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

26–330 PDF 2006

INSTALLATION OF IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING

SYSTEMS: INCREASING SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY

FOR TRAVELERS TO AND FROM OUR NATION’S

CAPITAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 17, 2006

Serial No. 109–123

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 17, 2006 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Null, Randy, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Operational Process and

Technology, Transportation Security Administration; James E. Bennett,

president and chief executive officer, Metropolitan Washington Airports

Authority; and Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., executive director, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport .................... 10

Bennett, James E. ..................................................................................... 16

Campbell, Timothy L. ............................................................................... 23

Null, Randy ................................................................................................ 10

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

Bennett, James E., president and chief executive officer, Metropolitan

Washington Airports Authority, prepared statement of ............................ 19

Campbell, Timothy L., A.A.E., executive director, Baltimore/Washington

International Thurgood Marshall Airport, prepared statement of ........... 26

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

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 49

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 46

Null, Randy, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Operational Process and

Technology, Transportation Security Administration:

Strategic plan ............................................................................................ 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

(1)

INSTALLATION OF IN-LINE BAGGAGE

SCREENING SYSTEMS: INCREASING SAFETY

AND EFFICIENCY FOR TRAVELERS TO AND

FROM OUR NATION’S CAPITAL

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Dulles Airport, VA.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., at the Conference Room in the Airport Conferencing Suites Lower Level Baggage Claim Area, Dulles Airport, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Watson, and Norton.

Also present: Representative James Moran of Virginia.

Staff present: Jennifer Safavian, chief counsel for oversight and

investigations; Brooke Bennett, counsel; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Teresa

Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie, deputy clerk; Michael Galindo,

research assistant; Michael May, legislative assistant; Bill

Womack, legislative director; and Michael McCarthy and Kimberly

Johnson Trinca, minority counsels.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Before we begin today I would ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Moran to participate in today’s hearing.

Without objection, so ordered. Jim, welcome. We are glad to have

you here, as always.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Nice to be with you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order. Good

morning. Welcome to today’s hearing on the in-line checked baggage screening systems.

Immediately after the September 11th, attacks, Congress mandated explosives screening for all checked baggage by December 31,

2002. To meet this tight deadline the Transportation Security Administration deployed explosives detection systems and explosive

trace detection machines in airport check-ins around the country.

As we have just seen upstairs, the stand-alone EDS machines

are large and create congestion in airport terminals. They require

substantial human operation and can process at best 180 bags per

hour. The smaller EDT machines are even more labor intensive. It

can process only 36 bags per hour. With the technology available

today, that simply is not good enough. The flying public is growing

inpatient.

Right here at Dulles Airport, according to a July 2005, Washington Post article, one airline reported that their flights were being

2

delayed as much as 45 minutes because of the limited number of

baggage screening machines. Other airports report delays because

they are required to share baggage screening equipment with eight

other airlines, and that’s equipment that can screen only 100 bags

per hour.

We look forward to hearing further about Dulles and Reagan airports from Mr. Bennett and how the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is addressing the concerns of its air carriers and

passengers. But I’m sure that these delays are not unique to Dulles.

One of the solutions to these delays is better leveraging of technology. We are now on to the next generation of screening machines and processes. Baggage screening is being integrated into

baggage conveyer systems.

In-line screening systems increase baggage screening from 180

bags per hour to more than 450 bags per hour. And, reducing the

current level of human interaction with the baggage saves TSA

money in personnel costs and workers compensation.

Baltimore/Washington International Airport now has a full inline system which went online in 2005. BWI now has the capacity

to screen up to 2,400 bags per hour and we look forward to hearing

from Mr. Campbell about the increased efficiencies at BWI.

We understand that moving baggage screening in-line is neither

a small task nor a cheap one. We gave TSA authorization to help

finance airports’ installations of in-line systems. Under this letter

of intent program TSA pays for 100 percent of acquisition and installation of screening machines and for 75 percent of the airports’

facilities modification costs.

Studies by the Government Accountability Office and TSA demonstrate that even in the short term, installation of in-line screening systems capacity practically pays for itself. However, even

though TSA’s program has been in effect for only 3 years, only 116

of the Nation’s 451 airports have EDS machines and only 12 of

these airports have fully in-line systems. The remainder are partially in-line or stand-alone.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to understand why TSA’s funding of in-line systems has stalled and what steps TSA is taking toward putting more in-line systems in airports to improve airport

safety and efficiency.

Also, given the expense of installing in-line baggage systems, we

want to understand how TSA is prioritizing which airports will receive Federal assistance and what funds are actually available.

We look forward to hearing today from Dr. Randy Null, the Assistant Administrator for Operational Process and Technology at

TSA regarding the status of TSA’s letter of intent program and the

creative financing solutions that they are pursuing. We also look

forward to hearing about TSA’s forthcoming EDS strategic plan,

which prioritizes airports for in-line installations.

Before we hear from our witnesses however, the committee would

like to express our gratitude to Dulles Airport and MWAA for

hosting today’s hearing and for providing us this morning’s tour of

Dulles’ baggage screening process areas.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would now recognize Ms. Norton for her

opening statement.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I very

much appreciate your calling this hearing. I was aware that Dulles

did not have the integrated machines because this area is really in

the primary jurisdiction of two of my other committees, Homeland

Security and Transportation.

I was not aware why and I’m still not sure I am. Clearly BWI

benefited from having at least one of its facilities in the process of

being built, which may have helped to jump start their receipt of

integrated machines. But when you consider that these in-line systems quickly pay back the cost and drastically reduce the number

of screeners that are necessary, I really don’t understand why the

cost effective integrated machines would not be moving forward.

I must say, what I saw this morning could only be called primitive. We have moved backward with people down in the bowels of

Dulles having to lift, after we have a beautifully automated way of

getting the baggage through the traditional screening, then having

to go through another screening out in the lobby, or down below.

As I understand, I remember the controversy when Homeland

Security Department was set up about non-unionization. But I

learned today that in the summer it can be 100 degrees down

there, only with fans, with no air conditioning, and people having

to pick up bags, manually pick up bags.

So what we have instead of an integrated system, which would

do these things automatically, it is a system which costs more,

more screeners, producing workman compensation expenses for the

government, truly going backward after we thought we were making progress. I think by exposing this and learning more about it

today in this hearing we will be prepared to go back to the relevant

committee and perhaps get some progress.

We would think that the place to begin would be in an airport

like this, from which one of the September 11th planes started. Obviously risk analysis did not have to do with how these integrated

machines were located and it is perfectly understandable that if

you are building a facility you would want to start there because

it is cheaper.

What is not understandable is why you would not move quickly,

why the Federal Government would not move quickly to install integrated machinery in other places given the speed with which

they can recoup the investment and reduce labor costs. Thank you

again, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Tom, for inviting me to participate in this hearing. More importantly, thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for addressing this issue. It clearly is a Federal issue.

The Congress went ahead and mandated that every bag be

checked. I am not sure we gave a whole lot of thought to how that

was going to be done, nor how much it was going to cost. That is

somebody else’s problem.

But you could rest assured that if it was not done, we would be

the first ones criticizing it for not being done, particularly if something slipped through that turned out to be an explosive device or

whatever.

