pleased to be joined by Ms. Maloney, from New

York. She might have a statement, as well as questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much.

First, I would like to thank you, Chairman Platt, and Ranking

Member Towns, for bringing attention to this terrorists threat area

as No. 1 in our Nation.

And before my statement on port security, I would like to followup on the excellent questioning of Congressman Owens to our Police Commissioner Kelly. With a cut of $123 million to the high threat area grant program, $83 million came out of the hide of New York City.

No matter how they sliced it or tried to explain how that happened, anyone with any common sense knows that it is just plain

wrong.

And I would like to appeal to Chairman Platts and Ranking

Member Towns to have a hearing back here in New York City with

Federal people, and our Police Commissioner, and others, on that

funding formula.

I find it highly ironic that people come from all across this country, literally across the world, to come to New York, to learn how

to protect people.

By all categories, New York has the best, the brightest, the finest

police department.

I can’t tell you how many countries say, can you get the Police

Commissioner to come over here and tell us how to defend people.

And in the formula, the City filled it out for what we needed. The

9/11 Commission said we needed intelligence, that it’s a new type

of war, that’s very, very dependent on intelligence, on people, on

having the police on the Brooklyn Bridge to foil the attacks that

have been reported several times on that particular bridge.

Yet then they said that our application was wrong, because the

best police department in the world that everybody studied how

they defend against terrorism, said we are putting our resources

into what we think we need, which is intelligence, people, people

on the ground, people defending.

21

And they said that was wrong, it should have been a concrete

item.

Well, how many scandals have we read in the papers about concrete items that have been spent all across this country to various

places that they will never absolutely ever use.

And I would like to commission a GAO report on how this high

threat money has been spent on concrete items, and whether they

have ever even been used.

I think it is a scandal beyond words what happened in that formula. It was a disgrace to our country, it was a disgrace to anyone

who is serious about Homeland Security.

It makes a mockery of the entire system.

New York City got roughly $2.15 per capita. Wyoming gets roughly $15 per person, and at rush hour, there are more buffalo

in Wyoming than people.

So it really—I feel it really was not our finest hour.

After September 11th, this country came together, and we were

determined to combat terrorists. That formula is an absolute disgrace. We are trying to correct it.

I really appeal to them to have a hearing on it.

But the topic of today is port security, which is really incredibly

important. And one does not have to look far beyond the Dubai

Ports world fiasco to realize that we simply have not been paying

enough attention to the security of our ports.

I am very proud to have authored HR5337, the National Security

First Act, which has been reported out of the Financial Services

Committee with a unanimous vote, and we hope to pass that before

we adjourn by August.

And this would reform the process that conducted the national

security review of that deal, and we have a lot more work to do before our ports will be secured.

Especially when we consider that every year we have approximately 9 million containers entering our ports, that we only inspect

a small fraction, 5 percent.

In Hong Kong they inspect every single container that goes into

their port. We can do the same thing in our own country.

In the 9/11 Commission report, they stated that terrorists had

the opportunity, this is from the 9/11 Commission report—‘‘the opportunity to do harm as great or greater than maritime and service

transportation’’ than the September 11th can.

Yet GAO has previously reported that staffing imbalances in seaports has resulted in 35 percent of high risk containers not being

inspected overseas. If they were inspected overseas, the work of our

people here in the city would be a lot less, yet it’s not happening.

Since September 11th we have spent $780 million for Port Authority to strengthen port security activity, but port operators are

on record stating that there is a $1.5 billion gap between what is

required to implement security measures, and what the administration has been willing to support.

Incredibly, the administration sought to eliminate the port security grant program in their fiscal 2007 budget in favor of a targeted

infrastructure protection grant, which would force ports to compete

for very limited resources, with mass transit, rail, and other critical

infrastructure.

22

I don’t know about you, but this reminds my of the Homeland

Security fiasco and the high threat grants.

First, the Homeland Security high threat grants went to seven

cities. Then they expanded it to thirty cities. Now they’ve expanded

it even more.

They are doing the same thing with the port grant program, putting it into a pot that will weaken the dollars that go to high threat

ports.

And we all know the outcome of the ‘‘reform’’ of the high threat

initiative, 40 percent of the cuts in high threat funding for New

York and D.C., a 40 percent cut for the two cities that, by all accounts, are the highest threat in our country.

And I hope that your appearance today will set the groundwork

for a new course when it comes to port security.

And my question that I would like to ask the Police Commissioner was a report that came out from GAO which really spearheaded this, that many of the people who should be getting clearances for port security were not getting clearances in the local

area.

I know that’s not your particular area, but as we know, the 9/

11 Commission report said that intelligence, the feet on the ground,

and our local communities are the first to respond, the first to hear

of a threat, and play an important part.

So my question to you is, are your people getting the security

clearance that you need to be fully informed of threats that the

Federal Government, under the National Intelligence Division, or

the FBI, CIA, or other intelligence-gathering organizations, are you

within the loop? Are you being shared the threats that they are

hearing? Are you hearing it firsthand, are you hearing it on the

daily news shows at night?

Are you getting the clearances, are you part of that intelligence

information setup?

Commissioner KELLY. Congresswoman, before you arrived, we

addressed that issue.

And the answer generally is yes. I would like to see the procedure made a little bit more streamlined, a little quicker. But generally speaking, the system has improved.

It has become a little bit more efficient. I think it needs a way

to go.

But we are getting our clearances.

Mrs. MALONEY. You’re getting your clearances?

