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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–276 PDF 2006

TRANSIT AND OVER-THE-ROAD BUS

SECURITY

(109–61)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 29, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Bushue, Sandra K., Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration .... 5

Hecker, JayEtta Z., Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 5

Henke, Tracy A., Assistant Secretary, Office of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................. 5

Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation Association .... 28

Pantuso, Peter J., President and CEO, American Bus Association ..................... 28

Siano, Michael, International Executive Vice President, Amalgamated Transit

Union ..................................................................................................................... 28

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 48

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 49

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 00

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESS

Bushue, Sandra K .................................................................................................... 41

Hecker, JayEtta Z .................................................................................................... 56

Henke, Tracy A. ....................................................................................................... 87

Millar, William W .................................................................................................... 100

Pantuso, Peter J ...................................................................................................... 127

Siano, Michael .......................................................................................................... 140

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Bushue, Sandra K., Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,

response to a question from Rep. Pascrell ......................................................... 47

Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation Association,

Survey of United States Transit System Security Needs and Funding Priorities, Summary of Findings, April 2004 ............................................................. 107

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

National School Transportation Association, National Association for Pupil

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

(1)

TRANSIT AND OVER-THE-ROAD BUS

SECURITY

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT, AND PIPELINES, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The hearing will come to order.

In today’s hearing, we will examine issues related to the security

of transit and intercity bus systems, including the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, the state of preparedness in the

transit industry, and federal programs and activities that help

meet the security needs of the American public transportation system.

Worldwide, the statistics on terrorist attacks are alarming. According to the Mineta Transportation Institute, 42 percent of all

terrorist attacks over the 10-year period from 1991 to 2001 were

carried out against rail systems and buses, 42 percent. In just the

last two years, we have graphic evidence that the transit systems

are popular terrorist targets.

In March of 2004, hidden bombs killed 192 commuter rail passengers in Madrid, Spain. Even more recently, last July suicide

bomb attacks on the London Underground and buses killed 56 people. Transit systems are particularly vulnerable to attack because

they have open access with frequent stops and transfer points, and

serve high concentrations of people in crowded areas.

The threat is very real, but it is very challenging to meet this

threat. Federal funding for transit security has not been particularly robust. Over four years from budget year 2003 through 2006,

Congress has appropriated only about $387 million to the Department of Homeland Security for transit security grants.

In the United States, there are 9.5 billion passenger trips on

transit annually. This means that we have averaged over those

four years only about one penny of Federal funding for security per

transit passenger trip. Compare this to aviation, where the average

Federal security investment is about $9 per airline passenger.

However, the public transportation industry has not been passively waiting for the Federal Government to save the day. U.S.

transit agencies have invested more than $2 billion of their own

funds for enhanced security measures. Even with this extraor-
2

dinary local investment, transit security activities still are not

being adequately funded. The American Public Transit Association

estimates that there is a total transit security funding need of $6

billion.

In addition to providing an appropriate level of funding for security improvements, we must ensure that the Federal agencies

charged with oversight of the safety and security of these public

transportation systems have a clear plan for the best possible protection against and response to any deliberate harm, whether the

threat is from international terrorists or from domestic sources.

SAFETEA-LU required the Federal Transit Administration and

the Department of Homeland Security to develop and execute a

transit annex to the two departments’ memorandum of understanding which the agencies jointly issued in September of 2005. The

annex spells out in some detail the roles and responsibilities of the

Federal Transit Administration, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Grants and Training, and the Transportation Security Administration. Each agency has a complementary role to ensure that transit agencies and their employees are prepared to effectively secure their systems, protect their passengers, and respond to any threat or actual incident.

This Subcommittee held a similar transit security hearing in

June, 2004. Shortly thereafter, Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.

Lipinski and I introduced legislation to authorize transit and overthe-road bus security grants. The Committee reported H.R. 5082,

the Public Transportation and Terrorism Prevention Response Act

in September of 2004.

Unfortunately, the bill was not considered by the full House before the end of the 108th Congress. It is likely that we will use

what we learn here today to craft a similar bill authorizing general

funds to be appropriated for these security grant programs.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very

broad jurisdiction that includes every mode of transportation. Each

of these modes have unique opportunities and security challenges.

These differences need to be recognized by providing separate

mode-specific transportation security grant programs. These unique

modal operations and vulnerabilities also should be reflected in a

security grant program that ensures that funds are allocated using

a fair, risk-based methodology, with grant eligibilities that meet

the needs of the industry.

SAFETEA-LU directed the Departments of Transportation and

Homeland Security to issue joint regulations to establish the characteristics and requirements for public transportation security

grants. Today’s hearing requests and update on the status of these

regulations, which we hope will establish a consistent grant administration process.

We look forward to the testimony of all six witnesses this afternoon. The first panel is governmental witnesses, including Ms.

Sandra Bushue, the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit

Administration; Ms. Tracy Henke, Assistant Secretary and head of

the Department of Homeland Security Office of Grants and Training; and Ms. JayEtta Hecker of the Government Accountability Office.
3

The second panel includes witnesses representing transit and

intercity bus operators and labor.

I thank all of you for being part of this hearing. I would like to

express my appreciation for your staff and organizations for helping to prepare your testimony. We look forward to the interchange

to follow that testimony.

Now I yield to Mr. DeFazio for his opening statement.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your

past efforts which preceded my service as Ranking Member on this

subcommittee, to better focus on the needs of public transportation

and the security issues.

I serve both on the Homeland Security Committee and on this

committee. I have seen reflected in both venues what I feel is a

lack of really critical assessment to put forward what we think are

the real investment needs. It seems kind of like avoidance to me.

After we had waited so long for the National Transportation Security Assessment last fall, we got something that, as I said at the

time, I thought a graduate student or maybe an undergraduate

student could have written in terms of its specificity. It was very,

very vague. Yes, there are threats is about how you could summarize it.

We can do better than that. We have the transit groups say that there is a $6 billion unmet need. I don’t know if the number is that

high. I would like to focus-in. But I know it is certainly a lot higher

than the amount of money we have allocated and spent so far. I

really, since my principal service on this Committee has been on

aviation, I don’t want to see that we adopt a tombstone mentality,

which was prevalent at the FAA for a lot of years, which was that

you don’t wade into something and deal with it proactively; you

wait until there is an incident and then you try and figure out how

you might prevent future similar incidents, as opposed to getting

ahead of the issue.

Here, we certainly have had some wake-up calls with what has

happened in London, what happened in Madrid. I have to say, from

my service on both committees, I don’t feel that we have put in

place the measures I feel are necessary to prevent a similar incident here. I am hoping to be disabused of that today. I hope to hear

about other things going on I don’t know about, or grand strategies

and plans that are going to come forward.

I know it is always difficult serving, particularly in this Administration, to ask for public money to meet public needs and security

needs, but I always ask everybody to be honest despite what the

people over at OMB tell you you can have, on what you think a

realistic number is.

So I look forward to the testimony and hope to be enlightened,

and hope to be reassured, but I doubt that will happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

If the audience in the hearing room notices a kind of a mirroreffect, Bob Roe is on both sides of the hearing room and he has the

same red tie on here that he has there. We are honored by the

presence of our former chairman. Thank you for being here.

[Applause.]

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Oberstar?
4

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

I join in the welcome of our former Chairman Bob Roe, who was

such a devotee of all the issues under the jurisdiction of this committee, and continues to be their advocate.

Transit and ports continue to be the stepchildren of security in

America. We are not investing what we need to do, what the law

that this committee initially prepared, reported out, moved through

the House and through conference on port security, the five major

elements are not fully anywhere near fully funded.

And transit, the transit systems of America responded on their

own, without any infusion of Federal funds right after September

11, by installing in the intercity bus sector, Greyhound specifically,

but others as well, putting in security systems that they funded

without waiting for any Federal mandate or directive, and so has

our transit.

Transit is the fastest-growing sector in transportation in America. We are adding a million new transit riders a day, 10.5 billion

transit trips last year. Yet we are not investing in the security of

our transit systems as we ought to be doing. Every day, two million

Americans take their shoes off at airports; four million shoes come

off at America’s airports. What are we doing to keep our bus and

transit and rail systems safe? Nothing, comparatively. Nothing except what the transit systems have done.

Worldwide, 42 percent, nearly half of all terrorist attacks have

been against transit systems, not against aviation. We need to do

vastly more than we are doing now, and I hope that through this

hearing we will prod action by the Administration to invest in the

security of our domestic internal transit systems.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Any other opening statements? Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate what our Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, said. This

has been a deep concern of mine. You might recall I had legislation

for transit security in advance of 9/11. Provisions of that bill were

picked up and dropped in their entirety in the Patriot Act. It has

been something that has continued to concern me. There is something like seven times as many people who are on transit every day

in our Country, including some of our most vulnerable members of

society, people who are least capable of reacting in the event of an

incident, be it terrorist or accident or anything else.

Mr. DeFazio referenced the vast disparity between the resources

that are lavished and, as a number of us are in these lines, there

are a number of our shoes that hit the ground every week, we see

up close and personal, maybe in some cases we are going further

than we need to do in terms of some aspects of airport security, but

we are certainly not giving the type of time and attention and resources to dealing with the millions of passengers and the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work to make these

systems function.

I would hope that in the aftermath of these discussions, we can

look very hard at the resources that the industry needs; that we

can be a better partner with them in terms of equipment and training; and there are things that they are doing for society as a gen-
5

eral proposition that merit consideration of further public investment.

We look at Katrina and we look at Hurricane Rita. We are not

just talking about terrorist acts. We are looking at how transportation systems can prove vital to help cities respond to natural disasters. If Rita had come a little harder, a little sooner, that picture

of the tens of thousands of Houstonians in a parking lot some 30

miles long, pushing their cars in the heat, running out of gas, dealing with making transit systems work are a critical part of emergency response in urban areas.

I think we are going to be looking at that as we rebuild New Orleans at some point, but it is part of the basic infrastructure.

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, but I hope that

this will help shape our committeeFEs work to think about ways

that we make sure that the systems themselves are functional, the

communications work, the training that we know what needs to

happen, and that we think of it in the broader context of not just

protecting people who are transit riders, but thinking about transit

system, intercity bus system, rail, as part of the defense mechanism that our communities have. I think it will be money and time

extraordinarily well spent, and I look forward to this hearing as a

way to launch further consideration for things we can do to make

a difference in the future.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.

Now we turn to our panelists. As you know, your written statements are a part of the record of this hearing and we invite you

to summarize those statements in approximately five minutes. We

turn to the first member of the panel, Ms. Sandra Bushue, Deputy

Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

TESTIMONY OF SANDRA K. BUSHUE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; TRACY A.

HENKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF GRANTS AND

TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

JAYETTA Z. HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Ms. BUSHUE. Thank you, and good afternoon Chairman Petri,

Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the Subcommittee.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify on transit security. America’s transit systems are dynamic, interconnected and

composed of 6,000 local systems. Unlike airports, these systems are

inherently open and therefore difficult to secure. At New York’s

Penn Station alone, more than 1,600 people per minute pass

through its portal during a typical rush hour. This combination of

open access and large numbers of people make transit systems an

inviting target for terrorists.