9

The airlines and the airports have had a terrible time the last

4 years. After September 11th it looked bleak. Of course with all

the deregulation and all, a number of airlines have folded; they

have gone bankrupt.

But here at Dulles, Dulles International Airport, and at our Nation’s National Airport, there has been a recovery, a very substantial recovery. We are now looking at 45 million passengers, almost

18 million at National Airport and about 27 million, I understand,

at Dulles. We thank the people running the airport and the airlines

for getting our economy back on its feet.

But our government is not keeping pace with this growth. In fact

the reason we are having a hearing is that in some ways we may

actually be impeding future growth by failing to employ the best

and the most effective security measures. Despite technology that

is proven not only to be much more cost effective and efficient, but

actually improving airport safety and security, our government has

not moved forward in a timely manner to deploy that technology.

Baggage screening is proving to be a principal limiting factor impeding the safe, smooth and efficient operation of our Nation’s busiest airports. Even when it appears that an airport is willing to help

finance and install the new in-line baggage screening systems, the

Transportation Security Administration and our Federal Government has been unable to respond.

I know that the problems don’t all exist with TSA by any means,

though we have an antiquated system of accounting, for example,

that crops up in any number of ways, and this is just one more

downside of not modernizing our method of accounting, turning to

accrual accounting, which every corporation does, but of course, we

are back 100 years, doing it the way they did it 100 years ago.

Those financing restrictions in fact have limited the availability

of Federal funds. But I am confident that at the conclusion of this

hearing we will have a clearer indication of what we can do to get

these devices installed at our busiest and most constrained airports, certainly the airports that serve our Nation’s Capital. The

public deserves no less and I know, Mr. Chairman, you will not tolerate anything less than that given the fact that you are having

this hearing and we have all the right people to talk to.

Hopefully this will result in some real constructive efforts to not

only help passenger safety, improve efficiency, but also in the long

run we are going to save some money. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Moran, thank you very much, too. The

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the

record. We are now going to recognize our very distinguished panel

of witnesses.

We have Dr. Randy Null, who is the Assistant Administrator for

Operational Process and Technology, Transportation Security Administration. Dr. Null, thank you for being with us today.

We have Mr. James E. Bennett, the president and chief executive

officer of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Jim,

thank you for being with us. And Mr. Timothy Campbell, the executive director of the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood

Marshall Airport. Thank you for coming down here from Baltimore.

I just want to thank all of you for your commitment to the industry and to the passengers and their safety. It is our policy that we

10

swear witnesses before you testify, so if you would just raise your

right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Dr. Null, we will

start with you. Your entire statements are part of the record.

Thank you for being with us.

STATEMENTS OF RANDY NULL, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONAL PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY,

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; JAMES E.

BENNETT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY; AND

TIMOTHY L. CAMPBELL, A.A.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL THURGOOD MARSHALL AIRPORT

STATEMENT OF RANDY NULL

Dr. NULL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you

today at Washington Dulles International Airport on behalf of the

Transportation Security Administration to discuss our Electronic

Baggage Screening Program.

We believe this program is an important part of our efforts to

create a comprehensive, multi-layered system of security throughout the aviation sector. We also appreciate the participation of the

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the Maryland

Aviation Administration this morning.

Effective baggage screening depends upon the cooperation of our

key stakeholders. We are thankful for the cooperation we have received from both organizations since screening began.

As you know, TSA is responsible for not only conducting the

screening of checked baggage carried onboard TSA-regulated commercial aviation flights, but also for the procurement, installation

and maintenance of explosives detections equipment used to screen

that checked baggage.

As passenger levels grow and airports renovate and build new

terminals, we must continue to evaluate equipment needs and

placement to accommodate that increased traffic level. These types

of activities must be factored into our application of risk-based

analysis in making our investment decisions.

In addition to the costs associated with the purchase and the life

cycle maintenance of these technologies, installation costs are a significant component of the total cost of deployment. The cost of installing EDS and the ETD technologies consist of some or all of the

following depending on the equipment and the specific location.

First the site survey and design, site preparation and facility

modification, warehousing and shipping, verification and validation

testing, and operational and programmatic support.

In 2003 and 2004, a significant Federal commitment of installation funding was pledged through the letters of intent [LOI], to reimburse airport operators for facility modification projects supporting the installation of in-line EDS equipment.

11

TSA has issued eight letters of intent covering nine airports and

TSA’s commitment to these nine airports totals $957.1 million out

of a total project cost of approximately $1.3 billion.

In fiscal year 2006, we anticipate providing $240.4 million in LOI

reimbursements at a 75 percent Federal share for the existing

LOIs. These costs are solely for facility alteration and do not include the cost to procure and install EDS machines, which are fully

funded by TSA.

The equipment purchases associated with the LOI airports will

continue in fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2006, TSA will continue

to procure and install equipment at LOI and non-LOI airports, including Dulles, in accordance with the 2006 expenditure plan. This

continuing effort is required to maintain sufficient screening capacity as passenger traffic increases and operational circumstances at

airports change.

Looking to the future, we have recently completed a strategic

plan for the Electronic Baggage Screening Program that prioritizes

future equipment deployments and we will begin using that plan

to make investment decisions in fiscal year 2007.

The plan was developed using a top-down data driven planning

model to perform a systematic, comprehensive assessment of a variety of screening solutions for airports and identify the optimal solution by balancing security and economic factors. These results

feed into a model that prioritizes projects and identifies the optimal

schedule for deploying equipment to airports given operational requirements, funding, equipment availability and other key assumptions.

These continuing system deployment efforts are required to

maintain sufficient screening capacity as passenger traffic increases over the next 10 years as projected by the Department of

Transportation.

Given the variety of local factors and conditions that will affect

funding and design decisions, the final determination of the optimal screening solution for an airport requires a partnership between TSA, the airport operator, and the key airline tenants at

that airport.

TSA will work closely with airport operators and other key stakeholders to integrate the planning being conducted by many airport

operators with the initial plans development as part of TSA’s strategic plan. This will ensure that airport designs—design systems

that will adequately address screening requirements and ensure

that the best overall implementation strategy will be executed.

The final component of the Electronic Baggage Screening Program’s strategic plan will be completed in 2006, with the release

of a cost-share study required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This study—through this study,

TSA is working with aviation industry stakeholders to develop a

cost-sharing formula and innovative financing solutions for the

Electronic Baggage Screening Program.

We anticipate that the initial results of this cost study will be

available later this year. Thank you again for the opportunity to

testify. I will be pleased to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Null follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Null. Mr. Bennett.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Chairman Davis, Mr. Moran, Ms. Norton, on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, I want to

welcome you to Washington Dulles International Airport and thank

you for holding this hearing today.

The issue of more effectively and efficiently screening passengers

and their baggage through installation of in-line baggage screening

systems has been a major industry concern since the passage of the

Aviation and Transportation Security Act in November 2001.

Rarely has there been an issue in the history of the commercial

aviation industry which would have such a positive impact on all

of the partners which make it up, the Federal Government, airports, airlines, and our collective customers, than the concept of installing in-line baggage screening systems at our Nation’s major

commercial airports, starting right here at both Washington Dulles

International and Ronald Reagan Washington National airports.