Commissioner KELLY. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. And you’re getting the information?

Commissioner KELLY. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you know about the threat down in Florida,

where they went into a cell before it was reported on the news, or

did you just learn about it from the news?

Commissioner KELLY. We knew of the investigation that was ongoing, yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, and thank you for your

public service.

Commissioner KELLY. Thank you.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Ms. Maloney.

And I appreciate your participation.

23

On the issue of the distribution formula, the full committee did

a hearing a few weeks back, it did lead into the broader issue of

how this was being implemented.

I think you raised very legitimate concerns. And it is an issue

that has been continued to be scrutinized.

And the Commissioner outlined the needs here.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you for bringing that up.

And I did attend the hearing that Chairman Davis had.

At that hearing, there were many Members of the Congress from

the D.C. area, and they said publicly that the real threat was New

York City.

And I would just like to respectfully request a hearing on New

York City.

And specifically, the point that has been in the papers that New

York City has spent high threat money in areas that they believe

will best protect the American people, and New Yorkers and citizens visiting our city.

It was their determination, these grant makers decided that was

not how the money should have been spent, they should have been

buying oxygen tents, or something else. I don’t know.

But I think that it goes to the core of good government. It goes

to the core of protecting our people.

And I really would like to appeal for a hearing in the city, where

the city professionals are, that can explain why they believe the

high threat is what it is, and why they believe that is what should

be funded.

But to me, the disconnect that people come to New York to study

how to defend their local area, even their foreign countries, and

then, when they say this is how we need to spend the money, and

then this group—I don’t know where they’re from—comes in.

I read one report they were hired, they were advertising—comes

in and said the money should not be spent that way.

I mean that is a fundamental question that I think needs to be

answered.

And I want to say that I support the Police Commissioner for

speaking up for what he thinks needs to be done to protect people,

and for being honest.

He could fill out an application that talks about hardware that

he doesn’t need. He didn’t do that. He said this is what we need

to protect people, and that was turned down as not an appropriate

answer.

Yet then everybody comes to New York, tells us how to protect

ourselves.

So I’m very, very disturbed.

It’s absolutely wrong.

And I think that the debate on the substance has never really

taken place, and I think it needs to be.

Mr. PLATTS. All of us share the belief that Commissioner Kelly

and those on the front lines are better prepared to make a decision

on how best to invest the resources than others far removed from

the front lines.

That is an issue we will take back to the committee.

Specifically to appeal here in New York to the house rule does

not allow us to have one between now and February, because of

24

how close we are to the New York primary, and then the general

election.

But perhaps we can have one sooner, or after November here in

New York.

But it is an issue that certainly need to be investigated.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. TOWNS. No questions.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for sharing his expertise

with us. I really appreciate it.

People come from all over to learn from our Commissioner and

his staff.

It seems to me they should also listen when he says, ‘‘I need resources.’’

Thank you very much.

Mr. PLATTS. Commissioner, again, we appreciate your testimony.

And as one who is married to an upstate New Yorker, but who

looks back with her 2 years here in the East Village, where she

lived after college, very fondly, and it’s always great, because I

have my own personal tour guide when we come to the city.

I appreciate the effort of you and the uniformed members under

your command, what a great job you do.

Thank you.

Commissioner KELLY. Thank you very much.

Mr. PLATTS. We will take a 2-minute recess, while we get the

second panel set.

[Recess.]

Mr. PLATTS. We will reconvene.

We have Captain Robert O’Brien, Commander of the Coast

Guard, and Captain of the Port of New York and New Jersey; Ms.

Bethann Rooney, security manager, Port Commerce Department,

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Mr. Stephen

Caldwell, Acting Director, Homeland Security Justice Issues, U.S.

Government Accountability Office.

I ask the three of you, now that you are seated, I ask you to

stand and raise your right hands to be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you.

The clerk will note that all three witnesses affirmed the oath.

They we will go from right to left.

Captain O’Brien, the floor is yours.

And we do have your written testimony, and as I call it, my

homework leading up to the hearing.

We appreciate all three of you sharing your testimony with us.

And if you would like to summarize it, however you see fit to

present your oral testimony now.

25

STATEMENTS OF CAPTAIN ROBERT O’BRIEN, COMMANDER,

COAST GUARD SECTOR NEW YORK AND CAPTAIN, PORT OF

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY; BETHANN ROONEY, SECURITY

MANAGER, PORT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY; AND STEPHEN

CALDWELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND

JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

STATEMENT OF ROBERT O’BRIEN

Captain O’BRIEN. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the

committee, fellow port partners.

It’s a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard’s role

and how information sharing between Federal, State and local authorities and private industry enhances our efforts to better secure

U.S. ports, especially here in the Port of New York.

I serve as commander of Coast Guard Center, New York. Our

service is the largest East Coast field command.

My mission is to focus on two major operational processes, prevention and response, in support of our services’ five fundamental

roles, national defense, maritime security, maritime safety, maritime mobility, and protection of natural resources.

This port is an economic engine. We cannot afford, as a Nation,

to have it closed, even partially, for any extended period of time.

Effective information sharing allows us to plan not only for deterrence of attacks, and other unsafe happenings in the port, but also,

a reopening strategy, and effective recovery of the port transportation system.

I use the term ‘‘port transportation system’’ because that really

includes the air, land and the maritime.

The U.S. Coast Guard has taken on the 9/11 Commission’s and

the Department of Homeland Security’s challenges for combatting

terrorism in the maritime domain, especially in regards to improving our role in information sharing.