To help mitigate this risk, FTA has three strategic security priorities: public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness. Each of these provides focused benefits to the dynamic

open nature of AmericaFEs transit network. As for public awareness, FTA developed Transit Watch. It is a program that educates

passengers to be mindful of their environment and how to react

should they see something suspicious.
6

Employee training develops the skills of 400,000 frontline transit

employees who are the eyes and ears of the transit network. Emergency preparedness programs build local collaborative relationships

within communities that allow for quick and coordinated responses

in a crisis. SAFETEA-LU mandates several steps that move transit

security forward.

In September 2005, FTA, TSA and now the Office of Grants and

Training, signed the Public Transportation Security Annex and the

DOT-DHS Security memorandum of understanding. The Annex

identifies specific areas of coordination among the parties. The

agencies have developed a framework that leverages their respective resources and capabilities. Using the Annex, which we have

over here on an easel, is a blueprint. We have established an executive steering committee which interacts with DHS, DOT and transit industry leaders.

This committee oversees eight project management teams spearheading the Annex’s programs. The eight teams are: risk assessment and technical assistance. This team is using a risk-based approach to transit security, working toward one industry model for

transit risk assessments.

Transit Watch in connecting communities. This team is expanding two FTA programs that foster public awareness and coordinated emergency response.

Training. Employee training is vital and this team is developing

new courses on timely security products such as chem-bio protocols

and strategic counterterrorism for transit managers.

Safety and security roundtable. The Annex team is working on

direct stakeholder outreach. They are planning two events per year

for the safety and security chiefs of the 50 largest transit agencies.

Web-based national resource center. This group is developing a

secure library site for information on best practices, grants, and

other security matters.

Emergency drills and exercise. This team is reinstituting the

well-received FTA drill grant program and has updated it to incorporate DHS exercise program guidance.

Annual plan and grant guidance. This team is developing the

process for joint FTA, TSA and GNT review of regional transit security strategies which is a requirement for the Transit Security

Program.

And finally, standards and research, which focuses on the development of critical industry security standards. This includes such

topics as standards for closed-circuit television, intrusion detection,

and training, to name a few.

Again, I reiterate, this is a blueprint. SAFETEA-LU also requires

a joint DOT-DHS rulemaking for the Transit Security Grants Program. FTA has partnered with GNT and TSA to develop a notice

of proposed rulemaking which we anticipate publishing soon.

I would also like to point out that FTA supports security projects

through its 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program. Under

this program, transit agencies must spent at least 1 percent of

their annual formula funds on public transportation security. As

you know, in contrast to TSA’s broad statutory authority for security in all modes of transportation, FTA’s regulatory authority is

limited. We do not have a dedicated security grant program.
7

Historically, we have influenced transit agencies from security

practices through training programs, guidance and our research

program. Working with DHS, we will continue to use these resources to improve transit security.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the

subcommittee, I want to assure you that FTA is using all its resources to strengthen the joint security initiative formalized in the

September, 2005 Annex.

In closing, we look forward to working with the Committee.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Before hearing from the next panelist, Mr. Pascrell didn’t realize

we would be quite as efficient as we were, and was detained, but

had an opening statement he would like to make.

Mr. PASCRELL. Can I present it, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PETRI. Yes.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you.

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio, I thank you for holding a hearing on the status of our Nation’s transit security. Many

of us have talked about this for a few years now.

There are 6,000 public transportation agencies that provide 9.6

billion transit trips annually. Every day, more than 14 million people take 32 million trips on public transportation. Algebraically,

you know how much greater that is than those that use airplanes.

As we have witnessed most recently in London and Madrid,

many members from the Homeland Security Committee went to

London and Madrid recently to examine preparations or responses

to those problems. Transit systems are popular targets of terrorist

attacks worldwide. All modes of public transportation have been

frequent targets of attacks because they are most vulnerable.

These attacks provide a grim reminder of the terror that can easily be carried out on American mass transit systems, but those of

us in New Jersey who work on travel or travel into New York City

on a daily basis are dependent on our Nation’s public transportation system. We are keenly aware of the vulnerability. To their credit, transit systems have invested $1.7 billion in security activities since 9/11. New Jersey Transit has expanded its uniformed police force by nearly 80 percent, upgraded the training of

many of those officers, provided passenger safety advisories, increased patrolling on more trains and stations, and around the facilities, and conducted aerial inspections of its infrastructure.

However, with only 200 police officers and six explosive-detection

canine teams to protect and secure more than 3,000 buses, 600

trains, serving 750,000 people every day, New Jersey Transit neither has the resources nor the budget to address these additional

security concerns without undermining its traditional policing duties, and we can multiply this throughout the United States of

America.

The American Bus Association and the United Motor Coaches

Association have teamed up to present a series of free security

emergency preparedness planning. All of these critical actions bear

costs that are not being adequately met through Federal funding.
8

We have not made the necessary investment in improving the security of America’s public transportation facilities. According to the

American Public Transportation Association, transit security needs

are both capital and operational at about $6 billion. Congress has

invested a total of $387 million for the Department of Homeland

Security transit security funds. This is about $97 million per year

or less than one penny per transit passenger trip. If that makes

sense to you, I will listen. If it doesn’t make sense to you, then I

want to have a good response to that one.

Many on this Committee have spoken repeatedly over the last

few years for greater prioritization to be assigned to transit security. Neither party is privy on this issue, both sides of the aisle.

I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses. Our Nation’s transit systems must have the employee training they need

and the funding they depend upon to maintain at least a baseline

level of readiness.

Mr. Chairman, you have been more than kind and I thank you

for allowing me this opportunity.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

The next witness is Ms. Tracy Henke, Assistant Secretary, Office

of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland Security.

Ms. HENKE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member

DeFazio, members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Grants and Training and the work of our partners

to secure our Nation’s transit systems.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Depart- ment of Homeland Security has awarded more than $250 million

to date to secure our Nation’s transit systems. This includes funding under our Urban Areas Security Initiative and beginning in

2005, a new standalone Transit Security Grant Program.

The goal of the Transit Security Grant Program is to protect regional transit systems and the commuting public from terrorism,

especially explosive devices and threats that would cause major

loss of life and severely disrupt our Nation’s transportation system.

Over the past two years, Mr. Chairman, grants and training,

working with our Federal, State and local partners, has refined

this program to ensure that transit security grants are targeted at

systems facing the greatest risk. With the input of the Federal

Transit Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, the American Public Transportation Association, the American Railroad Association and numerous other groups, we have made a number of enhancements to

the Transit Security Grant Program and have continued to improve

our collaborative efforts.

For instance, recognizing the critical importance of regional or

multi-jurisdictional approaches to security, we require grantees to

develop regional strategies for coordinating security measures

across jurisdictional boundaries. We also require grantees, where

appropriate, to coordinate transit security plans with Amtrak to ensure integrated security planning among all transportation partners. We require grantees to ensure that transit security plans

mesh with the homeland security strategies developed by the

States and the urban areas.
9

Looking at lessons learned from the incidents in Madrid and

London, we prioritize efforts for preventing, detecting and responding to attacks, using improvised explosive devices or IEDs. This fiscal year, the Transit Security Grant Program was further refined

to require the alignment of regional transit security strategies with

the interim national preparedness goal and its seven national priorities for achieving national preparedness. The interim national

preparedness goal is designed to help responders at all levels understand what abilities they need to respond to terrorism or other

major incidents.

Our Transit Security Grant Program is complemented by two initiatives designed to improve security in specific transportation sectors. One, our Intercity Passenger Rail Security Grant Program

provides funds and technical assistance to improving security along

the most highly traveled passenger routes in the Nation: Amtrak’s

Northeast Corridor and its Chicago hub.

This year, we are expanding the program to Amtrak’s West Coast operations. We will use a portion of the $8 million Congress

made available for 2006 to assess the security of Amtrak’s operations in key urban areas such as Seattle, Los Angeles and San

Diego. These assessments will, in turn, guide the further expenditure of intercity passenger rail funds.

Second is our Intercity Bus Security Grant Program which enhances security for the millions of Americans who travel long distance by bus each year. Grantees are selected by a national review

panel in coordination with the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration. The 2005 program focused on passenger and baggage screening and facility security enhancements

to prevent and detect IEDs, as well as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear devices.

In 2006, we are working to institutionalize a risk-based approach

to intercity bus security funding. As part of this effort, we are requiring grantees to develop security and emergency preparedness

plans using a template developed by TSA and the American Bus

and the United Motor Coach Associations, under a grants and

training grant.

We are also working to coordinate initiatives under our Intercity

Bus Grant Program with Highway Watch and TSAFEs Corporate

Security Review Program.

Interagency coordination is the hallmark of all the grants and

training programs. It is imperative to how we do business, especially transportation security programs. To further facilitate that

interagency communication and cooperation, the Department of

Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation entered

into that memorandum of understanding in September of 2004, as

mentioned previously by my partner here at the table from the

Federal Transit Administration.

In September of 2005, this MOU was expanded to identify specific areas of coordination, including citizen awareness, training exercises, risk assessment and information sharing. As part of this effort, an executive steering committee was created with representatives from the FTA, TSA and Grants and Training to identify and

close gaps in our transportation security programs.
10

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are working with the Department of

Transportation to develop final regulations for transit security

grants as required under Section 3028 of SAFETEA-LU. Through

these efforts, the Administration is working collaboratively to ensure the security of our Nation’s transit systems and to protect

those who rely on these vital transportation services. We appreciate this Committee’s continued support for these critical initiatives and we look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and

members of this Committee, on all of these important efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I am happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Now, a familiar witness before this Committee, Ms. Hecker, Director for the Physical Infrastructure Team, Government Accountability Office, GAO. Please proceed.

Ms. HECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio and other

members of the Committee. It is really a pleasure to be here to

focus on some key transit security issues.

I think many of you who have spoken talked about the inherent

vulnerability and attractiveness of this mode. Its openness, its accessibility makes it a clearly natural target, The large gatherings

and concentration of people, but also the enormous number of

stakeholders really add to the complexity of trying to improve the

security of this mode.

One of the reasons we have been concerned and done at least

four major studies in this area is how important it is to target

funds to maximize and optimize the impact and the effectiveness

in reducing the risk and improving the security of this very inviting target.

Basically, there are two key points that I will make today. One

is based on the fact that we have done a worldwide review of transit security, looking at 13 systems internationally and close to

every single system domestically. In comparing them, we basically

found that are a lot of similarities in what different transit operators are doing. We identified several areas of relatively unique and

distinct actions that foreign countries, foreign operators were taking, and we have recommended that they be examined for their potential applicability domestically. I will talk a little bit about what

we learned and outline that for you.

The second area is basically about the coordination area. GAO

has completed a report about six months ago, and in that report

we found notable gaps in coordination by Federal agencies within

the Department of Homeland Security and between the Department of Homeland Security and its various elements, and the various units within DOT. While some measures have clearly been

taken and our information admittedly is only up to date as of when

our report came out six months ago, we continue to recommend

very vigorous oversight by this committee of the progress in this

area because of the importance of improved coordination.

On the first area about the similarities and differences, it was

really an extraordinary experience to have the opportunity to visit

so many different operators, 32 in this Country, and as I said, 13

overseas. A lot of the key elements really are very common. At the

heart of it is really risk assessment. That really is essential. With
11

the fundamental vulnerability and attractiveness of this mode, it

has got to be targeted. You can spend an infinite amount of resources and it will still be vulnerable. So to clearly target what the

priorities need to be is the foundation of all major efforts worldwide.