To make it clear, the current system of screening checked baggage at our two airports is not capable of meeting the current demand, is operationally inefficient, consumes an inordinate amount

of Transportation Security Administration resources and is incapable of meeting the projected future demands.

Long before the mandated December 31, 2002, Department of

Homeland Security and TSA requirement that all checked baggage

be screened by explosive detection systems, airport operators across

the country, including the Authority, began to wrestle with the logistics, engineering, customer service impacts and aesthetics of

finding the space for the soon-to-be delivered machines.

From the very first minute of our deliberations, we concluded

that the only logical position and the most effective location for

these machines were to make them an integral part of our existing

baggage handling systems.

The Authority and our industry made these concerns known long

before the arrival of these machines. For the record, we have 19

EDS machines and 31 ETD machines at National and 33 EDS machines and 102 ETD machines here at Dulles.

With the hope that we could avoid the possibility that our ticket

counters and concourse areas would become the permanent location

of these 185 machines, we immediately commenced design of inline baggage screening systems in partnership with TSA and at a

significant cost to the Authority for both airports.

Concurrently we also began a dialog with the TSA to obtain Federal funding for them. The Authority originally applied for a letter

of intent from the TSA on February 4, 2004, to find an in-line solution for checked baggage screening at Dulles and Reagan National.

Later in the year, in June, I wrote to then Admiral David Stone,

the former head of TSA, calling once again for his immediate attention to both of our LOI requests and outlining the tremendous

growth and demand underway at Dulles. Admiral Stone replied,

noting that TSA believes that installation of EDS systems at both

National and Dulles is an important project that will enhance security in the Washington metropolitan area.

17

The following month we submitted revised TSA applications for

Federal funding due to the design requirements required to meet

TSA’s security protocols. In the meantime our airports have continued to grow. In 2005, all time records for passengers were set at

both Dulles and Reagan National airports. At Dulles, 27 million

passengers used the airport and 17.8 flew in and out of National.

As a result of this growth, we began to see the inevitable effects

of a very limited baggage screening system on busy and growing

airports, particularly at Dulles.

You may recall last summer the Washington Post, in a lengthy

article dated July 4, 2005, noted that several aircraft were being

routinely delayed by up to 1 hour at Dulles due to the inability to

screen baggage in a timely manner.

Airlines planning to introduce the new large A–3 Aircraft at Dulles have expressed their deep concerns over the capacity constraints imposed by baggage screening. Also of great importance to

us is the current state of our terminal buildings at both airports.

With EDS machines placed throughout the ticketing and baggage

basements, a quick tour, as you saw today, demonstrates why the

Authority and our airline partners are having an increasingly difficult time properly managing our passenger lines and their baggage.

I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Authority has not been sit- ting idly by waiting for TSA to act. We’ve invested nearly $8 million at Authority expense designing in-line systems that both meet

the demands of Dulles and Reagan National for checked baggage

screening while improving security of the aviation system.

The estimated cost of constructing in-line baggage screening sys- tems at both Dulles and Reagan National is $316 million. Not only

will such systems enhance the security of the aviation system, but

they will also provide tremendous cost savings to the TSA in the

form of reduced labor costs. Our initial estimates for Dulles, based

on currently approved TSA security protocols, predict a labor savings of nearly 30 employees per hour during the peak screening operations.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the TSA is not satisfied with the current system of screening checked baggage at our Nation’s airports.

However, TSA is somewhat encumbered by Federal budgetary restrictions that limit its ability to work with the aviation system on

improving the situation.

I urge Congress to work with TSA on appropriate legislative reforms necessary to ensure the rapid deployment of checked baggage

screening systems. For example, in 2003, we worked with the Federal Aviation Administration on financing a new air traffic control

tower here at Dulles which expedited the project and saved the

government money. We expect them to take possession of this new

$50 million tower under the terms of a 20-year lease-back this

week.

18

In conclusion I simply cannot state it clearly enough, an in-line

baggage screening system for our two airports is necessary, affordable and cost-effective. The Authority is standing ready to work

with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA to identify appropriate funding and reimbursement mechanisms which will allow

us to install this most critical piece of aviation security infrastructure. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

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

Campbell, thanks for coming down from Baltimore to be with us

today.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee. It’s my pleasure to be here this morning. On behalf of the State of Maryland and BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport,

thank you for this opportunity to share our experience in designing, financing and installing an integrated in-line system at least

in one of our terminals at BWI Airport.

In May 2005, BWI opened its new terminal addition, Concourses

A/B, which accommodates Southwest Airlines, which is our largest

airline partner. They have approximately 50 percent of our passenger activity at the airport and constitute approximately 10 million passengers annually.

Concourse A/B, as has been indicated, is equipped with a stateof-the-art fully integrated in-line baggage handling system that has

a capacity of approximately 2,400 bags per hour. That system went

into operation in June 2005.

We were fortunate at BWI because the planning for the terminal

complex was underway at the time of September 11th, and the subsequent Federal regulations that governed the installation of integrated baggage systems and the requirement to screen all checked

bags. It worked out for us to be able to go in and update the design

to accommodate the in-line bag system as directed by TSA at that

time.

Although there were costs involved in terms of redesigning the

facilities, we were able to accomplish that before we actually began

construction. We’ve estimated that the additional cost was approximately $20 million over and above what the terminal complex

would have cost anyway.

At the time we moved forward with the project we did not have

any commitments from TSA or the Federal Government to fund

any or all of that project, but working in concert with Southwest

Airlines, our airline partner, and the local TSA staff, as well as the

Washington staff, we determined that it was clearly the best way

to move forward.

As indicated earlier, the in-line integrated systems clearly offer

many advantages. I should note that TSA was instrumental in ensuring that all the necessary EDS equipment was onsite and in accordance with our construction schedule, and our local and national

TSA contacts were very supportive of our efforts and arranged for

technical support for the EDS machines at critical points throughout the project.

In addition, TSA senior leadership, including TSA Director Kip

Hawley, former TSA administrator, David Stone, former deputy,

Tom Blank, Dr. Randy Null and Chuck Burke were always accessible to us, continue to be accessible to us, and are responsive to

our concerns and request for assistance.

Mindful of our cooperative approach and strained fiscal situation,

TSA greatly assisted the project by executing a $10 million Other

Transaction Agreement [OTA]—it’s basically a grant—to partially

reimburse the airport for some of the TSA-related project costs.

24

Again it’s approximately half of the $20 million that the system

costs to install.

We’re still finalizing the installation and TSA and our Southwest

Airlines partners continue to work closely with us as we near completion of the installation. Prior to opening the Concourse A/B, the

screening operation of BWI was similar to what you saw today and

you see at many airports. We have either systems in the lobby or

down in the bag room, but we’re not fully integrated in in-line systems.

In fact the other half of the airport, the other half of the passengers continue to use those, what we call a quasi-in-line. Sometimes they’re integrated into the baggage system itself, but they’re

not fully integrated as the Concourse A/B system is.

We have about half of our system fully integrated and half that

is not. It’s my understanding, based on TSA reports, that there are

numerous benefits which have already been enumerated for the inline system, including cost savings, which have already been identified, but also as Congresswoman Norton has indicated, there are

great benefits to the employees that have to work in those environments, handle the baggage, and as you saw today, some of those

were pretty large bags that those individuals have to manhandle

down in those systems.