Reliable actionable information that is shared effectively is key

to our ability to address threats, reduce vulnerabilities, become better risk-based decisionmakers, and manage the consequences of incidents, man-made or naturally occurring.

We place a premium on the information sharing to identify and

intercept threats well before they reach U.S. shores by conducting

layered, multi-agency maritime security operations, and by

strengthening the port security posture of our strategic economic

and military ports.

I can think of no other model of interagency cooperation which

has adapted, overcome and persevered through the attack on our

own soil on September 11, 2001, through the varied challenges we

face today.

Like the partnerships here in New York, and the Port of New

York and New Jersey, thanks to the cooperation, dedication and

hard work of Federal, State, county, city and borough agencies, as

well as the Port Authority and various levels of government, and

many, many other private sector port partners, we have increased

26

transportation security in our port by air, water and on land, both

surface and subsurface.

And we have protected national treasures and icons, such has

the Statue of Liberty and the United Nations, unique to this international gateway port.

We have enhanced information sharing through the use of interagency fusion centers, security committees, increased maritime domain awareness, and the daily routine of information exchanged

with port partners that has been implemented and refined to mitigate and prevent threats, while also being mindful of maritime

safety, since safety and security are really two sides of the same

coin.

As an example, our Coast Guard Field Intelligence Support Team

here in New York, as mentioned before by Commissioner Kelly, is

a one-stop interagency maritime intelligence center, including coordination and deconfliction of intelligence-based operations, as

well as tracking of investigations with a maritime nexus.

Essentially, fusion centers are force multipliers for all participants.

The overall successor of the FIST partnership largely depends on

the relations between individual representatives of each agency.

In New York, these are strong relationships, have been essential

in ensuring that all affected parties have been notified of a significant incident, even if the agency notified is not a participant in a

fusion center.

The Area Maritime Security Committee, Harbor Operations

Committee, and Army Corps of Engineers Senior Partners Program

Group are three more examples in my written testimony of the

tools by which the information and operational coordination takes

place here in the port.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the efforts and leadership of this

very committee have played a significant role in all of these improvements and achievements for our entire military, civilian, and

volunteer auxiliary Coast Guard team.

We thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

And we thank all of our port partners for everything they do in

concert with us as equal partners to meet our daily challenges as

a unified force.

We will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Captain O’Brien follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Captain O’Brien.

Ms. Rooney.

STATEMENT OF BETHANN ROONEY

Ms. ROONEY. Chairman Platt, Ranking Member Towns, members

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the

important issue of Homeland Security, particularly with regards to

our Nation’s ports.

95 percent of international goods that come into the country

come in through our Nation’s 361 ports. 12 percent of that volume

alone is right here in the Port of New York and New Jersey. We support 232,000 jobs, $12.6 billion in wages, contribute $2.1

billion in State and local tax revenues, and transport cargo valued

at over $132 billion.

Perhaps most importantly is that the cargo that moves through

this port serves approximately 80 million people, which equates to

35 percent of the entire U.S. population.

Considering all this, it’s easy to see how a terrorist incident in

our Nation’s ports would have a devastating effect on our country

and its economy.

As a result of significant legislative action, capital investments,

and operational improvements on the part of public and private

sectors in the nearly 5 years since September 11th, the maritime

transportation system is more secure today than ever before.

But enhancing maritime security is a complex problem, which requires a multifaceted and layered approach.

Maritime security is so much more than just the physical security of our ports and terminals, and the vessels that use them, but

also enhancing cargo and supply chain security.

In addition to preventing another terrorist attack, we must also

work on developing comprehensive programs that address not only

prevention, but awareness, response, consequence management and

business recovery, as well.

As Congresswoman Maloney mentioned earlier, one of the principal outcomes of the work of the 9/11 Commission was a determination that information sharing and collaboration at all levels of

government was less than adequate.

Therefore, I’d like to briefly describe a number of initiatives that

enhance communication and coordination among all of the Federal,

State and local partners, as well as our private sector members.

Immediately after September 11th, the Port Authority formed

two committees in order to facilitate the exchange of critical security information and best practices between and among our customers, and the Federal, State and local law enforcement and

emergency response communities that serve them.

Our tenant security working group meets a minimum of monthly,

and more often, as the threat level increases. This working group

provides a forum for port users to exchange lessons learned, share

best practices, develop programs, and solicit feedback from our Federal and State partners on issues of concern.

This environment ensures that port security is not a competitive

issue, but rather, an all hand evolution.

The Port Authority also sponsors a Law Enforcement Security

Committee. This Law Enforcement Security Committee brings toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Jun 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\42324.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
36

gether the approximately 25 Federal, State and local law enforcement and emergency response agencies that have responsibilities

within our port region.

Also held monthly or as often as the threat dictates, this forum

provides an opportunity for the exchange of intelligence, discussion

about discrete security programs and initiatives, and planning of

joint drills, exercises and training.

In addition to these two forums, both Commissioner Kelly and

Captain O’Brien have mentioned the Area Maritime Security Committee, the objective of which is to continually assess security risk

to the ports, determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies, and

to develop, revise and implement the area maritime security plan.

The Area Maritime Security Committee here in the Port of New

York and New Jersey is made up over forty Federal, State and

local private organizations that have a stake in port security.

Executive leadership from each of these organizations gets together on a monthly basis to coordinate port wide activities and

initiatives, receive intelligence briefings, and help the Captain of

the port develop security policies and procedures.