Another is the customer awareness program. You see it, you say

something. Is this yours? There are a whole number of different

types of initiatives and it is really engaging the passenger.

A third is the use of technology, particularly cameras, but even

smart cameras. That is really the best of the application in this

area. It is not just hundreds of cameras, but it is cameras that actually look for some aberration, which even could be something

never moving, which could be a package that was left. So there are

smart cameras that are being used and really are representing an

efficient tool for targeting scarce resources.

A fourth areas is tightening access controls, particularly for employee access, and getting better identification.

So in these areas, there really were not notable differences. In

contrast, however, there were four areas where we found foreign

government operators had some relatively distinct and unique

practices. The first one was covert testing of employee actions.

There would be rules, requirements, procedures, and they would

basically test their employees and give frequent feedback so there

would be an automatic opportunity to review how well people understood the procedures and how well they really worked. So covert

testing was in use in a couple of places.

Random screening of passengers and baggage, everyone recognized that this was not ever going to be able to replicate what is

done in aviation, but some kind of deterrence that on a strategic

basis does randomly check, and this was done in both New York

and Boston during the conventions. So we have had some use of

it here, but we have not systematically studied how it can be used,

where it can be used and with what kinds of triggers and challenges it can be used without shutting the system down.

One of the most important things that we saw overseas was a

centralized research or a testing and information clearinghouse on

technology. Basically, operators are bombarded all the time by

marketers and people trying to sell them different technology, and

they have very little independent information. Most of the operators really were crying out for more assistance from the Federal

Government in providing a clearinghouse on information about the

new technologies.

Very quickly on the coordination area, as I mentioned earlier,

GAO found very poor coordination in several critical areas in this

important area. One was in the area of risk assessment. Basically,

there were active measures going forward by one part of the Department of Homeland Security, and other measures going forward

in another part, and really not effectively coordinated with all the

stakeholders, with FTA. This is a real gap because this is the foundation of strategic investment of resources.

The other was emergency guidelines, rail security guidelines that

were issued just two months after the London attacks. Those guidelines lacked very effective stakeholder input. Nearly all of the operators we talked with were very concerned about it. They felt the
12

standards were unclear. There were no criteria for inspections or

enforcement. It did not build on best practices. And most severely,

it even had inconsistencies with standing FRA regulations.

In conclusion, we think there are important initiatives overseas

that we could learn from. We have a recommendation that the departments evaluate them. As of our last understanding, there was

no action on this. In the coordination area, we have not had an opportunity to systematically evaluate the new initiatives, but we

would continue to recommend rigorous oversight by this Committee

on the quality and effectiveness of coordination.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members. I would be

pleased to answer questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We will turn to questions.

Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Henke, you have essentially, as far as I could follow in your

testimony, really kind of talked about the way things were. I guess

I would like you to talk about the ways things are going to be.

As I understand the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program,

it is essentially going to replace the program that you are talking

about, which has been used recently in terms of apportioning funds

to needs, to transit systems and others. And now we are going to

have, as I understand the President’s proposal, one large, well not

so large, one inadequate pot of money for which ports, transit, rail

and trucking will all compete.

Can you kind of look at it and tell us, because what you told is

how it has worked. How is that going to work in the future?

Ms. HENKE. Congressman, if enacted and if the Congress moves

on the President’s proposal as submitted, the President has proposed the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program. The President proposes this in recognition, one, of limited resources; two, of

the fact that the threat that this Nation faces is ever-changing; and

three, that to address that threat, we need to have as much flexibility with resources as possible so we can prepare based upon

most recent intelligence information, the risk assessments, et

cetera, that we have, and make certain that we are working to protect the Nation from the next threat and the next attack, not the

one that just recently occurred, as we continue efforts across the

Country, recognizing our shared responsibility in securing the Nation.

So once again, the TIP program would be a comprehensive risk

assessment. It would look at where the threats are. It would look

where the consequences are and the vulnerabilities are, and then

allocate the limited resources available to those highest risk areas.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, great in theory, but I have yet to see comprehensive risk assessment, particularly in the evaluation we received last fall, and I read both the classified and the unclassified

version. The classified wasn’t much different than the unclassified.

I didn’t see any quantification there in any meaningful way to

compare a threat in a port to a threat against mass transit and

rail, versus aviation. I mean, they couldn’t even compare within

categories, and now we are going to create, somehow we are going

to say, okay, we are now going to look at, and the ports estimate
13

they need $6 billion. The transit folks estimate they need $6 billion. I don’t know what trucking needs. So let’s, you know, let’s just round it out to $15 billion. The President is proposing $600 million this year. So you know, we are

coming in at 5 percent of what we need. I am just wondering how

we are going to apportion that pathetically small amount of money

among so many needs, and how we are going to meaningfully compare the threat to the ports and nuclear or radiological devices

where we are failing, to the threats in a transit system which

doesn’t have interoperable communications, and has other

vulnerabilities, to potential attacks against the hazardous wastecarrying trucks or the use of hazardous waste-carrying trucks as

weapons of mass destruction.

I just am really puzzled. I understand sort of in some sort of an

optimal rule we would be able to do that. I just fear that losing the

focus here, losing a focus of, okay, we have an inadequate amount

of money, but here is the way we are going to apportion it. This

part is going over into, you know, transit other than aviation; this

part is going over into ports. And then within that, we will determine what our priorities are in some way, and then we will apportion that inadequate amount of funding.

But to suddenly say in the whole world, we are going to compare

all that. I mean, what system have you developed? I guess maybe

I will ask Ms. Hecker. Are you aware of a system they have developed to meaningfully compare among the modes and somehow go

assess if we have this giant pot of money, how that money would

be apportioned? Are you aware of any system like that?

Ms. HECKER. Not as of the time we completed our report. There

is merit in that, but I think there is also merit, as your question

implies, in some base-level of continuity of support for a minimum

level of security within individual modes. The uncertainty or the

flexibility is something that really would raise some questions

about the ability of operators to really make plans over time.

These, of course, are publicly subsidized operators. These are not

profit-making institutions.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. So Ms. Henke, has something been developed in the last five months we are not aware of that would help

us deal with this new program? What is it called, TIP, or whatever?

Ms. HENKE. Targeted Infrastructure.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, TIP. Yes.

Ms. HENKE. TIP. Sir, the department has made great strides in

its risk analysis ability. I will be honest with you. I have been

there for three months. I am not aware of all of the work that has

been done to date. I can tell you that we have made significant

progress.

In our risk analysis, we are looking at individual assets. We are

looking at geographic areas. We are taking into account as it relates to these different systems, for instance on transit, we are

looking at passenger numbers. We are looking at route miles. We

are looking at once again most recent threat information. We are

working with the partners in the field to gather the data points to

ensure that we have that risk assessment capability to move forward with the PresidentFEs proposal.
14

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I have yet, serving on both committees of jurisdiction, to hear that there has been anything meaningful developed. Perhaps they are just withholding it from Congress. I don’t

think there has been, so I am very skeptical about merging. I

mean, it is a way to blur the inadequacy of the funding is to say,

well, we have a $600 million pot, but now it is actually addressing

a larger need, as opposed to say, well, we are only going to put

$150 million in to ports and we are going to put $180 million here

in that.

I really doubt that we can meaningfully choose among those

modes with such an inadequate amount of money, but I won’t belabor that point. In a more lighthearted way, I just have a question, if you could tell me who replaced Mother Teresa. I am curious.

Ms. HENKE. No one yet, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. So you are open for suggestions?

Ms. HENKE. Completely open for suggestions.

Ms. DEFAZIO. Okay, all right.

Ms. HENKE. This is an issue to help make certain that people

truly understand in terms that people, when we are trying to explain what the Federal Government does, and sometimes when we

are trying to explain what the Office of Grants and Training does,

it is kind of complicated. And so as a way to boost morale and as

a way to involve all the employees, and way to come up with how

to explain what the Office of Grants and Training does, we determined this was a way to do it. But no, we are open for suggestions,

sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Great. So if anybody on the Committee has

a suggestion, you could be in line for a free lunch. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I really just have one question. It is kind of a broad question. I will just address it to all three of you and whoever wants

to answer it. I am very interested in this because I had two young

women from my District who were injured in the London bombings

and received a lot of national publicity from their experience in the

hospital and so forth. And then I went with a group of members

at one time, not long after the Madrid bombings, to a memorial

that they had set up over in Spain about those bombings.

I heard Secretary Chertoff say something that made a lot of

sense in a speech he gave one time. He said we have to make people understand, or have people understand that we cannot protect

against every conceivable harm at every place at every time. I remember two or three months after the Department of Homeland

Security was created that I was driving in one morning to work

here and I heard on the NPR news one morning that the department already had, and they told what the number one, I don’t remember the exact number, but it is like 3,782 ideas for security devices, and probably there are thousands more already.

What I am getting at, the odds, all these incidents are terrible,

but the odds are still extremely low. I mean, you are more likely

to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

How do we achieve balance? How do we do what is reasonable for

security without going ridiculously overboard or being wasteful
15

about it? And then secondly, where are we getting the most bang

for our buck? What do we really need to do that we are not doing

now, as opposed to just doing pie-in-the-sky type things?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, if I may? One of the things that Secretary

Chertoff and I have discussed, and other leaders at the Department

of Homeland Security, is that we do need to be looking at manmade terrorist attacks, as well as natural disasters. That is what

we need to do.

When we talk about how we are proceeding and what we are

doing in these communities and States across the Country, it is not

one or the other. What we are doing is developing capabilities, capabilities to respond whether it is a tornado going through my

home State of Missouri; whether it is a terrorist attack somewhere

in the Country; whether it is a hurricane; the New Madrid fault

zone; an earthquake in California, et cetera. We are developing capabilities.

The department has identified, along with the national preparedness goal, the national priorities, 37 targeted capabilities. The GAO

and other organizations have validated that those capabilities are

necessary regardless of what the event is, regardless of what we

are looking at.

So what we are doing is preparing the Nation overall, regardless

of what that is. It gets to citizen preparedness. That gets to medical surge issues. That gets to chemical, biological, radiological, and

nuclear, et cetera. Investing resources and improving those targeted capabilities throughout the Country makes us better as a Nation. It will hopefully make us safe as a Nation.

I agree, sir, with what the Secretary said and what you were alluding to. Can we necessarily ever say we are safe 100 percent?

Likely, no. Can we say that we are safer and can we work to become safer? Yes, we can and we can do that by being better prepared, and we can be better prepared by addressing those targeted

capabilities and investing our resources in those targeted capabilities throughout the Country.

Mr. DUNCAN. And we also want to make sure that we are spending our money wisely and on things that provide real security, as

opposed to going with some company that is well-connected or has

high-level former government employees in it, or well-connected

lobbyists and they are going to make a lot of money, but what they

are providing is not that valuable from a security standpoint.

Ms. HENKE. Sir, if I may, on something else at the Department

of Homeland Security, specifically at Grants and Training, we

have, and I am going to apologize because I am not going to remember all the alphabet soup. We have something called SAVER,

though, and that deals with equipment, for instance.

As you pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of equipment

out there. There is a tremendous amount of individuals who have

ideas on how to move forward. The SAVER Program takes some of

this equipment, puts it in the field, and it is tested by first responders themselves. And then in essence, we issue a consumer report on that specific piece of equipment.