We’ve experienced at BWI since the system has been integrated

a reduction in serious industry—injuries and worker’s comp claims

for TSA employees. It’s also obviously allowed the TSA to process

bags quicker and much more efficiently and the—it’s considerably

increased the efficiency of the Southwest operation at our airport.

For these and other reasons there is strong justification for Congress and the administration to increase funding and/or pursue innovative financing mechanism for the installation of in-line bag

screening improvements at airports throughout the Nation, including the three main airports that serve the D.C. metropolitan area.

Just a couple of comments on some of those alternatives. We

would like to recognize the efforts that TSA has expended to date

for its ongoing efforts to examine various creative financing alternatives. Dr. Null mentioned some of those in his testimony.

One such approach would allow TSA to enter into the shared

savings agreements with airports. We’ve had conversations with

them about those alternatives and we’ve also been proactive in

analyzing the cost benefits of retrofitting the remaining portions of

our system and we’ve provided that information to TSA to help

support our case for moving forward with an in-line system in the

remaining portions of our facilities.

There’s no question in our mind that there are savings to be realized as indicated earlier, both in staffing levels, personnel savings.

That also allows TSA to reallocate those personnel to other screening activities.

One other concept which I would like to mention at this time is

the possible use of a passenger facility charge, a surcharge for security purposes. I think this might offer an alternative for some airports, if not all airports, a way to finance the installation of some

of these systems without requiring the general fund to be involved

or perhaps dealing with some of the more creative financing mechanisms.

25

I think a surcharge of $1 or $2 on the PFC of a limited duration,

specified only for security-related projects, I think will be another

alternative that the committee and the Congress may want to consider. The advantage of PFCs is it allows the airport basically to

control the project. We know how to do these capital projects. We

do them all the time, every year, and you saw demonstrated here

at Dulles some of the large projects that they have underway.

That’s what we do and we think we could do it very well working

with TSA and our airline partner.

I offer that up as another alternative for your consideration.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to participate and I look

forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Campbell, there is already what, a $4.50 cap on passenger facility charge; is that right?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You say another $1 or $2 could make a

huge difference?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it would. It wouldn’t satisfy all the demand from these facilities, but I think it would go a long way. In

our case it would come close if it were over a 5-year period of covering maybe 50 to 60, 70 percent of the additional costs that we’re

going to——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Basically additional tax per flight?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Per passenger.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Per passenger, $1 to $2.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Bennett, that would give what, roughly $50 million a year if you did $2, or $25 million a year if you do

$1 per passenger?

Mr. BENNETT. The way the passenger facility charge is currently

structured, it’s on the passengers boarding the aircrafts, so you

have to take your total passengers and cut them in half, so it

would probably generate for 1 year $20 or $30 million additional

a year.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I see what you are saying; you only get

them going one way?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. The problem that potentially presents is that

many airports, such as the Authority, Dulles and National, already

have those PFCs committed well into the future to expend them on

very large capital and capacity-enhancing projects such as we have

underway here in Washington, building additional runways and

other airport infrastructure to support the future demand of the

system. Not all airports would be able to avail themselves of taking

those already committed resources and using them to fund——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But if you had another dollar, you could

add a dollar, you could put it somewhere else?

Mr. BENNETT. Indeed and probably toward those capacity and safety projects, because the $4.50 PFC that was approved many

years ago in real dollars is today only worth about $2.70. It is of

diminishing value since it is not indexed to inflation.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask, according to a July 2005, Post

article, airlines at Dulles were experiencing delays of up to 45 minutes because TSA could not screen baggage quickly enough. Has

that situation improved or worsened since that article was written?

Mr. BENNETT. The situation will, I predict, present itself again

at Dulles this summer when we enter into the peak travel season.

It’s just a volume issue where the baggage delivery systems can deliver bags at a rate that the TSA, with their technology, probably

can’t——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You did apply, as you noted, to TSA for

a letter of intent on February 4, 2004, and you followed up in June.

TSA acknowledged and agreed with your letter. One month later

you submitted a revised letter of intent request and that was the

last you heard from TSA?

Mr. BENNETT. We’ve had conversations with Administrator

Hawley on this back in the summer and they admitted that they

31

are lacking in resources to provide us with a letter of intent for our

systems.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Null, I guess that gets you to the meat

of the matter. You did do letters of intent to eight airports; is that

correct?

Dr. NULL. Yes, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Instead of opting for Dulles, which you

had applied, they went with Seattle, Phoenix, Vegas, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth. What was the criteria that in the Nation’s Capital,

where at least one of the flights on September 11th flew out of

here, where there is more likely a terrorist threat, I think, if you

take a look at threat analysis, than some of the others, rapidly increasing passenger rates, diplomats, heads of state come in here,

why did Dulles not get the grant and they opted for eight other airports?

Dr. NULL. Sir, first of all, there are eight LOIs. They do cover

nine airports because of the LAX/Ontario one. The situation we

were in is we had a number of the airports where we were very

much struggling with just achieving 100 percent baggage screening

coverage because of the challenges of the lobbies or the baggage

areas that we had available to us and that we were going to have

to put in some solutions that were not workable for very long.

We had a situation where we had large volume airports. We were

not sure how we were going to be able to preserve compliance on

that screening and that was the governing factor, where we made

those initial investments.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The more efficient an airport is they have

to get punished?

Dr. NULL. It was more an issue of what space was available to

us because as you have indicated, the EDS machines are very large

machines. In many cases we just absolutely didn’t have the space

to put them. It became a question of where did we go, how were

we going to get out of the situation that we were in, and that was

a big part of it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You have space at Dulles though?

Dr. NULL. We have space in Dulles. We recognize the challenges

of keeping up with the growth.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What about the 45-minute delays here?

We’ve got diplomats, heads of states, key government officials flying in here.

Dr. NULL. Yes, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Every terrorist watch list. You even go to

movies; Dulles is a focus on these issues. What are the chances of

now do I want to revisit why you picked Seattle/Tacoma over this?

Where do we stand at this point?

Dr. NULL. We submitted the strategic plan to Congress earlier

this month. I can tell you that Dulles is very high on that list for

the next level of grants for the next program in terms of how we

get an EDS done.

The challenge that we face, has been discussed previously, is

what are the funding mechanisms to actually accomplish that?

That’s why as a part of this study, which placed Dulles very high

on that list, is the study for looking for alternative funding apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:38 May 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26330.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

proaches and different vehicles, for which we appreciate Mr. Bennett’s participation on our steering committee.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Has MWAA offered you any innovative financing?

Dr. NULL. We certainly have had a number of discussions. Mr.

Bennett is a part of that steering committee, so we’ve had a number of discussions about potential lease-back options or different

approaches to potential fees.

We’re really trying to take a don’t leave anything off of the table

approach and put everything up, look to see what those look like

either through leveraging the capital, leasing industry itself, or

looking at operational lease-backs, as the FAA has done with the

tower, all the way to looking at a fee-for-service type lease-back option as well. Many of those certainly have some issues with the

current accounting systems.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. My experience of this has been more anecdotal, but I think I’ve flown into almost all of these airports that

did receive grants. We do have the Post report of 45-minute delays

and I think Mr. Bennett said this could be a long summer again.