Our Area Maritime Security Committee has recently completed

the development of a 2-year strategic plan, and a structural reorganization, to ensure that we are proactive and able to address the

myriad of goals and objectives that were identified in the strategic

plan.

Of particular note to this committee is that we have a number

of subcommittees specifically focusing on communications and intelligence, and are a good example of how well things are working.

While it has not yet been an issue in the Port of New York and

New Jersey, the lack of proper security clearances for key State,

local and private stakeholders has the potential to be a significant

barrier to an effective response to a credible security threat.

The Area Maritime Security Committee was allocated about 10

security clearances in early 2005. That’s 10 security clearances for

the second highest risk port in the Nation.

In the event of a credible threat, there is no way to communicate

above the security sensitive information level to many of the AMSC

executive members, and the vast majority of the 197 facility security officers in the port.

Congress and the administration must find ways to expedite the

processing of security clearances, especially for those individuals

that have previously held clearances, and to cross honor clearances

that were issued by another department or agency.

In order to help with coordination and communication, we also

support the concept of a joint operation center, to enhance collaboration, coordination and communication.

While we would do not currently have such a center here in New

York and New Jersey, the Port Authority is working on an innovative virtual alternative to a physical joint operation center called

the Regional Joint Awareness Network, or RIJAN.

RIJAN would tie together individual agencies, disparate operation centers virtually, as opposed to requiring everybody to sit in

one particular building.

Finally, in the area of supply change security, the Port Authority

is involved in the Operation Safe Commerce pilot project.

37

Operation Safe Commerce is a public-private partnership that responds to the twin imperatives of facilitating legitimate international commerce and increasing security, while minimizing the

impact on commerce.

The goal is to develop dependable arrangements for verifying, securing, monitoring and sharing information about cargo from the

point of origin throughout the supply chain to its final destination.

We have identified some very promising and cost effective solutions in the last 3 years of this project.

Unfortunately, Operation Safe Commerce is just one of a number

of federally and privately funded supply chain security projects

that are currently under way.

While many of these individual projects show great promise, true

progress and results are hampered by the fact that they are not

tracked, managed and coordinated by a single department or agency.

Additionally, under the guise of sensitive security information

classification, findings and lessons learned are not being shared

among the projects, results are not being leveraged, and funds are

being wasted.

We believe that all cargo security research and development

projects should be managed by a single organization within DHS

that acts as a central repository and clearinghouse for all studies,

and the focal point on supply and security issues.

Chairman Platts, the attacks of September 11th were not directed at a maritime facility, but those terrible events provided the

impetus to focus attention at our maritime transportation system,

which is so essential to our national economy and defense.

You and your committee are to be commended for helping to

bring focus to such a daunting task.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rooney follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Ms. Rooney.

Mr. Caldwell, I think your written testimony, you summarized it

well. The challenge here would say that the task here is how to

deal with the demands of delivery in a world that has much-heightened security needs.

So your testimony is certainly well appreciated.

Mr. Caldwell.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CALDWELL

Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I’m very happy to be here. Also Representative

Towns and Representative Owens, and Representative Maloney.

I’m pleased to be here to discuss sharing in the maritime environment.

My testimony today is a summary and an update of a 2005 report we did which Representative Maloney had already mentioned.

And I’ll get to the issue of security clearances in a moment.

But the 2005 report was based on visits to several ports, but not

including New York and New Jersey.

So while I can’t comment too much on the situation here in New

York, I am going to need a lot from my colleagues, and as you

know, there seems to be a consensus that maritime sharing, at

least within the port, is pretty good.

But I do want to say that on some of the larger issues of information sharing, those that go beyond maritime security, the news is

not all good, and I’ll talk about that, as well.

Generally, on the positive side, our findings on the area of maritime security committees in another locations other than New York

are also very positive, and we found that they are helpful structures sharing maritime information.

In addition, inter-agency operational centers, the three that we

visited in 2004, appear to be another positive venue for sharing information.

And it sounds like there are initiatives here in New York that

have very similar types of facilities here, or at least to link existing

facilities to this technology.

One of the key barriers to information sharing, that is the lack

of security clearances by non Federal officials is being addressed by

the Coast Guard.

There are a couple of new issues that perhaps have come up

today. One Commissioner Kelly mentioned, and that’s the fact that

there is not always a continuity of staff among State and local officials, and as those officials shift, the clearances don’t transfer with

them, so a new person would have to apply for those.

And another issue that was brought up by Ms. Rooney is the

issue of how many people actually have been deemed to have a

need to know by the Coast Guard, and perhaps is that number too

low.

But what we have found is the Coast Guard has taken a number

of steps since our 2005 report, and there has been considerable

progress in the numbers of area maritime security people that have

clearances, not just applications in, but actually having been granted interim clearances.

I actually have a chart on that in my written statement.

54

But still, nationwide, only 36 percent of those committee members that have been deemed to have a need to know actually have

those security clearances.

So there is still a ways to go, and so we would expect the Coast

Guard—and I think they are committed to giving this area additional and continued attention.

While my comments on information sharing for maritime security, as I’ve said, are generally positive, GO has some much broader

concerns about information sharing and Homeland Security, as a

whole.

Last year designated this topic a high risk area, because the Federal Government faced formidable challenges in terms of identifying, analyzing, and sharing key information among us, more than

4 years after September 11th brought tragedy to this city and to

America.

The national still lacks comprehensive policies and procedures to

improve information sharing that is critical to protecting our homeland.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I’ll be happy

to answer any questions.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.