We now are going through an internal measurement of determining how many entities are utilizing those reports, that information,

before they make a purchase. We are finding, because the program
16

is relatively new, as is the Department of Homeland Security, we

are finding that entities across the Country are using these reports

to help guide their decision making on equipment purchases. So

that is a step that we are making and taking forward.

In addition to that, we understand the need for items such as

identifying best practices. One of the things that we are working

on with the Federal Transit Administration is the Transit Resource

Center that will provide information, that will help identify those

best practices, that will help guide decisions that our partners in

the field, our stakeholders in the field are making every single day.

So we are making headway.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, my time is up, but let me just say very quickly, you know, I have tremendous respect and admiration and appreciation for those who serve in the military, but the other side

is that all these defense contractors hire these retired admirals and

generals, and then they come back and they get us to buy all ths

defense hardware and some of it is good and some of it is really

wasteful. I don’t want to see the Homeland Security Department

become that way or spend whopping amounts of money just because something has the word ‘‘security’’ attached to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

Ms. Hecker, I noted that you have, in addition to looking at 32

American systems in metropolitan areas, you did a review of a

dozen or some such number systems overseas. I wonder if you

could, you referenced in your testimony that were some things that

you saw that could potentially be employed, that might have beneficial effects, random searches and what not. I just wondered if

there was one system in the review that you and your team conducted, if there was one foreign system that stood out, that had elements that seemed to be balanced and effective?

Ms. HECKER. We didn’t evaluate the performance and effectiveness of each one, but on a personal basis and on observation about

the comprehensiveness of the effort and the risk-based focus and

the care, I would say two stood out for me personally. One was

London, which we visited before the bombings; and another one

was Hong Kong. London had been a target for a decades because

of the IRA. It was a very comprehensive and genuine realization

that they really needed to focus on what could be done. While they

had a very comprehensive set of practices, education and information and technology, at the end of the day they really couldn’t prevent those attacks.

They did, however, provide the tools to arrest the perpetrators,

so it was very profound and it did allow tools to provide the response capability and mitigate some of the problems in an area

when you have good information and good communications. So it

both typified excellent risk assessment, strategic investment of resources, but vulnerability still at the end of the day.

Hong Kong and Singapore and Japan, actually, all of which I visited, they are all privatized and it was extraordinary how seriously

they take their investment in security. It is a bottom line issue. If

the system is interrupted, they lose revenue. So the strategic focus
17

of each of those operations in many ways was extraordinary, how

it permeated the organization. There isn’t just a security officer,

but it was part of the operation of the entire business, and very,

very, very careful consideration of what made sense. A lot of Mr.

Duncan’s point about that you don’t just throw money at things,

you make strategic decisions.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Right. Well, I guess in following that up, we

are looking here, in terms of the Committee’s jurisdiction, just as

it relates to transit, a very rich mix of public and private agencies.

Some are metropolitan-focused. Some are statewide. Some are

intercity private. And we are talking about hundreds of thousands

of men and women who make these systems work.

Your thoughts about what should be done to help these disparate

operators with different levels of sophistication, equipment, capitalization, to enable them, that we have a minimum threshold of

training and safety procedures. Do you have any thoughts on that,

recommendations, observations?

Ms. HECKER. That is such an important question. I hesitate to

present that somehow I have a simple answer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You have another minute of my time.

[Laughter.]

Ms. HECKER. I think it was very impressive, the leadership and

initiative that FTA took after 9/11. I think there was really a collaborative approach with industry to really target. There was very

limited authority, very limited resources, but there was a very,

very targeted and collegial approach.

I think when both TSA was formed and then ultimately transferred over to DHS, as I have made clear in my testimony, I think

there are really enormous challenges in coordination. FTA is the

face of the Federal Government to the transit community, and a

constructive face. They don’t just give out money willy-nilly, but

they understand the diversity of the business, and having the lines

of communication. These all sound good, but again I would say

these cooperative relationships with the true security focus and expertise of DHS, but recognizing that you have the transportation

expertise and communication within DOT in making those partnerships work is actually vital.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I would hope that part

of what we may be able to do, following up on what you have done

with this hearing here today. We have in the audience people who

represent the Public Transit Association. We have private bus operators. We have people who represent the employees, ATU, and our

being able to drill down on pursuing some of these questions and

trying to convene.

I have great sympathy for FTA, which is the Federal Government’s place for mass transit, but people are surprised to find out

what a small agency it is. I must say, some of our colleagues in the

appropriations side of the equation I think have had a different

view about equipping and providing the tools for just day-to-day

FTA management, let alone things like this.

I think, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, that there would

be a great service played if there was a way for us to continue this

conversation, make sure that some of the things we have author-
18

ized don’t get sideways in the appropriations process. We have that

continuing tug-of-war.

Because I just feel that this is a massive potential problem. I fear

that there will be an incident and I would hope that we are not

sort of caught overreacting or swinging the other way, but be able

to work with these folks to sort of look at resources, look at making

sure that Congress is coordinated and help move this conversation

forward.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Sodrel, any questions?

Mr. SODREL. I don’t have any questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Cummings?

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

Ms. Bushue, you know, I was just wondering, has the FTA developed any guidelines for security systems that would come under

the New Starts projects?

Ms. BUSHUE. We do not have the statutory authority to put out

any type of regulatory efforts in that regard. We work very closely

with the Department of Homeland Security in doing that. The New

Starts Program is really an altogether different program. It does

focus on construction and our grantees are very much looking at

security. We do require that they do provide some kind of security

perspective in their proposals, but it is not that we mandate it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The reason why I ask is it seems to me we are

doing New Starts. It seems like the ideal time that if we have technology new and more effective and efficient technology coming into

play every day that we would be looking at those kinds of things.

Ms. BUSHUE. The transit industry is a really take-control industry. They are doing so much of it themselves. For example, rail cars

now are equipping themselves with video cameras, as well as

buses. So that activity is certainly occurring.

I also would like to state that they can use their formula money

for these security upgrades. That is definitely allowed.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, this whole issue of the urbanized area formula, that 1 percent.

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How long has that been in effect?

Ms. BUSHUE. I think a year, two years? It goes back to 221. Excuse me. Like my colleague at the Department of Homeland Security, I have been at FTA for three months.

Mr. CUMMINGS. No problem, no problem.

I was just wondering, and maybe you may have to get back to

me on this, I was wondering if FTA or DHS, I mean, if you have

any information with regard to compliance, whether the transit

agencies, are there any that are out of compliance, or are they in

compliance. Sometimes I think you can have something a requirement like that, and people don’t consider it important. And the reason why I think they don’t consider it important is because they

don’t think anything is ever going to happen. I was just wondering,

do you have any information with regard to that? I see your staff

jumping up and down back there.
19

[Laughter.]

Ms. BUSHUE. Well, we track it. And again, the Federal Transit

Administration, we don’t regulate security, but we do track it, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What has your tracking shown? I guess what I

am concerned about, when we first were dealing with homeland security right after 9/11, there were all kinds of reports that a whole

lot of money was spent, not necessarily in this area, I mean generally, where we spent a lot of money ineffectively and inefficiently,

trying to deal with problems.

I am just trying to make sure that we are dealing with the taxpayers’ dollars in an effective and efficient manner. I don’t want to

give taxpayers and transit riders a false belief that they have certain security that they don’t even have. I guess that is why I am

so concerned that if we are tracking, it would be wonderful for us

to know how those dollars are being spent.

Another reason I am concerned about it is I like the idea of best

practices, if there are practices that are working in certain places,

or if we have seen certain security procedures put in place or

equipment, and then have had some situations where it has been

shown that they have proven to help keeping people safe, I think

we need to know about those things. Because it seems to be a

project, ever evolving. That is why I asked the question.

Ms. BUSHUE. I appreciate your comments. Let’s get back to you

on that 1 percent and let us get back to you on what we find.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right.

Ms. Hecker?

Ms. HECKER. I actually wanted to add, in our report one of the

things we noted is that FTA is actually responsible for verifying

that agencies are complying with the requirement for security improvements in the urban area formula funds, and is authorized to

withhold funds if agencies are found no in compliance. We found

that FTA had never in fact withheld any funds.

I might say also, one of the initial observations we have had

about the Annex on transit security and the coordination is there

are 100 new inspectors over at DHS, but there are FTA safety inspectors and there are FRA safety inspectors, and the coordination

and the relationship and the focus and the strategic use and integration in the use of those resources is something that we are concerned about.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just lastly, I know my time is up, but I guess

my concern is that when you say no funds have been withheld, it

sounds like you are also implying that just because no funds have

been withheld that does not necessarily mean that everybody has

been doing what they are supposed to do. It may very well be that

somebody was asleep at the switch and did not withhold funds

when they maybe should have been withheld.

I don’t want to be in a situation five years from now where some

incident happens and then we say that we didn’t do what we were

supposed to do. It sounds like there may be a question of coordination, and if that is the case, I think we need to make sure we address that.

Ms. HENKE. If I may, sir? Just to add one thing, one thing that

we are doing, once again collaboratively and working with our partners on, is making certain that they have security and emergency
20

preparedness plans at the regional level for these jurisdictions. And

that those plans then provide us an ability to then measure, from

a DHS perspective, working collaboratively with our partners.

We have a regional approach. We develop security and emergency preparedness plans. And then, from the reporting information, the programmatic reporting in, financial reporting, we will

then be able to track the measurement and the progress made and

identify those best practices that can then be incorporated in the

Transit Resource Center that will be available.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HECKER. Mr. Chairman, can I just add one small point, because I think the question about New Starts was an extremely important one. As a Country, this Committee, as a Country, we spend

multiple billions of dollars a year in supporting the development of

new systems. In fact, one of the things we did find looking abroad

is that there was a much more systematic effort both in new investments and in just upgrades, to secure systems, and sometimes

not even technology, just removing obstructions and improving the

line of sight.

So it is a very obvious and important area and an opportunity.

If FTA believes they don’t have the authority to really follow up on

this, it may be an area worth further exploration on this Committee, given the significance of the public funds involved.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Ms. Hecker, thank you all for your service.

I am very disturbed whenever we talk about the chances of this

happening. If you were to ask people before 9/11 of the chances of

this happening, we cannot protect America with that philosophy,

number one.

Number two, I want to commend the transportation people of this Country who have invested close to $2 billion. When you take

14 million people using the transit system every day, with 32 million trips, which comes to, as I said before, a penny per transit passenger trip, there is something radically wrong when you compare

what those transit people have invested in security to what airlines

had invested before 9/11. We have a serious problem here and we

are not confronting it. Period. I have come to that conclusion.

According to the Department of Homeland Security and the

GAO, the FTA conducted security and vulnerability assessments of

the Nation’s 36 largest transit agencies. I want you to summarize

very briefly and perhaps in writing to the Committee the primary

conclusions of those assessments, and does a prioritized list of mass

transit vulnerabilities even exist.

Two questions.

Ms. HECKER. You are asking that of GAO?

Mr. PASCRELL. I am asking that of you, Ms. Hecker.

Ms. HECKER. At the time of our review, we actually did try to

look at the security assessments and risk assessments and strategies that had been completed, mostly by the Office of Domestic Preparedness. They were incomplete at the time. They were ongoing.