The in-line would take a couple of years to get up. This is a

growing airport. This is not one that is just stable. We see more

and more flights coming in and out of here. You have seen fit so

far, given the opportunity to do eight or nine airports, that this

didn’t meet the criteria. But anecdotally, I can just say that the

waits here have been as long as any airport.

LAX is pretty tough. I am not going to fight on that. But some

of these others I have been in and out, maybe it is timing when

you are there or not there. But I will tell you, coming out here on

a Friday night in the summertime, it is a long, long wait.

Dr. NULL. Yes, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. This is not just passengers. This is the

workings of our government, international commerce and everything else, and I would say that any way we can try to get these

in-line procedures established here as quickly as possible will go a

long way toward safety of the air traveler, as well as efficiency in

just carrying out the Nation’s business. How high on the list are

we?

Dr. NULL. I don’t remember the exact position. You’re in the top

10 and I don’t remember exactly where.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We made the top 10 of the old list and you

would have made the cut?

Dr. NULL. I understand sir. No, we were——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. About five?

Dr. NULL. Right in there, yes sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Could you get that information to us?

Dr. NULL. Yes sir, we will do that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Since I am sure that is public. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Null, is there any money in the President’s budget that

would allow some of these integrated machines to begin to continue

to flow this year?

Dr. NULL. We certainly do have existing LOI airports where

many of those are in construction and will be——

33

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about new ones.

Dr. NULL. In terms of new ones, there are some that are lower

level funding requirements that we can manage through OTAs that

don’t require the large LOI type commitments, so there—in many

cases it’s not a full in-line system; they are partial in-line systems.

We can achieve the same kinds of efficiencies and effectiveness,

but they tend to be not the big, large integrated systems but smaller in-line capability.

Ms. NORTON. I ask about this because, Administrator Null, there

is seldom where the government can make a case that by putting

out money it will recoup its investment quickly so that when agencies have to go to the government, they don’t usually have to offer

what TSA has to offer, apparently in some instances, and maybe

these are the larger ones that look like they are further down the

line.

According to the GAO these in-line systems would result in personnel savings of as much as 78 percent, for example, screeners. It

is hard to understand why if on the one hand by making an initial

investment you can save the government money, that the TSA

would not be pressing the administration, informing them. They

need to know this, that this is one of those bright spots in the Federal budget that could have multiple effects, including these cost

saving effects.

I do not understand the strategic plan, given what GAO tells us

about recouping investment. Does the strategic plan include the

number of airports that TSA thinks, for example, on an annual

basis or whatever basis, could in fact get these machines, particularly given these cost savings? Remember, these TSA employees

are 100 percent Federal employees. Does the strategic plan get to

that level of detail?

Dr. NULL. Yes ma’am, the strategic plan covers the top 250 airports, which captures——

Ms. NORTON. Including the number of airports per year, for example, that if funding were to occur, could be funded?

Dr. NULL. What it does is prioritize where we would go after—

which in-line systems or which other optimal systems we would be

looking for and it projects the costs associated with what it would

require to do those systems.

Ms. NORTON. Has TSA ever commissioned a cost-effectiveness

study? With the GAO telling us about these extraordinary personnel savings, have you done your own study to find what the savings

to the Federal Government would be by putting these machines online?

Dr. NULL. Yes ma’am, we have done that for several years now

and some of that is how we have prioritized a lot of our OTA

money in particular.

Ms. NORTON. The message is not getting through if in fact you

are not able to tell me that there are X amount of dollars for these

machines this year in X number of airports, including this airport.

Mr. Campbell, here we have right in our own region an airport

that saw it was building on its own in this troubled industry, took

the initiative without any promise of funding from TSA. Mr. Campbell, you say you have gotten about half of that funding back

34

through applying. How were you able to do that? Was it your initiative being rewarded?

Mr. CAMPBELL. You have to ask TSA about that. We did work

closely with our TSA partners and we did ask for the money. We

let them know all the way along what we thought the costs were

going to be and we were able to work with them in securing that

$10 million.

Ms. NORTON. But we know that you may be in an unusual position with Southwest as your hub airline. This morning we are told

that Northwest Airlines, which is in bankruptcy, is also facing the

possibility of a strike and no industry is more on its knees, or shall

I say, its back, than the airline industry.

Where did the suggestion come from? Did Southwest say, let us

do this? Did you go to Southwest and initiate this? Do you know

of any other airport in the country which is partnered with its airline to jumpstart this process?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think there are a number of airports that work

closely with their airlines in terms of moving the process forward.

It’s really a three-party arrangement between the BWI Airport,

Southwest Airlines and the TSA.

We knew that there were mandates out there to screen all

checked bags. We knew that we were in construction and development of a new terminal project. It just worked out timing wise we

were able to integrate the new requirements into the design of the

facility. From a timing point of view it was ideal.

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Null, are there any airports being constructed

now? If airports are in the position that BWI was in, is TSA prepared, seeing the cost savings that were possible, to move forward,

to take a priority look at the kind of savings that might be involved

there, in your strategic plan?

Dr. NULL. Certainly we work with all of the airports in trying to

project what new capacity may be coming online or what new terminals. Certainly if there’s an opportunity to put in-line systems in

we support that and work with them on their design.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent from

you to have the strategic plan he is talking about submitted to this

committee?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection. There is no problem

placing that. That will be put in the record. It is a public plan,

right?

Dr. NULL. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection it will be placed in the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

35

36

Ms. NORTON. Perhaps some of these questions are answered that

way. I would like to know from Dr. Null, because there is in Mr.

Bennett’s testimony a quotation from Admiral Stone, the former

administrator. TSA believes that the installation of the in-line EDS

system at both DCA and IAD is an important project that will enhance security in the Washington metropolitan areas.

Could I ask you whether or not the benefits, clearly for convenience, clearly cost savings, of whether there are security or risk

saving benefits to installing the integrated systems?

Dr. NULL. Within the two airports here in the Nation’s Capital,

absolutely. We understand——

Ms. NORTON. What would those be, please?

Dr. NULL. I haven’t got the exact numbers, but I would estimate

that we would probably see a 30 percent, 25 to 30 percent staff reduction associated with the baggage screening piece of it.

Ms. NORTON. The machines that are in place throughout the

country now, here and throughout the country, were those the machines that were already in place at September 11th?

Dr. NULL. No, ma’am. At September 11th, I think we had approximately 100 to 110 machines that had been deployed in the

previous several years. Since September 11th, we have deployed

approximately another 1,500 machines on top of that, as far as

EDS.

Ms. NORTON. I have a question regarding those machines and

this new round of machines, but I will go for a second round.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. NULL. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the strategic plan, we

have submitted to the committee, it is SSI, so we need to understand what can or cannot be put in the record as a result of that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will work with you on that.

Dr. NULL. OK, thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Tom. I am curious, Dr. Null, has there ever

been the detection of an explosive device with all the screening, the

billions of dollars we have spent to screen the bags, have they ever

found a device that would have blown up an airline?

Dr. NULL. We have found things, sir.