I have a question really for all three of you, just on the formal

structures of these maritime security committees, the international

operational centers.

Your opinions from your various backgrounds, whether that formal structure is the right and necessary approach, or should we be

giving more flexibility to each port entity to better structure their

needs based on their own situation?

Captain O’BRIEN. Well, I guess I’ll start.

My experience has been in this port, as well as the port in

Hampton Roads, where I was the commanding officer for the last

3 years before coming here, the Area Maritime Security Committee

works really well.

And to have different structures of different ports means that as

people move from port to port, not just military folks, but people

who deal with ports, the consumers, the persons who are in the

shipping industry, the people who are having to deal and trade

with each port, they really need a consistent entity to deal with.

And so having a structure that is duplicated port to port works

really well from an economic standpoint.

Certainly, there are adjustments that can be made to the structure based on what type of port you’re in.

I would say I had very little trouble with security clearances in

the port of Hampton Roads, because everybody was a retired Navy

officer, or were active duty Navy officers that we dealt with in the

port.

So those clearances transferred quite well.

There are procedures in place to accept security clearances from

other agencies, and I have found it to be very easy to transfer those

security clearances in my dealings with both—well, the area of

maritime security, membership.

Do we always need more? Yes.

55

Is a limited amount of resource available to conduct background

checks? Yes. And there are also going to be people who refuse to

have they’re background checks.

That happens on a not routine basis.

So that’s my answer to that question.

Ms. ROONEY. I would agree that the structure as it is today

works very well.

In addition to the Area Maritime Security Committee, of importance to the Port Authority is that we also sit on the Drug Terrorism Task Force, both in New York and in New Jersey.

And that forum, as well, not only in the maritime industry, but

in road, rail, and aviation, provides that structure for intelligence

sharing and coordination that is necessary.

We have a number of groups, there are a number of opportunities, and what we value as most important is that before an incident occurs, it’s because of these forums that we all know each

other.

So that God forbid if we have to show up at an incident, the police officers and the emergency responders actually know each

other ahead of time, and have those preestablished relationships,

and the understanding of what resources and capabilities are available.

And that’s all because of this preplanning and coordination.

Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you.

In terms of our work outside of New York, at the other ports, we

did find actually a lot of variation among how these committees

were set up, but we didn’t find it was onerous in any way.

We actually found, as Commissioner Kelly had said here, when

you’ve been to one port, you’ve been to one port. So you obviously

have to have some flexibility.

We did find slightly different structures, but all of them seem to

be doing the main thing they were intended to do,share information.

And I think one of the other important things to note, and I

doubt New York is an exception to this, but a lot of these port committees have been around in one form or another for many years.

In Charleston, it went back to 1926, where there was a Port

Committee set up to discuss any variety of issues. And I think in

those ports where there was an existing structure, nobody kind of

rammed the new structure down their throat, they pretty much absorbed to the structure that was in place.

So I think that we have a good balance now between flexibility

and being yet able to carry out their function.

Mr. PLATTS. A followup on this same issue, and then I’ll yield to

my colleagues.

The safe port act, which recently past the house, it calls on the

Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a maritime security

command center.

How do you view that requirement, if that were to go forward as

currently written, in comparison to the Maritime Security Committees, or centers?

What, if any, changes or similar type requirement, or adapt to

what’s in place to determine something different?

56

Captain O’BRIEN. Well, I would I say the Coast Guard already

has command centers in every port. We are building them out to

make them more robust already.

Any assistance in that area would be more than appreciated.

But the concept of a central command center is a partnership arrangement with the local, State and Federal entities in the port to

carry out operations within the port.

So it kind of hits right on the nail of where the Coast Guard is

heading.

We are just not there yet.

It’s time, money and people.

Mr. PLATTS. Your view is you see a requirement of really emulating what the Coast Guard is doing now with the sector command

centers?

Captain O’BRIEN. Yes, that’s the goal of the sector command centers, to reach that point.

Ms. ROONEY. I would agree.

I think the sector command center is providing a lot of the

functionality that we would expect in a joint operation center, as

envisioned in the legislation.

My understanding of the proposed legislation in safe port is to

take it a step further to similar to what we have in Charleston,

with Project Sea Hawk, and in San Diego, and some other places

around the country.

Mr. PLATTS. Where it’s operational?

Ms. ROONEY. Where it’s day to day operational of all of those

Federal, State and local partners in one location.

We have talked about the need for a similar setup here in the

Port of New York and New Jersey among our players, and we are,

through the Coast Guard, have begun to sketch out exactly what

that would look like.

In the interim, we would caution in the legislation that we not

jump immediately to buildings, and having everybody send staff to

a single location, but creating the kind of activity through virtual

operations among the NYPD, operation center, Coast Guard, Port

Authority, and everybody else’s operation centers, that the idea of

building a building, and outfitting it with all the technology, is a

huge undertaking.

I submit it will be $40 to $45 million to build that structure, but

with some virtual connectivity and technology, we can be coordinating much more closely on a day-to-day basis.

So we would caution not to require a building, but to allow flexibility for virtual connectivity, as well.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Caldwell.

Mr. CALDWELL. The issue has been around a couple of years, and

the issue actually came up when we were doing our earlier study.

We did actually visit Project Sea Hawk, in Charleston, Project

Jay Hawk, in San Diego, as well, as Charleston, which had a pretty

similar set up to the Jay Hawk.

And the Coast Guard was actually directed by Congress to come

out with a report on what these centers might look like.