A lot of our focus was really on the process and the rigor and the

consistency of what was being done.
21

Mr. PASCRELL. Are they still incomplete?

Ms. HECKER. They were when our report was issued six months

ago.

Mr. PASCRELL. Do we have a list of the priorities that you have

established or anybody has established in terms of mass transit?

Mr. PASCRELL. I would say that would be an excellent question

to ask Ms. Henke. That is the resource.

Mr. PASCRELL. Ms. Henke? I will take your advice.

Ms. HENKE. Sir, we do have some information as it relates to priorities on where we believe Federal resources should be invested,

based upon, once again, the national preparedness goal, our national priorities, and our targeted capabilities, and making certain

that we are investing the limited resources in manners that are

going to have a great return or hopefully a very positive return on

the protection and safety and security of the Nation.

Mr. PASCRELL. As you know, Ms. Henke, since fiscal year 2003,

the Department of Homeland Security has managed the Transit

Security Grant Program. The basis on which the funds, as I understand it, are allocated and the procedures for making funds available to the transit agencies have changed significantly in those

three years.

In fiscal year 2003, the security grants were made directly to the

transit agencies. In 2004, the funds had to be passed through a

State administrative agency. In 2005, the transit security grant

funds were made available to regional transit security working

groups, which had to reach a local consensus on funding allocations

within an urban area before applying for security grant funds in

the first place.

It hardly seems efficient to me to change the grant funding

mechanism each year. Why is it changing each year?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, it has evolved each year.

Mr. PASCRELL. What has evolved?

Ms. HENKE. The way in which the resources—

Mr. PASCRELL. I mean the history of man evolves. I mean, what

has evolved?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, what we have done over the past couple of years

is once again look at the resources we have available and try to figure out—

Mr. PASCRELL. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The resources that

were made available? Is that at the source of the problem?

Ms. HENKE. No, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. You said it.

Ms. HENKE. Sir, we are looking at the resources.

Mr. PASCRELL. This is not the Colbert Report. That is what you

just said.

Ms. HENKE. I apologize, sir. I am not sure I understand your

point.

Mr. PASCRELL. What does this depend upon, these changing from

year to year of how we fund the programs in transit?

Ms. HENKE. It is looking at the risk that we have and how to allocate the resources we have to address the risks throughout the

Country, and making certain that as we are addressing risk, we

are doing it in a comprehensive manner, that the strategies that

the transit systems have feed into a systems approach, that feed
22

into the urban area, and feed into a State homeland security strategy, or a multi-state strategy.

Mr. PASCRELL. Do you think that it is comprehensive, what you

just said, and that what is happening out there is comprehensive?

Ms. HENKE. I think what we are looking at, we are trying to once

again utilize the resources from the Federal level, and with our

partners at every single level, to maximize resources available to

address risk.

Mr. PASCRELL. I have 26 questions here, but obviously my time

is up.

Ms. HENKE. Okay.

Mr. PASCRELL. I want to conclude by just one quick question, if

I may, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When you are talking about a penny a trip, okay, do you want

me to make that comparison to what we spend in protecting our

airlines and our airports? How do I reconcile the two? Help me do

that. Are those people who fly more important than those people

who take choo-choo trains? Are those people who fly more important than those people who take the bus? Let’s get to the heart of

the issue.

I am not speaking to you personally. I thank you for your service.

I sincerely believe that, but you know, we have heard this rhetoric

over and over and over again. I want to know how you help me reconcile the major differences between what we spend per passenger

in the air as well as on land, for transit. You tell me.

Ms. HENKE. Sir, aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is not the case for transit security.

Mr. PASCRELL. What the heck happened before 2001 if it was a

Federal responsibility? The Federal Government did not provide

money before 2001.

Ms. HENKE. I am not saying that it did. I am saying currently,

sir, aviation security is a Federal responsibility.

Mr. PASCRELL. Is it a Federal responsibility to deal with the

transit systems of this Country? Is that a Federal responsibility?

What is the beginning and end of the Federal responsibility with

that regard?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, we have a partnership with all our stakeholders

on the Federal, State and local level and with communities across

the Country to address our transit security.

Mr. PASCRELL. We use the word ‘‘partnership’’ when we talk

about the airlines, too now, since we are investing so much money

in airline security. So we have a partnership with the transit companies and systems throughout the Nation. Therefore, we have a

responsibility, I guess, don’t we?

Ms. HENKE. It is a shared responsibility, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. Are we meeting our Federal responsibility as far

as you are concerned?

Ms. HENKE. That is something for the Administration and the

Congress to determine.

Mr. PASCRELL. I have no more questions.

Mr. PETRI. All right.

Let’s see. Mrs. Schmidt, any questions?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yes, I have one.
23

Could you tell me, any one of you, what you feel, do you think

that the United States transit systems and intercity bus companies

need? What kind of Federal assistance do you think that they need

to adequately meet the security needs, and have the amounts provided specifically for transit security been adequate to those needs?

Ms. BUSHUE. Since you were late, I am Sandy Bushue and I am

the Deputy Administrator for the FTA, so I would be happy to take

on that question.

While we were talking earlier today, while there is no amount of

money that can protect it from the threats, I believe at FTA what

we have done in the area of human capital, which oftentimes we

minimize, but what we have done in the human capital area are

three things. We have focused on public awareness, which is a kind

of PR campaign that we have given to all of our grantees, worked

with them, and have come up with really catchy phrases like in

New York City, they have a phrase that the passengers use on

poster all over that says, ‘‘see something, say something.’’ A great

program. That is really important. Passengers are alert.

The second human capital area on which we focus on is emergency preparedness. Grantees’ employees receive money to conduct

drills, and that has been very effective. So when something does

happen, in the event that it does, unfortunately, employees know

how to respond.

And the third area we focus on is employee training. That, too,

we believe has been very, very effective. We can do more of it and

we will be doing more of it, but that has had a very effective role,

I believe, in our transit community.

Mr. PETRI. Very good.

I have one or two questions, and we will go into a second round.

This first one is to Ms. Bushue and Ms. Henke. Do you know

when the joint Department of Homeland Security and Department

of Transportation regulation governing transit security grants will

be issued? The statutory deadline I think is February 10, 2006. So

that has come and gone.

Ms. BUSHUE. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. I am here

to say that we have worked very, very closely with TSA and GNT

and FTA on getting that grant program out the door. We expect to

publish the notice for proposed rulemaking in May, if not sooner.

After doing so, I think we will be ready to start making grants,

hopefully going through the process review for that, probably in

early fall.

Mr. PETRI. So the proposed rules will come out, when did you

say?

Ms. BUSHUE. We expect to publish early May.

Mr. PETRI. Early May.

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes.

Mr. PETRI. And then the comment period and then they go into

effect.

Ms. BUSHUE. That is correct, sir, yes.

Mr. PETRI. All right. Well, we look forward to that.

And then also, budget year 2006 transit and rail security grants

have not been released by your office for this current budget year.

Do you know when they will be allocated? This is for Ms. Henke,

actually.
24

Ms. HENKE. I figured that out.

Mr. PETRI. How much of the $150 million will go for transit security grants, if you know?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, I am going to try to remember the numbers off the top of my head. I believe it is $21 million that will be for intercity bus. I think it is approximately $8 million that will be for Amtrak, and the remaining for transit, out of the funding that has

been made available. Those are approximate numbers. We can get

back to you with the specifics on that.

It is my hope and our anticipation that they will be released very

soon. They are in the final clearance process. We are on a similar

timeline as last year. Last year, they came out I believe on April

5. So we are on a similar timeline as last year.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Henke, since we are now thinking about, although my mind

is closed to the possibility, but I am in the minority. We will see.

This new consolidating of the grants and not recognizing different

sector, I want to understand how we might apportion those scarce

funds. I am going to give you one example that was pointed out,

and this predates you, so there is no way this is aimed at you. The

Office of Inspector General had a follow-up report in February,

2006, and in that they say that Fortune 500 companies have been

in and out of the pot. They were in the pot originally to get grants,

then they were out of the pot, and then they were back in in the

last round.

In the last round, a Fortune 500 refinery received a port security

grant in round five totaling $1 million for fencing and surveillance

upgrades at a refinery located in a major port. It put up matching

funds. That is good.

However, you are looking at, as I understand it, $600 million

total funding for port, rail, truck, transit, all the security we have

been talking about. This company had $1.2 billion of profits in one

quarter. That is $12.9 million a day. They could have taken two

hours profit and put up the $1 million on their own. Do you support further allocations like this out of that scarce $600 million?

Again, you were not there when this was done. Are we going to

take the Fortune 500 companies back out of this rather scarce

grant competition, or are going to put them back in? Do you have

any information on that?

Ms. HENKE. Sir, the law has them eligible. That was a determination made by Congress, as well as the match.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, they were ineligible in round four by administrative rule. Does that mean there was a violation of the law in

round four when they were made ineligible by rule?

Ms. HENKE. No. I am speaking to the law now. I will have to go

back and check.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would like to see that the law is changed between

round four and five. I am not certain of that. In any case, well, let’s

just say if we are having to prioritize, how high would you put on

the list giving $1 million to a company that makes $12.9 million

a day, as opposed to a public transit company or some other business that is struggling more, for instance, the trucking industry?
25

Ms. HENKE. Sir, I will be honest. I can’t answer that question.

We need to look at once again the risk that all our infrastructure

faces, and we need to make determinations and follow the law on

how to allocate those resources.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure, but I guess I would just suggest to you that

the American public would be pretty incensed to find that we had

given a Fortune 500 oil company a $1 million grant to put up fending they should have paid for with two hours of their own profits

which they have extracted from the American consumers by price

gouging. But be that as it may, I will look forward to seeing the

legal requirement that we require Fortune 500 companies to be eligible for these grants when so many other folks are being shorted.

I was told that I created some puzzlement with the way I ended

before, so I just want to make it clear. It was something meant to

be lighthearted. This is a very heavy subject. Ms. Henke in her

former position had boiled down the mission of her agency to Santa

Claus, Batman and Mother Teresa. She said Mother Teresa

wouldn’t work in this new position. So she was having a competition among her staff to replace Mother Teresa, and that is what I

was referring to because some people apparently out there were

puzzled by my reference.

I put some thought to it, since I asked the question, and I would

suggest to you that you change the whole triumvirate here.

Ms. HENKE. I am listening, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Here we go. I will see if I can get the lunch. Santa

Claus we would replace with Scrooge, because there is not enough

money; Batman, because he is too powerful, we would replace with

Underdog, one of my favorites, but he can’t quite get things right;

and then Mother Teresa, I would replace, and this has a lot of resonance with me, because there is the same amount of money involved that you get for grants and everything, Dennis Kozlowski,

because as Tyco’s CEO, he is alleged to have committed a $600 million fraud, which is the amount of money we are going to spend

on all of our grant program this year. I think there is just kind of

a wonderful resonance there. But anyway, you can take it under

advisement, and I will see if I get the invitation to lunch.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HENKE. If not an invitation to lunch on this, maybe on something else, sir.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. I would advise you not to sip the tea.

Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. You have

to admit that.

I have an FTA question. According to the Department of Homeland Security, States that use their homeland security grant funds

for transit authority and transit security, and you and I both know

that States must use most of these funds to meet the urgent training for police officers and firefighters and paramedics. Both are urgent and deserving causes. It seems that transit security needs are

being pitted against that of first responders. In my mind, this is

an untenable situation.