Mr. MORAN. I know you found things. You found things——

Dr. NULL. I’m not prepared to go into the details, but yes we

have found explosives.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How much? How many?

Mr. MORAN. Very often? I mean, Tom has asked how many?

Dr. NULL. Very, very seldom, sir.

Mr. MORAN. Very seldom. You could say that you have thwarted

a disaster as a result of this screening; is that fair to say, at least

once, other than the deterrent effect one can assume?

Dr. NULL. Certainly the deterrence has a big effect. This is a difficult question to answer in this forum, but I would say that we

have thwarted things going on the airport—or airplane that should

not have gone on the airplane.

Mr. MORAN. Yes, but I trust you are not talking about nail clippers and things like that?

Dr. NULL. No, sir.

37

Mr. MORAN. I am saying explosive devices because there would

not be any reason to carry an explosive device. If you have something in your luggage—and we are really talking about luggage

now—that is in the cargo hold, you are not going to be able to get

at it.

Things like knives and so on, one would assume that is not a

threat. It would have to be an explosive device planted with some

timing device on it. I am just curious as to whether that has actually happened over the last 4 years?

Dr. NULL. Again, without going into specifics, I can say that we

have found materials that were potentially dangerous. I really

would prefer not to talk about timing devices or anything like that

in this forum. If you would like to have follow-on discussions we

certainly could do that.

Mr. MORAN. I ask the same kind of question with regard to torture, whether we had ever obtained information that actually resulted in saving lives or that was used in a materially beneficial

way. I got the same answer. Then when I look further, there really

wasn’t any.

It seems to me a fundamental question if you are looking at cost

benefit, but I grant you, there is a deterrent effect doing this. But

if we are going to do it, we ought to do it in the most efficient manner with the least inconvenience and the least cost.

I think Congress does have some responsibility for that. As I said

in my opening statement, we mandate it, so we ought to not just

leave it at that and then leave it to others to figure out how to do

it.

You are confident that if these in-line systems were implemented

that it would be more full proof, there would be higher level security. You testified there would be less personnel costs, as much as

30 percent, so that is a significant savings. Mr. Davis and Ms. Norton referred to that.

How do the passengers benefit? There is a reduction in the time

that they would be waiting in line generally; is that a fair statement, or should I ask Mr. Bennett or Mr. Campbell that?

Dr. NULL. I think it depends on the particular situation where

how the operations actually work in a given airport. In some cases

the passenger is required to drop off their bag at the screening center.

In some cases it’s handled behind the counter. If it’s behind the

counter then there’s really no delta that the passenger would see.

If they no longer have to drop their bag off then certainly it’s more

efficient and more effective for them.

Mr. MORAN. Just so the audience understands, because there is

an airline with the same name, you are saying there would be no

change?

Dr. NULL. No change, yes sir.

Mr. MORAN. It is a good word to use, except that it could be misinterpreted. There will be no change in any airline, Delta or any

others, if you are doing it behind the counter.

Let me ask Mr. Bennett just for the purposes of our own constituents; do you think they would see a reduction in the amount

of time they have to wait in line if we have this in-line system?

38

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Moran, I’m not sure that there would be a significant reduction in the length of time that the passenger waits

in line. What would offer the benefit is the circumstance that we

had this summer, which potentially will happen again as the airport continues to grow, and that is flights being delayed where the

passengers are sitting on the airplane, it’s ready to go, but the baggage has not been processed and loaded on the aircraft yet because

of the delay in screening.

Mr. MORAN. For example, we heard that a water filter had been

identified which was deceptive. When you looked at the radiation,

it looked as though that could be an explosive device.

The problem is that you have to now contact the bomb squad in

Arlington County, I understand, and if it is a half hour a way—

actually, if it is at rush hour, it could be more than half an hour

away—everything comes to a stop, a halt, until you can get the

bomb squad and deal with it.

You are saying the relay is that you would not have situations

like that occur as frequently? In almost every case you would be

able to determine what the article was more quickly and more definitively; is that fair to say?

Mr. BENNETT. Not necessarily in the case that you cite would

that be the circumstance. Where the benefit comes in is the

through-put rate of the screening process. It goes up considerably

where the baggage handling systems deliver bags to the TSA at a

rate that is much higher than their ability to screen them.

As a result, it’s a backlog. It becomes a congestion in the system

and it just takes time to screen all of those bags by the TSA personnel. The in-line solution matches the baggage conveyer systems,

are matched with the through-put rates of the screening equipment

so that you don’t have that delay.

Mr. MORAN. Sure, but I also thought there was an additional

safety element, that it is more mechanized and so the detection capability is more——

Mr. BENNETT. There are different protocols. There are different

protocols involved that in certain cases can resolve those issues

without having to take them to that next level that you were describing earlier.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are going to do just one more round

of questions, if that is all right. We had a number of good questions

by my colleagues that beg more questions.

Dr. Null, let me just ask you, what cost savings and operational

efficiencies has TSA realized at the 12 airports with fully in-line

systems?

Dr. NULL. Most of the ones where I think we will see the largest

amount are still in construction and we haven’t finalized those.

Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta are two that we think will see significant improvements. Those are—Atlanta is not up yet. Dallas

has still got one more module, but we’re seeing significant improvements there.

Some of the other ones, Boston, for instance, and Orange County,

who is another one who went on their own, it was more of an

avoidance and the fact that they came up online before we actually

39

fully staffed, so we avoided having to add as many TSOs as we

would have had to had they not gone online.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But there are significant savings?

Dr. NULL. There are significant savings.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Huge upfront costs?

Dr. NULL. There are huge upfront costs, but there are definitely

the savings that pay it back. It’s variable depending on the complexity of the airport and the complexity of the infrastructure that

has to be built.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Bennett, what is the cost of not doing

this to Dulles? If we do not get an in-line system here, what are

we going to see?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, you will continue to see delays and

you will see over time TSA trying to find a place to put more and

more of these machines in the lobby as the airport continues to

grow. As we indicated——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. At 5 on a Friday evening there is no place

to put them?

Mr. BENNETT. Correct. As we indicated, last year we had 27 million passengers processed through Dulles. Within the next 10 years

that number could be closer to 40 million. Our fear is that the ability to screen baggage could become a capacity restriction on our

ability to meet aviation demand in the region. That’s one of the——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is there any other airport slated to grow

as quickly as Dulles, like from 27 to 40 million, that is in the queue

right now to get in-line; do you know, Dr. Null?

Dr. NULL. I’d have to look. There are approximately 45 airports

who have requested LOIs for building in-line systems. I don’t have

that on my fingertip right now.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But you have to admit that Dulles is one

of the faster growing of those airports?

Dr. NULL. Dulles certainly is one of the faster airports.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Obviously the earlier we make these investments the better. Let me just ask this. I don’t know how many

dollars you are going to have to work with this year, but I know

Mr. Bennett has talked about maybe some innovating financing.

Is there anything we can do from that area to help? Mr. Campbell, if you know, you or at least get one of your partners to finance

some of the money, which was important.

How do we get this thing up as quickly as we can? I think there

is an agreement that we need to do this, from everybody. Dr. Null,

you are saying, well, we do not know how much money we will

have or where they are on the priority list, and I understand that.

Mr. Bennett has come back with some innovative financing ways.