In our view, in that report, they took a very minimalist approach

to that.

57

I think there is kind of something that could be added to the

analysis.

One of the issues that came up right then is that the Department

of Homeland Security had an overall project to look at its regional

offices and its command centers among all its different agencies.

What they wanted to try to see is now that they have all these

agencies under their purview is can they set up some kind of command centers that can work across the different agencies within

the HS, within Federal agencies, and then obviously on a local

basis with the State and local officials, as needed.

Around that time, Secretary Chertoff came on board and had announced in July 2005 a reorganization of the Department.

So I think that issue is not really resolved yet. I think to some

extent Hurricane Katrina has also taken some of the focus of the

Department away from what it wants its long-term regional structure to look like.

I think there’s a couple of areas to look at.

And in our report I can go into details, but it’s in the report.

We have identified five issue that we think need to be addressed

if we’re going to go forward with these.

At that point, the sector command centers were generally Coast

Guard, but everyone was asking if they could participate.

So let me just go through some of those issues.

One is to really clarify the mission and purposes of these centers.

They can serve a variety of purposes, whether it be for overall harbor activities, or whether it would be just for security.

The second issue is the leadership and organization. If you are

going to build a building, if you are going to put someone in charge,

at least of that physical space, you will have to figure out who that

is, how you’re going to share costs.

The third issue was membership. Would membership be open to,

obviously, Federal State and local, but then it’s a little trickier if

you want to get the private sector in there, particularly with some

of the clearance issues.

And then there is also an issue with the private sector, is if you

give one private company access to these facilities, but not others,

then are you giving one a competitive advantage.

You can understand some of those things.

Then the fourth issue we had was what kind of technology would

be deployed. I think the Coast Guard has a backbone system they

call Hawk Eye, if I am correct, which I think would serve a lot of

these purposes.

One of the things they had in Charleston was not only Hawk

Eye, but they had access to customs and border protections, automatic targeting systems, so that when ships came in, not only

could they look at all the information the Coast Guard had on the

high interest vessel list, but they could actually do a scan of, or an

analysis of, the containers on there, and what was the average risk

level of those containers, and why was there a high risk for those

containers.

Technology costs money, and sometimes it’s hard to make existing technology and new technology work together, so that’s also an

issue.

And then the fifth issue was resource requirements.

58

Obviously, it’s going to cost money in terms of people. Some of

these agencies have their own constraints.

And one of the issues in terms of resources is which agency will

fund them.

One of the issues, I mean, one of the advantages that they had

in Sea Hawk in getting such robust participation of the State and

local governments, they had sixteen different State and local agencies involved, is they are actually paying salaries of those.

And this is a very large question for Congress to address, are we

going to start paying salaries of all of the security-related personnel that are not Federal.

So those five issues, I think, are fairly large issues to address in

terms of moving forward with that.

At a minimum level, Commander O’Brien is correct, the Coast

Guard has set up sector command centers, and hopefully, they set

these up in a way that they are expandable as needed, and as an

ad hoc, or even on a continuing basis.

Mr. PLATTS. And Commissioner Kelly challenges the resources,

whether it would create a new structure.

Ms. ROONEY. If I can add just one thought to that.

We would also caution that we not create maritime-specific command centers.

As Captain O’Brien said, the maritime industry is dependent

upon road, rail and air in some regards, and here in New York and

New Jersey especially we are a multi mobile network.

If we have maritime operation centers, it is likely that we will

see air operation centers, and road and rail operation centers.

So we would caution that we think in terms of transportation operation centers, because in many cases, the same agencies or organizations are involved in multiple modes of transportation, and because of resource issues, because of space constraints, and any

number of other things, we need to think in terms of transportation, not mobile specific.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you.

Mr. Towns.

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

Let me begin with you, Mr. O’Brien.

Commissioner Kelly just stated that a cut would definitely affect

his ability to perform his ability to do things. Would these cuts in

the New York City Police Department create a burden for you, his

ability to protect the Port Authority?

Ms. ROONEY. I don’t believe it will cause drastic concerns.

Commissioner Kelly said the NYPD is not on the port facility, is

not out on the piers, themselves, but in a support role through the

intelligence community, and things like that.

The Port Authority Police, we have our own police force. These

cuts do not affect the Port Authority’s personnel or resources directly.

I don’t anticipate that there will be a drastic impact on Port Authority operations.

Mr. TOWNS. Would that affect your ability to be first responders?

It would not interfere with that?

Ms. ROONEY. Well, the NYPD are certainly one of our support

agencies in terms of response. But again, at our facilities, airports,

59

tunnels, bridges, the PATH train, and our seaports, the Port Authority are the first responders.

We rely very heavily on NYPD, on New Jersey State Police, Newark and Elizabeth city and fire departments to assist us as necessary.

But we are the primary first responders on our facility.

Mr. TOWNS. I guess I would like to ask all of you this. For port

security, is human intelligence more important than technologybased intelligence?

Let’s go right down the line, starting with you, Captain.

Captain O’BRIEN. I don’t know if it’s more important, but it’s

equally important.

Ms. ROONEY. I would agree. We have 25,000 people approximately on our port facilities every day, and we count those 25,000

people among our partners in law enforcement, just as we rely on

the citizens of the city of New York to provide information to the

NYPD on things that don’t look right.

We rely on our longshoreman, our truck drivers and our port

workers to report things to the Port Authority Police.

Those men and women know better than anybody else when

something is awry.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes.