What are your thoughts on the ramifications for mass transit security and the FTA’s mission in this area? Ms. Bushue?
26

Ms. BUSHUE. Thanks for the FTA question.

I have to say to you, I am a little surprised at that. I am not

aware that transit security—

Mr. PASCRELL. This is pretty basic. I am not making it up either.

Ms. BUSHUE. I am not saying that you are, but I am not familiar

that DHS transit security grant money does go, probably it maybe

goes to those first responders as it relates to the drills that transit

agencies, the money that they receive to conduct the drills, because

those drills do include, as I understand, the first responders, which

would make sense. When there is an incident in security in transit,

it is going to be more than just the transit security police will be

involved. The first responders of the community will also be a very

vital part of that drill.

So I believe as it relates to the program at the Department of

Homeland Security, if money is going to first responders, it is to

conduct the transit drills that are very necessary and needed.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Deputy Administrator, I am not just talking about no general State homeland grants. I am not just talking

about transit. I am talking about all the money. What we have

done, and this is piggy-backing on what Mr. DeFazio was talking

about. We have established a system at the Department of Homeland Security, that pits one interest against the other.

I never, never got an answer to his question. I am piggy-backing

on that, because according to DHS, Homeland Security, States can

use their homeland security grant funds. They may use it for transit security, but they also have to use it to train and equip the

needs of police and fire. These are competing needs.

Are you clear on what I mean? Maybe I am not making myself

clear. I don’t think this, in my opinion, that this is the best way

to provide transit security.

Ms. BUSHUE. Congressman Pascrell, at the FTA, we advise on

transit.

Mr. PASCRELL. I know.

Ms. BUSHUE. We work very closely with the Department of

Homeland Security.

Mr. PASCRELL. I am not blaming you guys. I am saying to you

do you accept the system?

Ms. BUSHUE. Well, I think as it relates to first responders working closely with transit, I think it does make sense. You have to

have a comprehensive approach to security. So from that respect,

I think, yes, it does make sense, that first responders are working

with transit security police and transit security personnel to ensure

when a crisis does occur that they know how to respond and how

to react.

Mr. PASCRELL. I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree with you at

all on your answer, which is maybe immaterial. I would ask you

to go back and look at that.

Ms. BUSHUE. I would be happy to do so.

Mr. PASCRELL. And I would gladly supply the question, because

I think we have established an untenable situation here.

My second question to you is this, SAFETEA-LU, which was our

huge five-year plan for transportation in this Country, directs the

Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland

Security both to issue a joint final regulation to establish the char-
27

acteristics of and requirements for public transportation security

grants, as you know.

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes.

Mr. PASCRELL. The legislative deadline was February 10. I just

want to make sure if I caught your answer, those regulations will

be done by May?

Ms. BUSHUE. The notice for the proposed rulemaking will be out

by May, correct.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you.

My next question to you, the Federal Transit Administration has

explicit statutory authority to oversee and regulate transit safety

through making grants. Federal transit funds are required to be

expended on security improvement as well. In fact, transit systems

in urbanized areas, areas of more than 50,000 population, are required to expend at least 1 percent of their Federal formula grant

funds each fiscal year for transit security projects.

In your opinion, have these sources of funding been adequate for

FTA to successfully carry out the mission and how are FTA grants

and Homeland Security grants harmonized for maximum security?

What kind of meshing, melding is going on here? And are additional funding sources necessary?

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely. The 1 percent is the floor. Our transit

grantees can use actually as much as they want, but the 5307

money for eligibility for transit security activities such as, again

getting back to the public awareness campaign, the training of employees in emergency preparedness drills, they can use their urban

formulas urban grant money for those activities.

Now, regarding coordination, that gets back to our chart here.

Mr. PASCRELL. I was looking at it before.

Ms. BUSHUE. I know it probably looks maybe a little bit bureaucratic.

Mr. PASCRELL. That is one of the more simple ones that we have

seen.

Ms. BUSHUE. Thank you. I think it is as well, and that is why

I wanted to show it to the Committee, because this is the blueprint.

I would like to say that we really do have a very good relationship

with the Department of Homeland Security and we are fixing and

looking at that coordination to ensure that those eight, I would

submit to you, very important what we call project management

teams or modules are working and be effective.

Mr. PASCRELL. I just wanted to alert you that the more folks on

that side say that there is great coordination and relationship, we

have found that there is trouble in Dodge City. I just wanted to

warn you in that regard.

Just in conclusion, I would say this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

for your patience, number one. And I thank the members of the

panel. But I have some serious reservations about how this is

working. I truly believe, and I don’t think you have contributed to

it, I hope not, that this attempt to help transit security in this

Country, which I think is a huge problem, a huge problem, which

we have not started to solve, reflects the dysfunctional nature of

DHS.

If we can’t get this right, in terms of past history before 9/11 in

other countries, then we cannot say to the American people that we
28

have moved. We are never going to have a seamless system. We

know that, but to simply say that the chances of this happening,

that is not good enough. You know it is not good enough, and that

is not how you protect American citizens. That is not how you protect American citizens.

So thank you for your presentations.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Other questions? If not, we thank this panel, and turn to the second panel, which consists of Mr. William Millar, President of the

American Public Transportation Association; Peter J. Pantuso, who

is the President and CEO of the American Bus Association; and

Mr. Michael Siano, International Executive Vice President of the

Amalgamated Transit Union.

We thank you all for coming and for reducing the summary of

your testimony to five minutes. We will begin with the very familiar figure before this Committee, and that is Bill Millar, President

of the American Public Transportation Association.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; PETER J.

PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL SIANO, INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION

Mr. MILLAR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that

nice introduction. It is certainly great to be back before this Committee. I want to particularly commend you and Mr. DeFazio on

the Committee for having these hearings on this very important

topic.

I believe the last time that I appeared before this Committee on

this topic was in June of 2004. It was shortly after the terrible terrorist bombings in Madrid. Much of what I have to say unfortunately is the same as it was then. I am particularly appreciative

as I hear the members’ questions this afternoon. It is very clear

that many of the members of this Committee have a very clear understanding of the issues and some of the difficulties that are here.

Also, I want to thank the Committee for sponsoring H.R. 5082

in the last Congress. We believe legislation like that is essential if

we are going to get proper resources for improving the security of

the millions and millions of Americans who rely on public transit.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to develop such legislation as you may feel are appropriate.

In my testimony, I cover many of the basic statistics. I can tell

from the members’ comments that they are well familiar with those

statistics, so I think I will move along and really focus on a couple

of issues.

First, and I think it is inherent in some of the question that were

asked earlier and it is very important. We cannot make everybody

perfectly safe. We understand that, but we can do better. We can

do reasonable, common sense investments in transit security that

will make the citizens who rely on our systems safer; that will

make our employees safer; and will make the communities in

which we operate safer.
29

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t bring it with me

today, but I would like to submit to the record a copy of the oftreferred to earlier survey that we did on the kinds of things that

our members believe are necessary to improve security.

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, it will be a part of the record when

you submit it.

Mr. MILLER. Now, that survey suggested that we ought to invest

at least $6 billion. It was the best estimates we had in late 2003,

when that survey was taken. Some have suggested that seems like

a very high number. Well, it certainly would be good rhetoric to say

how much is one life worth, how much are thousands of lives

worth. Yes, it is very hard to say exactly what the right number

is, but the kinds of things that our members know need to be done

are exactly the kinds of things that the GAO just told you, based

on their examination not only of U.S. transit systems, but transit

systems from around the world.

And they are very common sense things, making sure you have

good, reliable, interoperable radio and other types of communication systems; making sure that you are using the latest in technology of camera and video technology, both to prevent and, as we

heard in the London case, quickly arrest the perpetrators afterwards; make sure we have automatic vehicle locator systems; make

sure we have proper training for our employees; make sure that

our employees have the opportunity to drill, to practice the skills

that they have been taught. And the list goes on and on and on.

As one might say, this is not rocket science. We know what needs

to be done to make our systems safer and more secure. We have

invested well over $2 billion. That is a number from two years ago.

We hope to update that number. We have invested well over that.

We understand, with all the financial pressures on the Congress,

we may need to, rather than look at $6 billion quickly, we may

need to spread that out over time. This year, we have asked the

Appropriations Committee to provide at least $560 million in the

2007 Homeland Security appropriations for transit grants. That

would be a good down payment on the $6 billion investment we

should be making.

We have also asked that the Congress provide $500,000 to the

Department of Homeland Security to support the development of

the standards. Our chart over here, if you notice there is APTA up

in the upper right-hand corner there. One thing we are very

pleased with is that the Department of Homeland Security, like

FTA, like FRA, have understood the wisdom of using industry

knowledge and knowhow to develop standards, but it takes investment. We are suggesting at least $500,000 a year in that investment.

Finally, as again the GAO found, one of the key things to making

our system safer is to have proper intelligence ahead of time of

what the terrorists may be wanting to do. The Congress gave FTA

a number of years ago a grant to help establish something called

the Public Transit Information Sharing Analysis Center, ISAC is

the inevitable acronym for that. The money for that has frankly

run out. We have suggested to the Department of Homeland Security that has turned out to be very valuable. We should fund that,
30

so we are also asking the Congress to provide $600,000 so we continue a proven success in the ISAC area.

Finally, we are asking the Department of Homeland Security to

simplify the grant process. Several of the members earlier talked

about the complications of the DHS grant process. I happen to have

here a recent presentation that staff members from the DHS made

describing the last few years of the program. As was correctly identified, we have had this program four years. We have had three different agencies inside DHS that have tried to administer this program. In last year’s program alone, in addition to all the other requirements, there were five new requirements.

Some people have said the money has flowed slowly. In fact, we

have said the money has flowed slowly. Well, when you constantly

change the requirements, when you shuffle new personnel in and

out, when you keep moving the shells, it is very hard to get the

rules right to move quickly on the grants-making process.

We think there is a simple answer. We think the work this committee has done over the last frankly couple of decades in developing a process that works very well, and that is all of our members

already have a granting relationship with the Federal Transit Administration. We think it should not be a problem for the Congress

and the DHS to agree on the rules.

Then whatever that is and whatever appropriation it is, simply

transfer it to FTA, and let it go out through their grant mechanisms, which we already do, and then you have the audit trail already established because it is already there. It is something this

Committee developed years ago. It works very, very well. There are

coordination mechanisms in it to make sure that we properly spend

the money, and it goes on and on.

I know my time is up. I would be happy to go into these or any

other topics in greater detail at your pleasure. Again, I appreciate

the invitation to be with you today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pantuso?

Mr. PANTUSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

DeFazio, and the members of the Committee, for holding this hearing.

The American Bus Association and our members take very seriously the duty to provide safe bus transportation and efficient

transportation. We want to make sure that ‘‘safe’’ also means secure.

While our name may connote only transportation, our reach is

certainly much broader. We serve as the voice for almost 1,000 bus

and tour operators around the Country, representing 65 percent of

all the private buses on the road, as well as another 2,800 members who are in the travel industry, State and local tourism offices

that represent national treasures like the Sears Tower or the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge.