But every day that is delayed creates greater inefficiencies in this

airport and frankly puts more pressure on the people looking at the

bags. Although there are not a lot of incidents that occur on a daily

basis, the likelihood of making a mistake when you are backed up

and under pressure and everything else increases as well, in this,

one of the most vulnerable airports in the country.

Let us agree we want to get this done as quickly as possible.

What can we do from an innovative way with Congress in there,

to try to make this work?

40

Dr. NULL. I think we need to work as quickly and as effectively

as we can to finalize the study that Mr. Bennett is participating

on. Let’s get those recommendations on the table and try to get action as fast as possible so we can figure out how to go forward.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How reliable are these in-line systems

once they are created? Mr. Campbell you have any experience with

that? Do they break down very often for maintenance and repair?

Mr. CAMPBELL. They do break. It’s a piece of equipment. We have

had pretty good experience. TSA might be in a better position to

answer since they are responsible for maintaining the machines

themselves. But you have all the conveyers that are also part of

this system that we are responsible for. It is a new system and it’s

functioning pretty well right at the moment.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Who makes them?

Dr. NULL. There are two companies who are the primary suppliers of in-line systems. We have three certified vendors right now,

Reveal being the low speed small footprint machine. The two main

in-line systems are L–3, which is at BWI, which is what is at Boston Logan. Then General Electric, who bought InVision, who has

the CTX machines. Those are typically the 9,000’s where you will

find in Atlanta and Dallas.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recognize

that much of the fault here lies right here with the Congress of the

United States. Indeed I’m on the Aviation Subcommittee that said,

quick, get some machines and here is your date and we do not

want you to be a minute late on explosive equipment, so I understand that.

That is, by the way Dr. Null, why I believe in the administrative

process where the experts are supposed to be. I must ask you, in

light of these sequential mandates, the capital equipment, first you

are mandating equipment to do the screening and then by the way,

now we are mandating a whole new set of equipment. Do you think

that this new equipment will in fact screen all we need to screen?

Dr. NULL. I think we’ve made a lot of progress. I joined TSA in

January 2002, and we started looking at this whole big program

and the challenge of the mandate that we had to meet at the end

of 2002. We looked at the performance of this equipment. We’ve invested a fair amount of R&D dollars to enhance the speed and the

false alarm rates that we were seeing.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t want to hear now we need some biochemical, new machines 2 years from now and then our subcommittee was OK, get it done and get it done by a date. That is

why I am asking, frankly.

Dr. NULL. We are starting to work with Science and Technology

Directorate as well as DNDO and looking for developing technology

that has multi-threat detection capability so that we don’t keep just

adding more boxes and more things every time we see a new

threat.

Ms. NORTON. This is really primitive. I understand it is a developing science, but it is very unsatisfactory and Congress gets afraid

every time they hear of a new kind of threat.

Let me ask you to get some sense of how this works. I was asking as my time ran out before about the machines that were in

41

place before September 11th. Those machines have to be upgraded,

or did new, better machines have to be put in as a result of September 11th, either because of congressional mandate or because

you deemed it necessary after September 11th?

Dr. NULL. All of the machines that went in following September

11th were pre-existing technology or equipment. They all met a

certification standard that is still the standard that has to be met

today. What we’ve done has greatly enhanced the speed of those.

We worked with the companies to be able to do field upgrades of

that.

Ms. NORTON. What will happen to those machines; we will just

put this new technology into those machines?

Dr. NULL. In some cases we will be able to upgrade the machines

that are already in place so we won’t move them anywhere; we’ll

just improve their speed or their performance. In some cases we

will waterfall that equipment to the next lower level airports in

terms of where we have high density of ETD, high labor count.

We’ll be able to deploy those EDS machines to those airports,

which will be stand-alone, but it will still have big benefits from

a staff standpoint.

Ms. NORTON. We are not discarding machines?

Dr. NULL. No, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. We simply use hand-me-down machines?

Dr. NULL. We’re refurbishing and reusing those machines, yes.

Ms. NORTON. What about National, Mr. Bennett? We have talked

about Dulles, of course, here a lot. The elephant in the room is National. Of course, if we want to talk crowding, if you want to talk

not another slot, if you want to talk what putting that kind of machinery would do, you could look at National, although I am going

to say the renovated National is perhaps as able to hold this primitive equipment as Dulles is. But what about National?

Mr. BENNETT. National—Reagan National currently has all of its

machines for screening the baggage located on the ticketing level

of the terminal building.

It was a very unfortunate situation. As you know, Ms. Norton,

we had just opened a brand new state-of-the-art terminal building

at National in July 1997, and quite a bit of attention was paid to

the intimate details of processing passengers and 4 years later we

found ourselves encumbering that design by placing these machines in the lobbies of the ticketing level of the terminal building.

We recently in—in fact as we speak, we’re in the process of trying to go through a selection of a design firm to work with the Authority and then we will partner with our friends at TSA on trying

to come up with an economical and efficient in-line solution for

checked baggage screening at National with the ultimate goal of

hopefully being able to get some type of Federal funding commitment and be able to remove those machines from the lobbies and

place them in-line so that the baggage is efficiently and effectively

screened.

Ms. NORTON. Dulles has applied. Have you applied for National

as well?

Mr. BENNETT. We made a preliminary application for National

also. Our applications were for both airports. Dulles is by far a

more pressing issue than National.

42

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask this final question. Pursuant to our

tour downstairs I learned that the people down there earn $30,000

a year. Those are Federal employees, Dr. Null. We saw conditions

that I guess cannot be helped, but my goodness, it sounds like a

throw back.

We do not have any way to lift even heavy luggage, so people

have to lift the heavy luggage onto your machines to screen for explosives. As I indicated before pursuant to a number of questions

I asked about the fans, I learned that these people earn $30,000

a year, that it could get easily to be 100 degrees, that there is huge

backup of suitcases and other luggage because they’re only human

and there is no mechanical way to deal with taking it off of the

sorters and putting it into these machines.

I must say, I think it is close to inhuman to have everybody up

here in air conditioning and to have people in a dungeon downstairs earn $30,000 a year in 100-degree heat. Then I ask, is it not

possible to air condition a facility in the basement the way we do

throughout the United States?

I would like to ask who is responsible for that and what can be

done to alleviate inhuman conditions. If all you have are those

fans, you are circulating 100-degree heat. I consider it a terrible,

terrible thing. The contrast between up here and down there,

seems to me, is unsustainable and should not be the case.

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Norton, that’s an issue that is of great concern, not only to TSA but also to the Airports Authority. The Airports Authority is exploring the options of trying to reduce the temperature in that facility during the summer months.

It’s very important to note, and that’s one of the exacerbating

issues here, is that the facility where you saw those employees

working and that machinery located, was never designed or contemplated to be in existence down there. That was really a place

for baggage to come down for someone to drive a cart in, pick it

up, throw it on the cart and leave the basement. It wasn’t set up

to have large numbers of people with machines.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. But now that you are putting

people in there doing work that none of us would want to do even

in air conditioning, I have to ask you, are there any plans to air

condition that in the summer?

Mr. BENNETT. There are no plans to air condition the entire basement during the summer; it’s just not feasible to do.