Mr. CALDWELL. I don’t have that much at the local perspective

in terms of the national.

As you know, a lot of our national intelligence infrastructure was

set up with a very heavy technological perspective, and so that is

one thing that they are trying to improve, the transition from that

to more emphasis on the human intelligence side.

And I think if you look at who our enemies were that we were

trying to spy on before, versus who we are trying to spy on now,

obviously, when you have a huge country, and a military industrial

complex like the Soviet Union, it’s a lot easier to use technology to

do it.

The problem we’re having, the intelligence community is having,

with the terrorists is they are set up in a lot of disparate little

cells. A lot of them are, obviously now Al Qaeda-affiliated, or Al

Qaeda-related.

But these aren’t real strong links that you can use traditional intelligence technical means to always track down.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me ask, what is being done about the enforcement of trucking security with regard to truckers’ qualifications,

background, all of that?

What is being done in that area? This seems to be a real concern

of people, because they are in and out of the ports.

Ms. ROONEY. Under the current regulations, under the current

maritime security regulations, anyone with access to a marine terminal is required to have the basic minimum in terms of identification.

That has recently changed with an interim program that the

Coast Guard has put in place, where the Coast Guard and TSA will

be conducting checks at least of the terrorist watch list, and immigration status of individuals who need unescorted access to marine

terminals.

60

The TWIC program, the transportation workers identification

card, that smart biometric card will, in fact, address the background, the criminal background checks of all port workers, including truck drivers.

But today, under current regulations, only truck drivers who

have a hazardous material endorsement are required to have a full

background check.

Mr. TOWNS. When will that be instituted, the new program?

When will it actually start do? Do we have a date for it?

Ms. ROONEY. The TWIC program is a Coast Guard and TSA program.

Captain O’BRIEN. The Coast Guard will be a participant in homeland security for the maritime sector.

The port workers, and truckers, and other folks in the transportation industry will be checked in various different programs.

But a date certain, I do not have.

Mr. CALDWELL. I have a date, but I’m not sure it’s the one you’re

looking for, Representative Towns.

We have done a study of the TWIC program. In the fall of 2004

we found that program was not well managed, and was far beyond

schedule.

Mr. TOWNS. Repeat that.

Mr. CALDWELL. We found that the TWIC program was not well

managed and far beyond schedule.

I just want to alert all of you that in July, later this month, I

think it’s July 25th, one of my colleagues will be testifying or our

current review of the TWIC program.

So we will have more for you later in the month on the status

of that.

Captain O’BRIEN. I think we could reply later, if you would allow

us to submit a written reply to that.

Mr. TOWNS. I would ask you to allow the record to be open, so

they can provide that statement.

Mr. PLATTS. We can get a formal response later, yes.

Ms. ROONEY. There was a public comment period on the new

TWIC rules that just closed last week. So it’s in motion, which is

a good sign.

Mr. TOWNS. That would establish a permanent security program

based on risk.

Would you agree that risk is the most appropriate way to allocate funds?

Captain O’BRIEN. Well, I would agree that it’s certainly a very

important factor in how we allocate funds. But that’s really a decision that Congress will make.

Mr. TOWNS. Maybe with your advice, and your counsel. I think

you need to speak up on it.

Captain O’BRIEN. The Coast Guard has adopted a risk-based decisionmaking process for our methodology for making all our decisions.

And so risk has to be a very high factor in what we choose to

do, and what we choose to fund.

Risk can be defined in many different ways. So it’s very, very difficult to give you a clearcut answer until you really define what

risk you’re talking about.

61

In the Port of New York, the risk factors are going to be significantly different than they are in another port in the United States.

Mr. TOWNS. I hear you.

One thing we should not lose sight of is that New York City has

already experienced September 11th, and of course, I think that

this is a fact to be considered, and every assessment, every report,

has indicated that New York City is a target, everybody says that.

Of course, there have been situations that have been aborted as

result of intelligence.

So I really applaud the Police Department, and others who have

done that.

But I just think that we are taking this whole thing of risk very

lightly, and I don’t think we should take it lightly.

I think that risk is the key, and that based on protecting people,

if we are talking about security, I think the risk has to be No. 1.

Captain O’BRIEN. I can say for certain that everything we do in

this port, that the Coast Guard does injunction with our partners,

is all based on risk.

Every decision we make about what we are going to do with our

assets every day is based on risk at the port level.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you.

Ms. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.

Are there any plans to create an inter-agency operational center

in New York?

Anyone?

Captain O’BRIEN. I can tell you that you’re talking about interagency operational center. We certainly have that capability in the

maritime sector, the sector command centers.

I’m not privy to everybody’s plans. So I don’t have an answer to

that for a wide multi-modal operations center.

Mrs. MALONEY. The port will be used in lieu of operational center, due to the fact that we don’t have one in New York.

Captain O’BRIEN. I would say that during incidents, the Coast

Guard, as well as all of its port partners, we have adopted what

we call a unified command approach, a unified command system,

that all of us are schooled in that are in the response and the law

enforcement communities.

And we exercise that very often. And we do a pretty good job of

it.

So we do exercise command and control by looking at all the different agencies that have different jurisdictional responsibilities,

and we get together and try to provide for everyone’s jurisdictional

responsibilities in every response that we make.

Mrs. MALONEY. How many containers are screened coming into

the New York/New Jersey ports? It has been reported that 5 percent of the containers are screened.

Can you elaborate on that?