ABA members have assessed the security needs in the industry

over the past number of years. Our operators tell us that what they

need to protect their passengers is security training as their first

priority. They need to train personnel, drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, both in techniques of threat assessment and in threat recognition, as well as in crisis management.
31

Their second greatest need is for equipment, including communications systems that connect buses with the home-bases, and

with first responders wherever those buses might be in the Country. They also need equipment such as driver shields and cameras

and wands to wand passengers at bus terminals around the Country. And they need protection for bus terminals.

Third, they need information systems that allow operators realtime information, including the status and location of their equipment and their personnel.

This need for security funds and grants extends to intercity

schedule operators, to shuttle operators, to charter and tour operators, to other providers in the industry. Beginning each spring, for

example, the charter and tour industry begins to arrive in the Nation’s capital, tens of thousands of buses roll into Washington over

the next couple of months, and millions of tourists blanket our city.

And while the motor coaches that bring these citizens are ubiquitous on the streets of Washington, the buses and the people they

carry must be protected.

Compared to other modes of transportation, as has been mentioned, the security needs of the private bus industry are fairly

modest, but the need for Federal funding is large. The private bus

industry is one of small businessman and businesswomen. Since 9/

11, Congress has given the airlines tens of billions of dollars for security. Since the Madrid terror bombing, rail security funding has

been increased. But the amount appropriated to the private bus industry amounts to less than one cent per passenger. At 774 million

passengers that we move annually, we move more than the airlines

and Amtrak combined, that level of funding is totally inadequate.

Over the past several years, ABA has worked with this committee on security funding, but as you pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, Congress has not yet passed a comprehensive bus security

bill. ABA has also worked with the Appropriations Committees in

both houses to obtain security funds and grants, but have only received $55 million over the past five years in total, slightly more

than $10 million per year.

The private bus industry has made good use of the funds that

we have received, providing nationwide classroom security training,

printed and electronic materials for the industry, and individual

bus companies have likewise developed successful initiatives with

these funds. Greyhound, for example, is using funds and their own

money to increase wanding at their largest terminals. Wisconsin

Coach Lines has used grants to purchase wanding devices, as well

as metal detectors. Other grants have been used to secure garages

and for training as well.

Obviously, there is much more to be done, since only 20 percent

of the demand was met in 2005 grants and since only one-half of

the companies that applied for grants received them. And that,

under the auspices that 90 percent of the private bus companies in

the Nation were excluded from even being able to apply for security

grants last year.

I would also point out that what we have discussed and proposed

today can and will be of benefit in any emergency or disaster situation. After the aftermath of Katrina and the role that our members

played in moving people out of that disaster area, those kind of
32

services, systems and products that we are talking about would be

beneficial in the future.

In the future, Mr. Chairman, our members need improved GPS

systems, additional real-time information. More importantly, they

need expanded baggage, passenger and package express screening.

In conclusion, what this industry really needs in the long term,

as has been mentioned by my colleague, is some type of sustainable

funding, something that will continue the efforts which began a

number of years ago. The programs and the funding stream for security cannot start and stop. Security is not a start and stop exercise, but one that requires an ongoing plan and the funding stream

to maintain that plan.

Mr. Chairman, the American Bus Association looks forward to

working with you and with the committee to ensure that the transportation system justly lauded for safety, reliability and low cost,

retains that ranking when security is added to the list of duties.

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you

Mr. Siano?

Mr. SIANO. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the Committee, on behalf of the members of the Amalgamated Transit Union and International President Warren

George, I would want to thank you for giving me the opportunity

to testify today on the ATU’s priorities and strategies for enhancing

transit and over-the-road bus security.

Faced with the realities of terrorist attacks against mass transit,

the ATU has for years worked to raise awareness of our members

and employees to this danger and to advance the real solutions and

initiatives to enhance the safety and security of the systems that

our members operate and maintain. We firmly believe that the

labor community must be a partner in any effort to address the security threats facing our industry.

For that reason, we have worked closely with our members, the

transit and bus industries, Federal Transportation Administration,

the Transportation Security Administration, and elected officials at

all levels of government.

A short list of our efforts include producing and distributing a security training video and pamphlets, conducting a joint labor and

management conference on transit security, working with DOT and

industry security experts to develop Transit Watch, and contributing to the design, distribution and promotion of the National Transit Institution security and emergency response training programs

for frontline transit employees.

The transit and over-the-road bus industry themselves have also

taken steps toward securing their operations, but due to in large

part funding constraints, they have not gone far enough. The Federal Government must step up to the plate and provide the necessary funding, guidance and even mandates to provide the level

of security that transit and bus passengers and employees deserve.

Common sense tells us that the single most important thing that

we can do to increase transit and over-the-road bus security is to

provide each and every frontline transit employee, including rail

and bus operations, customer service personnel and maintenance
33

employees, with security and emergency preparedness and response training. While we should not abandon research and development of new technologies, we must recognize what has been

proven to be the most cost-effective security measure: employee

training.

In the event of a terrorist attack within the mass transit system,

the response of employees at a scene within the first few minutes

is critical to minimize the loss of life and the evacuation of passengers away from the incident. Transit employees are the first on

the scene, even before the police, firefighters and emergency medical response. They must know what to do in order to save the lives

of their passengers and themselves.

During the 1995 sarin gas incident in the Tokyo subway system,

two transit employees unnecessarily lost their lives when they tried

to dispose of the gas devices themselves, instead of simply evacuating the scene. Proper training would have prevented these losses

and possibly decreased the number of passengers who were exposed

to this deadly gas.

Frontline transit and bus employees are also crucial in preventing attacks. They are the eyes and ears of the system and are often

the first to discover suspicious activities and threats, or the first to

receive reports from passengers. They need to know how to recognize threats and the appropriate protocols to follow for reporting

and responding to these threats.

Security experts and officials from both the FTA and the TSA

have publicly recognized the need for employee training, and yet

little, if anything, has been done to ensure the training is provided.

While many in the transit industry claim that employees are being

trained, this is simply not reality. I know it because I have talked

to our members, the ones who supposedly are being trained, and

they tell me a different story.

A survey of ATU members conducted in the past fall confirms

what I have heard from members. While the results are still being

compiled, the preliminary results indicate that approximately 60

percent of ATU members working for the U.S. transit systems remain untrained in emergency preparedness and response. Surprisingly, this number includes employees of transit systems in major

cities that are high-risk of terrorist attacks. For security reasons,

I will not publicly disclose the names of these systems.

Despite overwhelming evidence supporting the need for training

and the availability of free training programs through NTI, transit

systems continue to resist calls for training because of the operating cost to pay employees and to keep the buses and trains running

during the training sessions. It is time that the Federal Government stepped in to not only provide funding for the operating costs

associated with training, but also require all transit systems to

train each and every frontline transit employee.

The leadership of this Subcommittee and the T&I Committee as

a whole recognized the need for such action in the last session of

Congress when you reported out a bill that would have authorized

significant funding for both transit and over-the-road bus security,

and would have required transit systems to provide the training to

frontline employees as a condition of receiving such funds. The
34

ATU supported this bill and we will encourage the committee to

move similar legislation as soon as possible.

We need to take action now to address the security needs of the

transit and over-the-road bus industries, and most importantly to

train the workers in these industries. Doing so now will save lives.

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the

ATU, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.

Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to you three for your testimony.

I guess I would just ask one question. I think you were all here

in the room when we were, and I am not going to ask the three

people to describe the agency, although you might get in the contest too and see if you can get a free lunch from Ms. Henke.

But this new TIP Program, I mean, I think Mr. Millar, you pretty much addressed that in saying how if every year you changed

the program, it is pretty hard for people to figure out how to apply

consistently and actually get the money. And then they say, well

see, the people don’t really need the money because, hey, we didn’t

use it.

I mean, do any of you think this is a good idea that we would

have transit compete with ports, compete with trucking, compete

with all the other needs we have?

Mr. MILLAR. Sir, we do not think it is a good idea. All the things

you have just mentioned are important, and in their own way have

to be properly secured. Homeland security is part of national security. Since the founding of the republic, national security belongs

to the Federal Government. I learned that in civics class a long

time ago. I assume everyone else in the room did too. They have

not yet learned it at DHS.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, we are busily rewriting the textbooks as they

change the grant process.

Do either of the others, yes?

Mr. PANTUSO. Yes, sir, Mr. DeFazio, we would certainly agree

that it makes no sense to put each mode in competition for funding.

There are too many instances where the modes compete for other

funding programs right now, and where it relates to security we

should all be working as a system and a unit for security.

As Mr. Millar pointed out earlier, it makes no sense to have programs that change from year to year or time to time. We have been

through that in our own industry enough. Every time that there is

a grant application available and up for the members of the industry, it is different than what they applied for before. Sometimes

they can participate, sometimes they can’t. Some things they want,

some things they don’t want. It makes it confusing. So it is very,

very difficult to try to secure a system, let alone a mode, when you

are changing all the time.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes.

Mr. SIANO. My answer would be no. Transit should be a separate

grant program and should not have to compete with ports and rails

for funding.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you.
35

I guess one other, Mr. Chairman. I can’t help myself on this one.

Do you have any opinion on giving a Fortune 500 oil company that

makes $12.9 million a day a $1 million grant to put fencing around

one of its port facilities? Do you think that is something, given the

amount of money we have available and the needs of your folks,

that that is a good expenditure of tax dollars? Does anybody want

to volunteer on that one?

Mr. MILLAR. I will volunteer and add to it. It certainly does not

make sense to us. We just don’t understand it. The other thing

don’t understand is that sometimes our members are told to do certain things in the name of security. I think of a small Midwestern

transit system member we have. They were told to put fencing all

around their property. They are in a very small town.

I am not sure what the risk is, but hey, they were told to put

the fence in. They applied for grants. They put the fencing in.

Right next to them is a major fertilizer company producing the

kind of product that blew up the building in Oklahoma City, and

they aren’t required to do anything. We really wonder in a small

town in the Midwest which is the greater threat.

So you see these kind of inconsistencies all the time. It is very

frustrating to our members and our members simply don’t understand it.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, neither do I, Mr. Millar. Maybe we will find

that in the new textbook, too.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would just like to follow up on one item.

When we are talking about prioritization for grant monies, there

are a number of areas that are legitimate targets for terrorism. It

seems to me that what you gentlemen represent in the presentations you made is you represent a sector that is not just a target,

but it is part of the solution to incidents, be they terrorists or natural disaster.

Earlier, you may have heard I referenced what happened with

Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, where transit had the potential. We

have referenced what the independent bus operations did, for instance. We have had transit agencies and employees from around

the Country step in to try and help New Orleans.

It seems to me that one of the areas that deserves special consideration, and why we need to train the workers and equip the systems is that there is a likelihood that they may be a target based

on the last 20 years of history, and what you represent will be a

solution to a wide range of incidents, be they terrorist or more likely natural disasters.

Do you have any thoughts about how we might weight the

grants, weight the attention, weight the oversight and investment

to represent the dual nature of the service that you gentlemen represent, or services you gentlemen represent?

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir. We have several ideas in that regard.

First, we believe that there is a basic level of training and information that must be given to all transit operators to all transit employees. We certainly agree with the ATU on that point. Beyond

that, we are certainly in agreement with DHS that for significant
36

amounts of investment, we certainly are prepared for some kind of

risk-based approach. That would seem to make logical sense.