Ms. NORTON. What is feasible to do in 100-degree heat?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You have big fans up there, don’t you?

Mr. BENNETT. We have fans and then we are exploring

bringing——

Ms. NORTON. The fans and 100 degrees circulate 100-degree

heat.

Mr. BENNETT. We’re bringing—exploring the opportunities to

bring in portable—I think you’ve probably seen them at some of

these sporting events—portable cooling units that you can place in

proximity to those screening locations to try to bring——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Bennett, thank you for that answer and can I

ask you to try to expedite that for the summer?

Mr. BENNETT. We will certainly explore that, Ms. Norton.

43

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. You know what, you know you will get

a phone call from me this summer to see if that has happened.

Mr. BENNETT. I’m sure we will.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chairman Davis. It is nice to have Ms.

Watson join us as well. I have a couple of questions that I wanted

to pose.

If we were to put some language into a bill that enabled an airport like Dulles and/or National to be able to construct, purchase

these machines, install them and pay for it in the same way that

you paid for the tower, where you constructed and you leased it

back so that you pay for it on an annual basis, would that facilitate

the availability of these machines if we put some language in enabling that kind of accounting mechanism to apply to these machines for this Airport Authority?

Mr. BENNETT. I think that’s likely to be one of the recommendations that comes out of the study. We’ve indicated to TSA that if

they are willing to sign such an agreement that the Airports Authority is willing to access the top of the markets to provide for the

construction and the installation of these systems. But we need

some reimbursement mechanism, be it a lease or some other mechanism, to help us pay for them.

Mr. MORAN. The financing hurdle, we can overcome that with

language, because I would assume that the personnel savings are

going to be equal to or greater than the annual lease-back cost; is

that true? What is the comparability there; do you know?

Dr. NULL. It’s sort of an airport by airport basis in terms of how

long the payback would be for that——

Mr. MORAN. Let us talk about this airport at Dulles. Do we know

whether the savings would be——

Dr. NULL. I’m not sure what their savings would be with the installation of the system. We know that our estimate on the capital

cost is somewhere in the vicinity of $250 million here at Dulles.

Mr. MORAN. You would amortize it normally over what, a 10, 15-

year——

Dr. NULL. Normally we would amortize that over about a 20-year

period.

Mr. MORAN. Twenty years. Just doing the math quickly, I think

your personnel savings on an annual basis are greater than the

lease costs; I think they are. That would make a lot of economic

sense if we could put the language in that would enable you to do

that, obviously, yes.

Mr. BENNETT. We would welcome the opportunity to execute such

an agreement with the TSA.

Mr. MORAN. Good. You can propose language that would enable

us to do that, whether or not we could pass it or not, but if you

could give us the kind of language that would be needed?

Dr. NULL. A part of the study is—there is one team who will be

developing potential recommendations for legislation.

Mr. MORAN. The study is due?

Dr. NULL. Right now we’re probably in the May/June timeframe.

Mr. MORAN. Of this year?

Dr. NULL. Yes.

44

Mr. MORAN. It is eminent. Just thinking that it would be nice if

we could slip into an appropriations bill in a timely manner this

year. I would hate to just miss it because we were waiting for the

report to come out. Even though we know what the report is going

to recommend, maybe we could get an advanced copy so we could

act in a timely manner.

The other thing that came to mind, and it came to mind in the

context of Ms. Norton’s questioning, was there a requirement for

those personnel to wear any kind of safety vest or whatever in case

there was an explosive device in the baggage; has that ever been

required?

Dr. NULL. No, sir. Certainly the EOD people wear protective——

Mr. MORAN. Yes. I do not want to impose that kind of a requirement. It just seems as though in their handling they might be exposed to something, because they really have the first view of what

is in that luggage. Tom, I am all set. I know we want Ms. Watson

to——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are very happy to have the distinguished lady from Los Angeles here. Ms. Watson, thank you for

being here.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. LAX has been handled very well by TSA,

but we are happy to have you here.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I appreciate you gentleman coming and

putting yourselves on the hot seat. About maybe almost 4 years ago

on the Fourth of July at LAX we had a shooting. Some of you

might remember it. It was the El Al.

The problem was the gentleman stood in a long line and when

he got near he just started blasting away, killed two people, and

it occurred to me that our problem was not once he took out the

boarding pass, but how do we detect weapons such as he used before they get to the counter?

He came in with an intent. When they finally killed him and

they got out to his house, on his door it said, Allah was great. This

was the plan, I understand, from the FBI and the CIA, that it was

a trial run.

My concern addresses, how do you detect weapons on the

grounds of the airport, and No. 2, the other end of this line I’m getting ready to catch in a few minutes is LAX. We heard last week

that LAX was an intended target in 2001.

I am very concerned about, do you have the equipment needed,

how is that progressing at LAX, the end of the flight I’m getting

ready to take in a few minutes, and what are we doing, how are

we moving along with the equipment necessary? Dr. Null, can you

comment, please?

Dr. NULL. Yes, ma’am. Standoff detection is clearly something

that we’re very interested in. We’re working with Science and

Technology Directorate within the department, especially for explosives detection in standoff manner, and some of the newer technologies offer some hope that we will be able to do that at some

point in time.

It’s very difficult at this day and time to be able to do any distance. We can do closer proximity clearly, but by then, as you indiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:38 May 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26330.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
45

cate, we have a situation we need to deal with immediately. I think

that we will get there, but I think we’re still a little ways away.

Ms. WATSON. Can you evaluate how things are going at LAX?

Dr. NULL. I think LAX is going quite well right now. We are having discussions with them with regard to their new in-line system.

I know we have some issues with regard to the cost of that system

that we’re trying to work through.

But I in fact was in LAX a few weeks ago meeting with the Airport Authority and I think we’re progressing well. A lot of it just

comes down to the funding issue.

Ms. WATSON. If we could have this kind of hearing, Mr. Chairman, on the other end it would be, I think, very effective in pinpointing—we still have the long lines of congestion and I am concerned about that.

But a young man called me on the Fourth of July, a young developer, scientist and son; he said I got the solution. He said you could

have a very sensitive strip down over the entrance to the airports

that will detect anything that is of a contraband nature.

That probably means every cart gets stopped. But there was

technology that he had developed himself. I would like as a followup to present to you what he presented to me. That was several

years ago, but I think let us look at any kind of solution that we

think might be workable, because as I said, by the time the guy

got up to the counter it was too late then.

Dr. NULL. Yes, ma’am. We certainly would be more than happy

to look at the technology.

Ms. WATSON. This is to the chair, I remember, Mr. Chair, that

many years ago Cardiss Collins did hearings all over the country

and that was very enlightening, because this is a very, very critical

issue.

Certainly we want the Nation’s Capital well protected, but there

are other major airports, particularly on our borders, that need this

kind of evaluation so that we could be sure we can secure our

homeland, so thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. I just note that the check-in

area detection would be a lot easier if you did not have those big

machines that are up there, that the in-line system could do.

Anything else anyone wanted to add? This has been a great hearing. We obviously need to get an in-line system here at Dulles as

quickly as possible for a lot of reasons. We look forward to working

with you in the coming months to try to get a plan to do that.

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. John L. Mica and Hon. Elijah

E. Cummings follow:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Æ