Captain O’BRIEN. I’ll be happy to give you an answer to that, but

I can’t give it to you know.

Mrs. MALONEY. Pardon me?

Captain O’BRIEN. I can certainly give you the answer to that

later in writing.

62

Mrs. MALONEY. Can anyone respond to that?

Ms. ROONEY. It’s certainly within customs and border protection’s

domain to screen cargo. They would say that 100 percent of all

cargo is screened, and that 100 percent of all high risk cargo is inspected.

But as Captain O’Brien stated, I think it’s best that we get together with our port partners in order to provide you with an answer to that question.

Mrs. MALONEY. It has repeatedly been reported in various reports that only 5 percent of our containers are screened.

With the technology that was described earlier, being able to go

in and screen it.

Ms. ROONEY. And I think our partners in Customs would that

say that 5 percent number is the overall quantity which are

deemed to be high risk, and that 100 percent of all high risk containers are screened.

It happens to be perhaps 5 percent, but they’re using a risk profile.

Mrs. MALONEY. But roughly 5 percent of the cargo coming into

the United States is screened?

Ms. ROONEY. 100 percent of high risk are screened. It equates to

5 percent on average in the country. But it’s 100 percent of all high

risk containers.

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you say 5 percent in the country, or 5 percent

in the New York ports?

Ms. ROONEY. It’s in the country.

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you know about the New York ports, what

percentage is screened?

Ms. ROONEY. We can get back to you with the current numbers.

I believe the numbers today are between 7 to 9 percent in New

York and New Jersey.

Mrs. MALONEY. Seven to 9 percent?

Ms. ROONEY. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank you for your hard work.

I’ve been told by the chairman that he has a plane to catch.

Thank you.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Ms. Maloney.

I do have two quick followup questions, if I could.

One is just on the number of security, 10, that have been allocated to the Port of New York and New Jersey.

Captain O’Brien, I know you’re only 3 weeks here.

Are you able to, as far as your understanding, how that number,

you got 10, or these are the only 10 we acknowledge as having a

need to do know, per port?

Captain O’BRIEN. Well, the 10 per port is really sort of a round

number.

My experience up until arriving here 3 weeks ago was that I had

no trouble at all getting additional quotas for screening of personnel.

And so I don’t know what the limits—Bethann has been here for

a considerable amount of time longer period than I have. She might

be able to tell you.

But I never had a request turned down to have someone

screened.

63

Mr. PLATTS. But the issue here is not those with transferring

within.

Captain O’BRIEN. I’m talking about putting names in to have

them screened.

I’m not sure exactly how quickly they will get to them, but nobody has ever me that he couldn’t turn in more than a certain

number.

Mr. PLATTS. I was told there are currently only 10 allocated for

the area.

Ms. Rooney.

Ms. ROONEY. Yes, that’s correct.

My share of the Area Maritime Committee was given 10 security

clearances.

And at an Executive Steering Committee, we identified who from

our Federal, State and local partners had them, who needed them,

and then looked at the private sector members in terms of who

needed them.

And we prioritized, as you stated, as to who those first 10 applicants were going to.

We have gone back, we did at the time go back, as Captain

O’Brien suggested, and asked for additional clearances, because, as

I stated before, we have over forty-six agencies or organizations

that are on the AMSC.

I actually don’t know the current status of that, but again, it’s

something that we can get back to you on.

Mr. PLATTS. That’s something, Captain O’Brien, coming from a

different scenario, is to look at the uniqueness of New York, this

port, the volume, the risk, as Commissioner Kelly said, the No. 1

risk they identified in the country.

If there was a standard type 10 per port, that really doesn’t take

into account the challenges here.

So that dialog that’s ongoing with you and your partners, we

would encourage you to expedite as best as you can.

Captain O’BRIEN. Yes.

And, as you know, it’s a long, drawn-out process to get clearance.

One of the problems that I’ve seen in the past is that not only

sometimes the person moves on after they get the clearance, but

sometimes they move on before the clearance even comes through,

which is a significant problem.

But when you’re talking about looking at someone’s entire life

history, it gets to be a pretty long and drawn out process.

I know it took me about 2 years to get my clearance.

Mr. PLATTS. A final question before we do need to wrap up.

With the Port Authority, Ms. Rooney, not being real familiar

with the port operations, I assume that there’s a fee based on tonnage that comes through the port, the processing of the freight.

Is there, in response to September 11th, and the tremendous demand on security now, was there an imposition with the Port of

New York and New Jersey as to surcharges, security, similar to

like airline tickets?

Is there anything in that you would suggest be incorporated into

the operating costs of the port?

Ms. ROONEY. All of our security expenses have been completely

incorporated into our operating expenses.

64

By the end of this year, we will spend close to $85 million on port

security, capital and operating.

Mr. PLATTS. Since September 11th?

Ms. ROONEY. Since September 11th.

And that’s the incremental increase since September 11th.

The Port Authority has absorbed all of those expenses.

We have gotten $10.5 million of that through the Federal port security grants in the past.

Many of our port partners around the country have instituted

surcharges, or port security user fees.

It’s certainly something that we are beginning to look at, but

have not done so far.

For every dollar that we spend on security, because we raise money through bonds, and government bonds, there is $10 less

that we have for capital improvements that we need for productivity, and efficiency, and roadway and railway capacity.

So it is critical that we have some security funding, as well.

Mr. PLATTS. I want to thank each of you again for your testimony, and your work day in and day out, and your service.

We will keep the record open for 2 weeks for additional followup

information.

This hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