But I think as several of the members questioned the previous

panel, figuring out how you figure out those risks is another matter. For example, last Friday I was in Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi meeting with the transit officials who are struggling the

best they can, now seven months after Katrina. Their FEMA

money was taken away from them on March 1, and now they are

making it on their own, so to speak, in this.

It is very clear to me from what I saw that day that, one, they

have done a great job in supporting their community; and two, they

could do a lot more; and three, much of what is necessary to improve transit systems in the security area is equally applicable in

natural disasters, as my colleague from ABA has already said.

So if we are going to go to a risk base, which makes sense to us.

I think we have to think of it in bigger terms. We have to realize

the contribution that transit makes and, as several of us have said,

the transit workers are also the first-line responders, so how does

that factor into the whole thing as well.

So yes, it is complicated, but if there isn’t sufficient resource, if

there isn’t enough money, then we wind up fighting over crumbs

and we really do not get better security and we really do not get

better at preparing for natural disasters. So we need a significant

increase in funding and then we need to work together and cooperate to develop what makes sense in terms of risk assessment.

Mr. PANTUSO. Congressman, let me only support what Mr. Millar

just said and my other colleague from the ATU, that if we are looking at priorities, the first priority is certainly the people. The efforts that were put forth by the transit community, by the private

bus industry following Katrina relied on people. But it also relied

on equipment, on some basic communications equipment and systems that are not in place right now.

Our buses, unlike the transit systems, move all over the Country,

and they have a different need because they are in different places.

They are not at a home base every single night. So in simple terms,

people and some basic levels of equipment are what we need and

what we should prioritize. It is not a lot of money in terms of the

scope, but it is moving in the direction much further than we have

done in the past.

Mr. SIANO. Just a comment. The people and the bus drivers and

mechanics down in the area of Hurricane Katrina, just so you understand that the people that they are talking about, they are our

members down there. So we have a big stake in what is being done

down there.

I had an opportunity just a few weeks ago to visit three days

down there with our members down there. I cannot explain to you

at all the devastation that is down there. You can’t imagine and

you have to be there to see it. They are running some service down

there. They are not collecting any fares. Maybe about 50 percent

of the employees are driving the buses. Other than that, 85 percent

of the people are not working yet, not collecting a paycheck, and

it is obviously a disaster all the way around.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I was disturbed, Mr. Siano, in your testimony,

that still over half your members have not received training.
37

Mr. SIANO. Oh, that is absolutely true.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I find that troubling, deeply troubling.

Mr. Chairman, my point about looking at transit systems and

bus operations as part of the infrastructure, as well as the target,

it seems to me that there may be some special consideration we

may think about, because it is not just protecting and site-hardening and training, but it is how we use them to help in the next

flood, the next hurricane, the next catastrophic event that requires

moving large numbers of people safely. I would love to explore with

our witnesses if there are ways that we might be able to quantify

and factor that in as we look at other legislative vehicles.

I think they are generically different than other targets that we

are looking at. We don’t rely on a chemical plant to help recover

from a hurricane or to avoid one. So I think there is some special

weight that needs to be considered.

Mr. MILLAR. If I might just comment on that. Within APTA, we

have created a task force of transit systems around the Country to

examine how we might do a better job of helping each other in

times of disaster. While it is focused on all kinds of disaster, certainly trying to learn the lessons coming out of Katrina, and we

would be honored to share with this committee the work that we

are doing there and seek your input and advice as well, because

we believe that as an industry, we can do a better job of being better prepared so that we can do the things that you alluded to and

that we agree need to be done.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like your very brief reaction to the following. I want to

finish the equation I was talking about earlier. That is, since fiscal

year 2003 to now, 2006, $387 million has been spent by the Federal

Government to assist you in transit security. So that is a little bit

more than $100 million a year. In that very same period of time,

we have spent $14 billion in aviation security. That is almost $5

billion a year.

And then I said, that is a penny per passenger for transit. It is

$9.16 per airline passenger. Now, how do you read that?

Mr. MILLAR. We read that as there has been enough investment in transit security. I don’t know whether $9 is the right number

for airports. That is not my field, but a penny is not enough for

public transit. And while I have not taken our $6 billion and divided it, we

could make that mathematical calculation, but the point is we need

to get serious about this investment. There are common sense investments that need to be made. Only the Federal Government has

the financial resource base to make sure that the things that

should be at every transit property are at every transit property.

We need to go forward to protect the millions and millions of Americans who use public transit every day.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Pantuso?

Mr. PANTUSO. Well, I think if you use as the backdrop the Chairman’s opening remarks, looking at the fact that surface transportation has been the target around the world, again, if you look at

our segment of surface transportation, moving 774 million people

a year, and only receiving on average $5 million per year over the
38

last five years, we are nowhere close to what it takes to protect this

industry, or even to begin thinking about protecting this industry.

We are millions and millions of dollars away from that point in

time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Siano?

Mr. SIANO. Yes, it is my belief that people of influence and

money fly planes. It is as simple as that. I think there was a time

when I was younger and remember that everybody rode a bus,

whether they were going across the Country or just going to the

next city in New Jersey where I live.

So I mean, the bus business was booming. But now with the airlines taking everything, and I agree, I think that is the ratio, a

penny to almost ten bucks. I think that is a disgrace. I think that

the people that ride our systems, whether Bill or I like it or not,

are mostly, except for commuters living outside a big city like New

York and driving into New York City from New Jersey, I think that

they get the short end of the stick.

Mr. PASCRELL. It was implied after the natural catastrophe of

Katrina, which was like an onion, when we peeled it away and saw

the poverty that existed, both in that area and then after Rita in

Southeast Texas. It was implied that if this happened in other

areas, the response would have been quite different. Is anybody

that cruel, that we would divide our money in terms of everything

is a priority, nothing is priority, so we prioritize. We haven’t said,

or you don’t perceive it that way, do you, that this group of people

is obviously more important than those group of people. You don’t

think that is at the basis of this, do you?

Mr. MILLAR. I would certainly hope not. That cannot be the basis

for our democracy.

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, of course, of course. Let me ask one more

quick question. What is the first thing that you need, besides, we

are talking about Federal money, what is the first thing that you

need, each of you, that you see the money should be going for? So

it is not just general, say, categorical money?

Mr. MILLAR. The money needs to go to prepare our people to implement the plans we already have, so it goes into training; it goes

into drills; it goes into making sure they have the basic equipment

they need to do the job they want to do.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Siano, do you agree with that?

Mr. SIANO. Yes, absolutely. I absolutely agree that we need the

money to do the necessary things to keep this transit system afloat

in this great Country of ours, without a doubt.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Pantuso?

Mr. PANTUSO. I agree with that for the most part. The personnel

and training and communications are the two priorities. The other

thing that I would put in that box as well that is not an additional

cost is the issue of coordination, coordination between the different

segments. Most of Mr. Millar’s members, all of Mr. Millar’s members obviously fall under FTA, and there are some great things

that FTA is doing. But I can tell you that two years ago when we

sat together on the same panel, and we looked at a similar kind

of chart—

Mr. PASCRELL. Funny you bring that up.
39

Mr. PANTUSO. We don’t get in the private bus industry access to

some of the great information that is already put together, that

FTA has developed and working with Bill’s group.

Mr. PASCRELL. We are no further down the road in interrelating,

and I apologize for the Federal Government for that, really. It is

a darn shame.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

I have one question for the panel, and that is whether as an industry, the transit and intercity bus communities are still seeking

authorization for transit and over-the-road bus security grant programs, authorization language or legislation. Since you are already

receiving appropriations, why would authorization be important?

Mr. MILLAR. We think authorization is essential. Yes, we are

seeking that. We believe that the President has said that the battle

against terrorists is a long-term proposition. Our understanding is

that having solid programs properly authorized and funded by the

Congress is going to be what is necessary over a long period of time

to fight this battle and to have our citizens and communities and

employees safer than they are today.

So yes, we think authorization is important, essential, and that

then it be followed up by proper appropriations, consistent with the

program structure that would be authorized.

Mr. PANTUSO. Mr. Chairman, I would agree. The authorization

process also doesn’t pit mode against mode or dollar against dollar.

Part of the challenge I am sure we all face by going the appropriations route, as opposed to through an authorization, is that we are

competing for other programs, other projects, regardless of what

they may be, whether they are security or something completely

unrelated.

The appropriations process sets out a long-term commitment that

we can follow as an industry, put the plan in place, and allows us

to move forward and meet that plan, and not have a program that

is going to stop, start and change from minute to minute or year

to year.

Mr. PETRI. Maybe just one follow-up question, Mr. Millar. In

your testimony, you mentioned that there is already a kind of a

grant and an interrelationship between the Federal Transit Administration and your members, and accounting the whole process in

place, and that therefore homeland security grants would make

sense to do as part of that process, or as an add-on to that process,

rather than a whole separate process with different bureaucratic

requirements and all of that.

I am just curious as to whether you both feel that way. Your bus

programs do not have that same relationship, so it probably doesn’t

make much particular difference to you how that grant process is

organized.

Mr. PANTUSO. A long-term commitment regardless of how that is

developed is important to us, but where that money goes, whether

it continues to go through DHS as opposed to through Transit or

through other programs is really immaterial. We are not unhappy

with working with Homeland Security right now. What we are un-
40

happy about is the way that program has been managed off and

on over the last number of years.

Mr. MILLAR. We think that history has proven that the coordinated approach that is in the Federal Transit program works. We

think that the Department of Homeland Security has advocated,

for example, sending the grants through States, and then the

States send it down to the regions. Well, that just adds an unnecessary step and adds additional costs.

In the months following the terrible tragedies and terrorist attacks of 2001, we developed, because we already had a relationship

with FTA, FTA immediately stepped out. They did sensible things.

They consulted with the industry. They were very good to work

with on this. We think that you may as well take advantage of the

relationships that are well established.

We also can appreciate DHS’s problem. They may not want to

deal with several hundred transit systems. We can understand

that. But FTA already has those relationships established. So as I

said in my testimony, let the Congress set the policy; let DHS set

the policy; and then once that is set and the funding levels are set,

turn the money over.

All the transit systems, urban and rural, already receive formula

money. It doesn’t seem like it is that big a stretch to us to then

have another line item put in that budget, use the electronic funds

transfer mechanisms. For example, in DHS right now, transit systems have to complete the project, get it certified as done by DHS

before they can get the money to reimburse. So you know, you go

a year or more getting the money.

With FTA, the way you have structured their program, progress

payments can be made available. You can get electronic funds

transfer within a day or so of when you submit the properly supported invoice. The infrastructure is already there. To us, it seems

like taking advantage of the infrastructure that is already there

and works makes sense, rather than starting up a new infrastructure, as has been proven in the four years so far of DHS. I am certainly sympathetic that they are evolving their program, but we

are losing time, and time is money.

So our plea has been, let’s use what works and makes sense.

That isn’t to say every year you won’t have a little bit of variation

as we learn more. That is natural, but this wholesale changing,

three different organizations to manage the funds in four different

years, five major changes in the program last year alone, that is

not conducive to good management of public funds, in my opinion.

So I think there is an answer. If there were no answer, the way

DHS is doing it might be the only way. But there is an answer,

and it works, and it is proven, and we ought to take advantage of

it.

Mr. PETRI. Well, we are from the government and we are here

to help.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. Thank you all for your testimony.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Æ